God The Fount Of All Truth And Rationality

“Without God there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore God exists.”¹

Many years ago a man asked the question, “What is truth?”² We can only speculate about why he asked this question. It is, however, a question that we all must ask. What is truth? Truth is that which conforms to reality. It is the actual state of a matter, and it is also fidelity to a required standard or law³ Having this answer will help us move forward.

The greater problem is that all of us believe that we have truth on our side. Folks who believe in absolute truth argue for their position and do so quite strenuously. Those who do not believe in absolute truth are often absolutely sure of their position as well. Those who believe that there is no such thing as truth and that all things are meaningless are also convinced that their arguments have meaning and are true. How do we judge these claims? How do we deal with this issue? Who is correct? Whose truth is true?

The answer to the above questions brings us back to our definition of truth as that which is faithful to a required standard or law. There must be a standard of truth or we will never have anything by which to measure truth claims. Every man could, and would, be a law unto himself. Truth would be relative without an absolute standard. One man’s truth would be another’s lie, and one nation’s lie would be another nation’s truth. There must be a standard.

What is this standard? First of all the standard must be absolute, or else there will be no consistency or rationality. After all, if truth is forever changing, there is actually no truth at all; because what is true at one point in history would susceptible to becoming an untruth in a moment of time, though nothing but the standard changed. The goal posts would forever be moving and mankind would have no ability to be rational. “David Hume, the great skeptic, has effectively argued that if you allow any room for Chance in your thought, then you no longer have the right to speak of probabilities. Whirl would be king. No one hypothesis would have any more relevance to facts than any other hypothesis. Did God raise Christ from the dead? Perchance he did. Did Jupiter do it? Perchance he did. What is Truth? Nobody knows.”⁴ There must be an absolute standard of truth.

We all are convinced that we have truth. Even the person who believes that truth does not exist, or is relative, is ironically certain that his position is the truth. The one who says that there is no truth, and that words have no meaning, still expects us to find meaning and truth in what he says. Cornelius Van Til responded to such ideas and said, “No human being can explain in the sense of seeing through all things, but only he who believes in God has the right to hold that there is an explanation at all.”⁵

How does God even come into this discussion? Does logic equal God? Hardly, but, on the other hand, logic cannot exist without God. Truth cannot exist without God. Speaking of the Van Tillian view of knowledge, John Frame says, “Without God there is no meaning (truth, rationality, etc.); therefore God exists.”⁶ Greg Bahsen spoke of God and said, “His existence is required for the uniformity of nature and for the coherence of all things in the world.”⁷ This necessity for God is the thing we must prove.

We have already seen that there is a necessity for an absolute standard of truth if we are to have rationality. Why must this standard be God? First of all I must be clear that I mean the transcendent, immanent, eternal, immutable, personal, Trinitarian God of the Christian Scriptures. “Nothing is intelligible unless God exists, and God must be nothing less than the Trinitarian, sovereign, transcendent, and immanent absolute personality of the Scriptures.”⁸ Here I speak of Him only as the eternal and immutable God. (The other attributes will be addressed later in this series.) This God is the standard of truth. He is the truth. John Frame has said that “the argument is transcendental. Rather than offering straightforward empirical evidence for God, it asks the deeper question: what must be the case if evidential argument and knowledge (and hence objective moral standards) are to be possible?”⁹ The answer is that God exists and the Bible provides the only grounds for truth and rationality. But we still must prove God’s necessity.

This world has no other standard of truth than God. God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4-5), and He alone is the arbiter and source of knowledge and truth (Deuteronomy 32:4;1Samuel 2:3;John 14:6¹⁰;2Corinthians 1:18;1John 2:27). Why is He the standard? Because He is the Creator. “If the Christian position with respect to creation, that is, with respect to the idea of the origin of both the subject and the object of human knowledge is true, there is and must be objective knowledge. In that case the world of objects was made in order that the subject of knowledge, namely man, should interpret it under God. Without the interpretation of the universe by man to the glory of God the whole world would be meaningless. The subject and object are therefore adapted to one another. On the other hand if the Christian theory of creation by God is not true then we hold that there cannot be objective knowledge of anything. In that case all things in this universe are unrelated and cannot be in fruitful contact with one another. This we believe to be the simple alternative on the question of the objectivity of knowledge as far as the things of this universe are concerned.”¹¹ There is simply no other way that there can be coherence and rationality. Either God the Creator is the sole and absolute standard and authority, with all things relating to Him and subordinate to Him, or there is no knowledge, truth, or rationality.

Thus we conclude by saying, if God then absolute truth. If we know anything at all, it is because God is the fount of all knowledge and truth.

Here is a statement from Infidels.org.

“NOTE: These lists are meant to identify possible problems in the Bible, especially problems which are inherent in a literalist or fundamentalist interpretation. Some of the selections may be resolvable on certain interpretations–after all, almost any problem can be eliminated with suitable rationalizations–but it is the reader’s obligation to test this possibility and to decide whether it really makes appropriate sense to do this. To help readers in this task, these lists are aimed at presenting examples where problems may exist given certain allowable (but not always obligatory) assumptions. It should be kept in mind that a perfect and omnipotent God could, should, and likely would see to it that such problems did not exist in a book which s/he had inspired. It should also be kept in mind that what is and is not an inconsistency or contradiction is to some extent a matter of opinion. You are entitled to disagree with the author that these are, in fact, inconsistencies or contradictions.

IMPORTANT: Please keep in mind that by “inconsistencies” I do not necessarily mean “contradictions.” Even though accepted and common definitions of the two terms often make them synonymous, I make a subtle distinction which is reflected in at least some of the accepted definitions. What I have in mind is that an inconsistency involves a lack of harmonious uniformity, regularity, steady continuity, or agreement among the verses cited. Thus, whereas a contradiction is necessarily an inconsistency, an inconsistency is not necessarily a contradiction. But certainly some of the listed biblical inconsistencies could be taken as biblical contradictions.”

What is contradictory about this statement?
The fact that they think that they are able to point out contradictions.
You see, logic is only logical in the worldview of the Christian Theist.  The atheist and agnostic cannot use logic consistently with their worldview.

Why?

Because there is no absolute, intelligent, reasoning personality.  That is, there is no standard for logic.  If we have simply evolved to where we are today, our logic has evolved.  That means that, tomorrow, our logic may have evolved even more.  If that were the case, what was an inconsistency or contradiction today may be perfectly clear to us tomorrow.  Reason would not be reason, because our thinking would be in a constant state of change.

Logic DEMANDS an absolute.  Atheism and agnosticism have no absolutes.  Thus they have no logic.

Thus they cannot logically speak of inconsistencies and contradictions in the Scriptures.

Just musing..

In a previous article I spoke of God as the source of truth and the ultimate standard of truth. We all live as if this were true, whether we accept the foregoing statement as true or not. We live by a standard of truth and expect others to live by the same standard. For example, when I go to the bank to deposit my money, I expect the tellers to come to the same total as I do when they have completed their addition. Why? Because I know that there is a standard by which we operate. Two plus two always equals four. The fact that we live by such a standard points to the reality of the absolute and ultimate standard. There could be no standard of truth if there were no Christian God. The God of the Bible is not only all knowing, but is the source of all knowledge and truth. He is truth.

The above statements may seem to be somewhat of a leap, but consider that morality also exists. There is an ought-ness about certain things in life; and that ought-ness is personal, and presupposes an absolute person who cares about what we do. We do not live in an impersonal world. We interact with persons all the time. We live in a world that is so full of personality that we often give inanimate objects personal names, and many men refer to their cars as “she” and “her”. We have no true moral responsibility to inanimate objects as such. We may have a moral responsibility to God and to others in regard to how we deal with inanimate objects, but we are not morally responsible to an inanimate object itself.

Morals demand one to whom we are morally responsible. They also demand an absolute standard of morality. Since morality is impossible without personality, it follows that there is an absolute person who is the final arbiter and ultimate standard of morality. The God of the Bible certainly fits this description. He is called the God of truth who is without iniquity (Deuteronomy 32:4;2Corinthians 1:18) and all men will give account to Him in the judgment (Romans 14:10-12).

What does morality have to do with truth? That is the question that some will ask. It is a good and valid question. It is also a question that must be answered. The answer is that truth must be respected, honored, and adhered to. If we do not do so we are being immoral. To commit an offense against the absolute standard of truth is to commit a moral offense. An offense against God is an issue of moral consequence. God cares what we believe. It matters to God whether we believe the truth or not. He cares whether we speak truly or not. To stray from the absolute standard of truth is to offend against the absolute person who is the standard of morality and the judge of all men.

It may be argued that there is no moral culpability when one commits an error due to ignorance. We don’t truly live this way, however. Should I be fully convinced that a new bridge which will shorten people’s commute times by fifty percent is opened, and I inform everyone I see that it is opened though it is not; I can assure you that there will be a large number of people who will hold me responsible for giving them wrong information and causing them to be late for work. Ignorance will be accepted as no excuse. We also know that ignorance of the law will not excuse us in court if we have broken the law. Ignorance may be considered by many to be a mitigating circumstance, but it is not an excusing circumstance. Many times we find ourselves gaining new information and thinking, “Well, I’m glad that I know better now.” Scripture does not allow us to do that. Scripture compels us to look back on our ignorance with shame, and then commands us to repent ( See Leviticus 4:1-35;Acts 17:30).

Let’s take this a step further. Scripture intimately connects our loyalty to truth to our morality. You see, we are morally obligated to fear the Lord. That is commanded many times in the Scriptures. At the same time we are told that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge (Proverbs 1:7). Only by the fear of the Lord will we know the truth. As I am morally obligated to fear the Lord, and I am morally obligated to believe and speak the truth, truth and morality are inextricably connected.

I fear that many fail to see that man’s fall was a rejection of truth, and that man’s sinful state is one in which he suppresses the truth (Romans 1:18). Man’s fall was a rejection of truth in that he did not give glory to the one who is truly glorious (Romans 1:20), accepted the word of the one who is a liar (Genesis 3:1-7;John 8:44), and corrupted their own understanding and knowledge, thus becoming fools (Romans 1:22). This immoral rejection of truth then led, and still leads, to a rejection of the truth of God and a perversion of the truth of God.

The connection between morality and truth could hardly be more plainly seen than in a verse in the “love chapter” of the Bible, 1Corinthians 13. In 1Corinthians 13:6 Paul stated that love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices in truth. We would be correct to say that the opposite of unrighteousness is righteousness, but it is also correct to say that the opposite of unrighteousness is truth. Think of it: the opposite of immorality then is truth. Truth is a moral issue.

Paul, speaking to the church at Corinth, declared that he worked to bring everyone’s thoughts under submission to God (2Corinthians 10:5). It did not matter to Paul from what school one originated. What mattered to Paul is that every thought was submitted to the Lordship of Christ, and that is a moral as well as a religious issue.

The letter to the Ephesians most definitely shows that Paul considered truth and morality to be related issues. His desire for the Ephesians was that they would not live by the standards of the world (See Ephesians 4:17-24). He explained to them that those outside of Christ lived in the futility of their thoughts, and that their minds were blinded because they were ignorant of the truth. Their ignorance of the truth was not only a sinful thing, but it led to more sin in that they went head-long after sin and gross immorality.

In common, everyday life we live as if these things are true. We expect our banker to hold to the truth about addition, subtraction, multiplication, because we are relatively sure that, if he doesn’t, he will err on the side of immorality and take our money instead of erring so as to give us more money. When people speak to us, we expect them to speak the truth to us and we don’t accept ignorance as an excuse when someone is harmed due to being given wrong information. Ivory tower academics and philosophers may quibble about this, but they also deposit money in the bank, and their expectations are the same as those of the common man. It is reasonable to conclude that there is an unbreakable link between truth and morality.

There is one application that needs to be made before concluding this article. That application relates to the debate surrounding the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Not only are there some who deny that the Scriptures are inerrant, but they plainly state that there are mistakes in the Bible. Not only so, but some go so far as to say that Jesus Himself erred and ignorantly spoke things that were not true. If that is so, we cannot accept that Bible as what it claims to be: a holy book which is the true Word of God that teaches us the way of righteousness and salvation. Neither can we take Jesus to be what the Bible claims Him to be: the sinless Son of God. To insinuate error in Christ and the Bible is to insinuate sin in them. There is no way to escape that. Those who do so, no matter what they may claim about adoring Christ and accepting the authority of the Scriptures, are grossly in error and would do well to reconsider their position. What true Christian wishes to be guilty of implicitly accusing Jesus of sin and Scriptures of being deceitful and misleading?

he “reasoned … from the Scriptures” (v. 2). That Paul “reasoned” is something the evangelical church especially needs to hear today since we have a tendency to denigrate reason. We say, sometimes on supposedly theological grounds, “If the Holy Spirit is the one who has to bring men and women to faith, then it doesn’t matter whether we give them reasons for what they are supposed to believe. The only thing we have to do is proclaim the Scriptures, that is, just quote Bible verses to them.” It is better to quote Bible verses than do nothing at all, and it is better to quote Bible verses than the sayings of mere men, however valuable they may be. But quoting is not all Paul did. He told people to think about a verse, think about what it says, think about what it implies, think what it says about Jesus.

Boice, James Montgomery. Acts: An Expositional Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1997.

Exposition of Acts 17:1-15

Scripture itself calls us to reason as well as believe the truth.

““Come now, let us reason together, says the Lord: though your sins are like scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they are red like crimson, they shall become like wool.” (Isaiah 1:18)

Balance is what is essential. We should not neglect one in favor of the other.

Rod said,

they have no choice but to resort to personal attacks.

One only need to read here to see that no personal attack was made by me. I am unashamed of my conduct, because I’ve simply stated facts. In the post of mine that I linked to, one only need to read to see that Rod’s post takes his comments out of context as well as mine. That is patently dishonest.

Rod also says,

For some strange reason, all of these quotes put me in the category of being “uncharitable” and “a liberal.”

Yet he cannot find where I called him a liberal. I called his interaction uncharitable because he didn’t like my saying that his comments were self-contradicting. He then said in our Google+ discussion, in response to my statement regarding his self-contradicting comments,

By using the ‘you’re being hypocritical’ answer typical in conservative circles, I can only assume you have no real rebuttal to me.

You see, Rod wishes to make it seem as if I called him hypocritical. I did not. I simply stated that his logic was erroneous. There’s often a vast difference between hypocrisy and a logical fallacy. However, if the shoe fits, Rodney is certainly welcome to wear it.

I responded and bade Rodney farewell, which means I was exiting the discussion because I didn’t wish to become embroiled in an affair such as this has turned out to be.

No, I’m using the law of non-contradiction, a fundamental principle of logic.
Seeing you remain the same ROA who refuses to engage in charitable discussion, I bid you farewell.

To bid someone farewell means to tell them goodbye and that you wish them well. I meant only that, yet Rodney evidently felt that there was some nefarious intent behind my words, because he said,

Farewell? Like Piper on Rob Bell I see……….

Just exactly where have I been uncharitable, Jason? Did I resort to calling anyone names? Did I go after arguments you believe with all of your heart but refuse to be critical of? Of course! Thats your charity for you. Your inability to “convert” me or +Joel Watts to your Calvinist brand of fundamentalism. Pathetic really.

Again, I am just gonna assume you have no real rebuttal because you don’t; Language comes from humans. The end.

Honestly, sometimes I simply don’t think that it’s worth wasting my time to try to speak with someone who responds as Rodney did. That is why I tried to gracefully and quietly bow out of the discussion on Google+.

Rodney continues his blog and says,

 Furthermore, my posts against fundamentalist epistemologies such as “Presuppositionalism” only state the awkward positions that famous racist presuppositionalists such as R.J. Rushdoony have held: see me on Presuppositionalism and Segregation [linked here]. My purpose is to show the Christian presuppositionalism is really a merri-go-round epistemology, which places epistemology over and against all else, and then places God second or third. Following the “LAWS OF PHALLUS, I MEAN, LOGIC” means following a rather circular logic that leads down the path of uncritical thinking, anti-intellectuallism, and reactionary politics. No siree. No thank you!

Rodney commits another logical fallacy by associating all presuppositionalists with Rushdooney. That is guilt by association, yet I have no association with Rushdooney. I’ve not read his writings, listened to his sermons, or watched his videos. Rodney continues and decides to get even more profane by insinuating that logic is somehow phallic worship, or something of the sort. And what does he know of my thinking, intellect and politics? Next to nothing is the answer, because Rodney doesn’t know me beyond some interaction on the web.

Rodney goes on to say,

This is not the first time, and I am sure it won’t be the last time, that a fundamentalist anti-intellectual has accused me of not following the “law of contradiction.”

Amazing. I never called names, yet am accused of calling names, but Rodney unabashedly calls me an anti-intellectual. Hmmm…methinks that there is a very smutted up pot speaking of the blackness of a kettle here. After all, it the one who seems to desire to reject logic and reasoning that is actually against the right use of the mind.

Rodney further says,

 May I ask a question, if I may? Who set up this law? Who voted you to enforce this law? That’s all I ask. In the spirit of the police officer in Marvel’s The Avengers who asked Captain America, “Why should I take orders from you?,” I ask, WHO ARE YOU? Especially the fundamentalist blog I linked to in this post is a questionable authority on “rationality” and “logic” at best, when he is given to emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.

Who set up the law? I’ll give you a hint. Just read here. It’s a good start.

Who voted for me to enforce the law of non-contradiction? No one. Neither shall I try to enforce it. On the other hand, if you respond to me when I’ve not spoken to you, I may indeed tell you when your logic fails. That is what happened. Nothing more and nothing less.

Perhaps I am a questionable authority on logic and rationality. Actually, I’m no authority at all. Logic and rationality have their roots in God and are part of the essence of man as being the image of God. The authority is the Creator. Your beef is with Him.

Of course, Rodney finally shows what the true issue is when he speaks of “emotional rants against historical criticism and evolutionary science.” I suppose “emotional rants” must be in the eyes of the beholder, because I can see that Rodney was certainly not lacking in passion as he posted this, though his logic surely failed again. The reality is that I challenge these modern day shibboleths of historical criticism and evolutionary philosophy. That is what troubles Rodney so much.

This only gets worse,

The fact of the matter is this; It is this fundamentalist who has forgotten the source of truth. If you find the inventor of the Law of Noncontradiction, you will see it’s not god, but Greek philosophers like Plato and Socrates. Are they god? Nope. Speaking of rationality, I find the term highly problematic, especially in this fundamentalist’s usage of it. For centuries, good Christians have used rationality as THE definition of God’s image in humanity, to separate us from animals. The likes of Thomas Aquinas, among others; my problem is that this definition is very limited, and excludes special needs persons. Plus, this exclusive view of rationality/the divine image in us all has been used to justify oppression; people who have been seen as not rational as Europeans (hint hint hint) were to be subjected to European colonial rule. Exclusivist European Rationality is a very imperialist mode of thinking.

Rodney doesn’t know what I believe about the imago Dei. He assumes, but does not know. He speaks of that which he doesn’t know, and he errs in that which he speaks.

Rodney also seems to find a European behind many of the world’s ills. Thinking people will realize that you can’t put all of the blame on one group of people. There’s a world of prejudice in Rodney’s statement.

Finally, Rodney says,

Yup, fundamentalists deny God’s own freedom of choice, to use particular histories and specific bodies IN time to tell God’s story.

The thing is, I do not deny God the right to use whomever He pleases to tell His story however He pleases. In fact, that is irrelevant to the subject, except for the fact that God is true and will not deny Himself- i.e. He will not contradict Himself. He will not lie.

The essence of this post is to show that there is no logic in Rodney’s reply, but there is much bigotry against Caucasians who use logic, believe the Bible is God’s Word without error, and refuse to bow to the “run-of-the-mill post-modern narrative theory of truth” as Rodney calls it.

This is my final say on the matter. Let whoever will say whatever they will. I am satisfied that from the beginning I spoke plainly and kindly, albeit in a straightforward manner. I have no reason to blush, except for the man who is unable to admit when he is mistaken and chooses rather to stoop to libel and slander.