# "Objective Truth"



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 10, 2006)

*\"Objective Truth\"*

What is "objective truth?" Give examples, if applicable.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 11, 2006)

Is 'God' one?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> Is 'God' one?



What about 'God'?


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 11, 2006)

God is truth. God is living. God speaks. God is God.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 11, 2006)

David was a king of Israel.
Jesus wept.
Jesus was born in Bethlehem.


----------



## tewilder (Oct 11, 2006)

"Subjective" and "objective" are relational terms.

I am the subject and you, since you are not me, are an object of my knowledge. But to you, I am the object. But what if I introspect myself? Does the subject become its own object? 

Is God's knowlege objective or subjective? (Jonathan Edwards thought it was subjective.)


----------



## Civbert (Oct 11, 2006)

Objective truths are true propositions regardless of who believes them.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 11, 2006)

So you would say that Jonathan Edwards is wrong, and anything in Scripture (in its original language) is objective truth?


----------



## tewilder (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So you would say that Jonathan Edwards is wrong, and anything in Scripture (in its original language) is objective truth?



If something is subjectively true for me, does that imply that it is objectively false?

Or is the definition of objective truth that, If for all subjects S, there is a proposition A such that A is subjectively true for S, than A is objectively true?

If something is subjectively true for God, can it be objectively false for anybody?

Is there much use for knower relative terms such as subjective and objective?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Objective truths are true propositions regardless of who believes them.



Well that's the question, isn't it? If no one believes in or has apprehension of a Thing, is it objectively true? Does it matter, if no one apprehends it? All objective Truth that we can come up with is still subject to our interpretation and mediation (through the various faculties, senses and so forth), so Things for-us are not objective. Ever. To apprehend or "know" something objectively is to have an otherness which no human can possess. Only a higher being, with such an "otherness" could look from the outside in and apprehend objective Truth, in my opinion.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So you would say that Jonathan Edwards is wrong, and anything in Scripture (in its original language) is objective truth?



I think Edwards is maybe using the terms differently than current usage. I'm not sure. Does anyone have the reference where Edwards is speaking about objective/subjective truth?


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 11, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> If no one believes in or has apprehension of a Thing, is it objectively true? Does it matter, if no one apprehends it? All objective Truth that we can come up with is still subject to our interpretation and mediation (through the various faculties, senses and so forth), so Things for-us are not objective. Ever. To apprehend or "know" something objectively is to have an otherness which no human can possess. Only a higher being, with such an "otherness" could look from the outside in and apprehend objective Truth, in my opinion.


Yes. 1+1=2. If there were no humans to comprehend or even realize 1+1=2, it would still be objectively true. Anything that we can ‘know’ is through our cognitive faculties, but that doesn’t mean that our “interpretation” of objective truths makes them subjective. All it means is that we interpret objective truths through our cognitive faculties. Now, if you want to make a case that our cognitive faculties are subjective then I am all ears.

edit: I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "thing". If it is a concept or entity then my "argument" applies. 

[Edited on 10-11-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



But if no one is "around" to "know" that "1+1=2", does it really "matter?"


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2006)

The answer is no, it would not matter. What are we trying to get at here Gabe?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 12, 2006)

Just discussion.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2006)

So what is objective truth?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

Objective truth exists however we are only able to apprehend it subjectively. Objective truth exists where and when the scripture defines Truth. When we argue from a scriptural premise to form a secondary truth we have entered the subjective because our reasoning is subjective. Logic is objective, reason is subjective. Apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability. 

If a tree falls in the woods, does it make a noise. Scripture is silent so I can't be sure, but it 'probably' does.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2006)

What kind of logic is objective?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

Objective logic.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

http://www.gospelpedlar.com/articles/God/logic.html

Gordon Clark's piece on "God and Logic". That's the springboard for the propositions I've made.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> But if no one is "around" to "know" that "1+1=2", does it really "matter?"


Notice I said humans. If no humans existed God would still exist. Now if God did not exist, then no there wouldn't be objective truth. See, I am perfectly fine with saying that we interpret objective truth through our cognitive faculties (which are fallible), but it doesn't necessarily follow that we cannot *know* objective truths such as 1+1=2.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability.


I'm going to have to disagree with you here. We can have knowledge of objective truths such as mathematical propositions without the use of scripture. Of course reasoning is fallible, but we cannot infer from that that we cannot *know* something with certainty. In fact if you do argue that we can only know scripture with certainty, then I am going to ask how you know that? From scripture? Can you point out where? 

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2006)

I don't think the question is how do we come to objective truth, but rather what is objective truth. It seems like many are focused on the how we obtain aspect.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

> In fact if you do argue that we can only know scripture with certainty, then I am going to ask how you know that? From scripture? Can you point out where?




Gen 1:1 In the beginning, God....

Jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it.

There is a God and he's revealed himself in His Word, the Bible. This is established by scripture and scripture is and must be self-validating.

From our subjective point of view this is an unprovable principle but the most consistent principle for apprehending true Truth. We use reason as our tool and reason is validated by God's use of reason in scripture.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

Why does every other translation use 'word' instead of 'logic'?


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> Why does every other translation use 'word' instead of 'logic'?



It started with the Latin translation.

1:1 in principio erat Verbum et Verbum erat apud Deum et Deus erat Verbum

1:2 hoc erat in principio apud Deum 

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## tewilder (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So what is objective truth?



Usually when people say "objective truth" they mean "true truth". The word "objective" is there to confuse the simple man who does not undertand the game being played.

Objectivity and subjective are properties of knowlege, not of truth as such. Knowledge belongs to a knower, a "subject".


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2006)

So, objective truth is God's Word and that is pretty much it. Everything else is subjective.

Logic is based on God's Word.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

Subjective truth: I think, therefore I am.

Objective truth: God created man is His image, therefore I think.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 12, 2006)

Is logic extrinsically or intrinsically "truth"?


----------



## tewilder (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Is logic extrinsically or intrinsically "truth"?



Logic is the science of truth relations between propositions.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Romans922_
> So, objective truth is God's Word and that is pretty much it. Everything else is subjective.
> 
> Logic is based on God's Word.


No, I am not going to grant that, mainly because I don't agree with that translation. I am skeptical of it because I don't know greek and most of the people who do translate it as 'word' and not 'logic'. 

If everything besides the bible is subjective then so is your process of coming to a knowledge that the bible is objective truth and nothing else is. In that case you shouldn't trust that the bible is objective because you came to that knowledge based on your subjective interpretation.

Edit, I believe that logic is a part of God's nature. I don't believe that logic is just based on the bible. 

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

> If everything besides the bible is subjective then so is your process of coming to a knowledge that the bible is objective truth and nothing else is. In that case you shouldn't trust that the bible is objective because you came to that knowledge based on your subjective interpretation.



Given that we are stuck in our subjective nature we shouldn't trust anything. How do we know that a demon has not created this illusion? How do we know we are not in The Matrix? We don't.

So we are left with discovering our first naked raw principle on which we base all other knowledge. This is how the presuppositionalist justifies knowlege anyway. The evidentialist will start diferently.

We cannot prove God. We cannot prove that scripture is true. They are self authenticating.


----------



## Romans922 (Oct 12, 2006)

Ah, self-authentication. Great stuff. God's Word is true and all logic must proceed from God's Word, and it based absolutely on nothing to do with human beings. It is because God's Word and God are self-authenticating.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> ...



I'm perfectly happy to say it is _probably_ true that "apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability". 

For example, it is probably true that propositions which are base solely on sensory perceptions are only probably true. And "scientific" conclusions that can not be confirmed by Scripture are certainly only probabilities (really by definition of the "scientific process"). And most certainly, "scientific" conclusions that contradict Scripture are false.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> 
> 
> > If everything besides the bible is subjective then so is your process of coming to a knowledge that the bible is objective truth and nothing else is. In that case you shouldn't trust that the bible is objective because you came to that knowledge based on your subjective interpretation.
> ...



So, Rene Descartes was the first Presuppositionalist? Or was Kant?


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 12, 2006)

Objective knowledge is knowledge of objects outside of the mind. For example, knowledge of astronomy is outside the mind such as the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. Subjective knowledge is knowledge of the mind. For example, knowledge of the pain that I get when I put my hand on the stove is subjective. It is analogous to the difference between what is private and what is public.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> Objective knowledge is knowledge of objects outside of the mind. For example, knowledge of astronomy is outside the mind such as the elliptical orbits of the planets around the sun. Subjective knowledge is knowledge of the mind. For example, knowledge of the pain that I get when I put my hand on the stove is subjective. It is analogous to the difference between what is private and what is public.



That is true Richard, however, the puzzle comes about because everything that we perceive comes through the mind. Therefore it makes sense to ask the question, is there such a thing as objective truth? If it does exist then we can perceive it with our minds. However, once we perceive it, it is no longer objective. It's one of those puzzles that can leave a charlie horse in you brain. 

I guess we could say that 'objective truth' is unfiltered truth - truth that stands apart from our worldview. Can truth stand apart from our worldview?

I see it as a mathematical problem. Two dimensional space can only be understood against a three dimensional back drop. Likewise, three dimensional space can only be fully described against a four dimensional space-time continuum.

Objective truth exists in God however because we are not God but only 'in' God, we can only understand objective truth in it's shadow form. We can describe how it interacts with our dimension but we cannot fully apprehend it. 

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_We cannot prove God. We cannot prove that scripture is true. They are self authenticating.


How do you *know* that. Where do you deduce from scripture that we cannot prove that God exist, or that the Christian worldview is true? 

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> I'm perfectly happy to say it is _probably_ true that "apart from scripture we can only determine truth as a probability".



Where did you deduce this from scripture? Besides that, I would like you to explain to me how mathematical truths are only probable and not certain. And if you say that they are only certain because you deduce them from scipture, I would like you to deduce the pythagorean theorem from scipture, thanks. Explain away, I'm all ears.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



Yes, the sensations of objects come to the mind, but the objects themselves do not. There is a difference between objects and our sensations. If there is not a difference then if I see the moon, then the moon itself is in my mind, and this is silly. I think that truth is a rightness that is only perceptible to a mind. We have the truth, which are sensations of objects. I think you are confusing the objects and the sensations.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I guess we could say that 'objective truth' is unfiltered truth - truth that stands apart from our worldview. Can truth stand apart from our worldview?



Our worldview is a collection of sensations and it does not contain all of the possible sensations. So truth can be apart from our worldview.



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> I see it as a mathematical problem. Two dimensional space can only be understood against a three dimensional back drop. Likewise, three dimensional space can only be fully described against a four dimensional space-time continuum.



So does knowledge of a Cartesian coordinate plane require knowledge of three dimensional space?



> _Originally posted by BobVigneault_
> Objective truth exists in God however because we are not God but only 'in' God, we can only understand objective truth in it's shadow form. We can describe how it interacts with our dimension but we cannot fully apprehend it.



I affirm the creature and Creator distinction meaning that we cannot know same truth as God knows it. We are created as analogs which is the image of God.


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 12, 2006)

I guess we really need to define our terms and then use those terms consistently in our arguments. I'm not a philosopher so I'm not using my terms as the philosopher would understand them. So this thread can only be answered by saying:

1. What is the definition of objective truth?
2. Given this definition, is objective truth possible?

We've given definitions by which objective truth is possible and not possible and so, by our own definitions, we are ALL correct.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 12, 2006)

Vytautas, I wouldn't just put off idealism by saying it is silly...

Anyways, Bob, I do think I disagree with you on the matter of if we can have knowledge with certainty of something outside of scripture.

[Edited on 10-12-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Civbert (Oct 12, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Civbert_
> ...


I can't deduce empirical theorems from Scripture. That is why I said "probably".


> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> Besides that, I would like you to explain to me how mathematical truths are only probable and not certain.


Basic arithmetic is deducible from scripture. And geometry is tautological. Same for calculus.



> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_And if you say that they are only certain because you deduce them from Scripture, I would like you to deduce the pythagorean theorem from scipture, thanks. Explain away, I'm all ears.



I think this would also follow from axioms of geometry. I might be able to point you to a proof.

Much of mathematical science is tautological. You start with assumed axioms. You don't prove things like straight lines. You can't.



[Edited on 10-13-2006 by Civbert]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 12, 2006)

We make fun of the world for such statements as, "It is (absolutely) true that there is no such thing as absolute truth." Or, "I am certain of only one thing, that I am certain of nothing." 


So how can we then say, "It is (objectively) true that there is no such thing as objective truth." or "We can (truly and objectively) know that we cannot know objective truth." and not think that the world will not make fun of us in return?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> We make fun of the world for such statements as, "It is (absolutely) true that there is no such thing as absolute truth." Or, "I am certain of only one thing, that I am certain of nothing."
> 
> 
> So how can we then say, "It is (objectively) true that there is no such thing as objective truth." or "We can (truly and objectively) know that we cannot know objective truth." and not think that the world will not make fun of us in return?



Just as a Pyrrhonist would say... "It appears to me at this time that there is no objective truth, but I'm not fully committed to that."

And in response to your previous comment, Descartes borrowed most of his premises from Augustine, so I'd say Augustine would have to be considered before him (and then others before Augustine, such as Plato, Plotinus, Socrates, etc...).


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 13, 2006)

No one has quoted the WCF yet so I will. You might look up the verses that go with WCF 1.1.




> "1. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation."




Because of sin our perception is flawed and the resulting subjective truth is not sufficient to give saving knowledge.





> "Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto his church; and afterwards, for the better preserving and propagating of the truth,"




Objective truth.




> "and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing: which maketh the Holy Scripture to be most necessary; those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased."




Necessary because it is the source of objective truth.

When Romans 2 says the the law has been written on our hearts it must be speaking of objective truth for it is written by the finger of God. However, because of the fall we may only understand this law subjectively, even though it comes from within us.

[Edited on 10-13-2006 by BobVigneault]


----------



## JohnV (Oct 13, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...



Gabe:

I was referring to Bob's comment,


> So we are left with discovering our first naked raw principle on which we base all other knowledge. This is how the presuppositionalist justifies knowlege anyway. The evidentialist will start diferently.


 Descartes did this. He deliberately broke down his skepticism, to be left with his bare and raw principle of certainty, namely _I think, therefore I am_.

Who, then, would be the evidentialist? And how would he start differently? Is it not true that everyone must start with, at the very least, an assumption that truth is objective? Is it not true that, if they do not, then they can go no further? 

My comment was to the end that this kind of summarization is misleading. You could put it any way you like, hiding it in such statements of non-commital as, "It appears to me at this time that there is no objective truth, but I'm not fully committed to that." but that still does not mitigate the dilemma that is obvious in denying objective truth, nor even the dilemma of a Christian denying that he objectively knows he is forgiven and saved. If he is speaking out of his own aspirations, his own presuppositions, how is he any different than the unbeliever speaking out of his aspirations and presuppositions? 

Unless we have an objective standard to make assertions, we cannot declare to the world the sure and steadfast love of the Lord. We speak of it because the Word says so, but we also speak of it because we know the love of the Lord ourselves. Therefore we not only have the Word as an objective standard, but we also have God's active hand in the lives of believers and in the upholding of the creation as an objective standard.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2006)

The Word of God is objective truth, but that doesn't mean we receive it as such. We must interpret the Word of God. As a result, it is no longer objective. Interpretation is mediation and mediation is distortion, in some way (not necessarily a BAD thing, either, and I don't mean interpret in a BAD way, also). That is why we must rely on the Canon of the Church as the Pillar of Truth; the Holy Scriptures, and our Creeds and Confessions as our interpretation of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we are left with Biblicism and the nonsense of anti-creedal evangelicalism -- which has spawned 10,000 different denominations because they forgot the Reformation ever happened, forgot what Sola Scriptura REALLY means, and decided that man is the center of the universe, not a providential God who has orchestrated all things, INCLUDING the development of the Church and her doctrine.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 14, 2006)

I’m fine with saying that we interpret everything through our minds, but I am not going to submit that we cannot have knowledge of objective truth because of this. Namely because I don’t think the bible is the only objective truth we can have knowledge from. I had a priori knowledge of mathematical concepts and logical laws before I ever read the bible. Besides, you only know that the word of God is objective truth because you interpreted it through your mind that it is objective. Furthermore, the canons of the church were just a combination of minds, so the process of interpretation itself remains the same. Thus, your problem remains the same.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> I’m fine with saying that we interpret everything through our minds, but I am not going to submit that we cannot have knowledge of objective truth because of this. Namely because I don’t think the bible is the only objective truth we can have knowledge from. I had a priori knowledge of mathematical concepts and logical laws before I ever read the bible. Besides, you only know that the word of God is objective truth because you interpreted it through your mind that it is objective. Furthermore, the canons of the church were just a combination of minds, so the process of interpretation itself remains the same. Thus, your problem remains the same.



I don't know what you mean by "we interpret everything through our minds" so I can't comment on that. In any case, my ground for saying we only know things subjectively is because we can only make sense of our experiences based on previous experiences and information. If we see a Boldorf we don't know it is a Boldorf because of any intrinsic value that a Boldorf has. We know it is a Boldorf because someone tells us it is such, or otherwise. We interpret our experiences through a window that is in itself determined by our previously held information and experience.

I know the Word of God is objective truth by Faith, which is given to me by God, not from anything material or temporal that is part of my natural experience. The knowledge that the Word of God is objective truth is a supernatural experience, not an experience grounded in our finite reality. It is not the same as the knowledge that I am typing on a keyboard, and knowing what a keyboard is, etc. We can't confuse vastly different categories of knowledge or sense-perception without blurring the issue.

Abstract, invariant universals such as mathematics are also much different than knowing an "objective truth" in the sense I would be using the term, in my opinion. So, I don't really think that applies here. I could be wrong.

Finally, I reject the notion that the Canon of the Church is *merely* a "combination of minds," therefore, arbitrary. Individuals interpreting the Scriptures can err just as easily as a group of individuals can err, true. However, I believe *by faith* that God has, through His Spirit, orchestrated the development of the Church's doctrine throughout history for His own end and purpose. Therefore, the people called by God and set apart to formulate our doctrine throughout the history of the Church are not necessarily under the same scrutiny as an individual would be, per se. They are still subject to error, no doubt, but it is a matter of faith that we can believe that the Spirit has called them to formulate doctrines that are TRUE and FAITHFUL to God's Word. So, I reject your notion as unBiblical and incorrect that the "interpretation is the same" for the authors of our Creeds and Confessions. We know that what they have authored is true because it is in harmony with the Word of God, but not by such a standard alone. I also believe we know what they have said is true because we believe that Christ is building His Church and would not leave it in the hands of arbitrariness and guess-work.


----------



## JohnV (Oct 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> The Word of God is objective truth, but that doesn't mean we receive it as such. We must interpret the Word of God. As a result, it is no longer objective. Interpretation is mediation and mediation is distortion, in some way (not necessarily a BAD thing, either, and I don't mean interpret in a BAD way, also). That is why we must rely on the Canon of the Church as the Pillar of Truth; the Holy Scriptures, and our Creeds and Confessions as our interpretation of the Scriptures. Otherwise, we are left with Biblicism and the nonsense of anti-creedal evangelicalism -- which has spawned 10,000 different denominations because they forgot the Reformation ever happened, forgot what Sola Scriptura REALLY means, and decided that man is the center of the universe, not a providential God who has orchestrated all things, INCLUDING the development of the Church and her doctrine.





> WCF, I, iv. The authority of the Holy Scripture, for which it ought to be believed, and obeyed, dependeth not upon the testimony of any man, or church; but wholly upon God (who is truth itself) the author thereof: and therefore it is to be received, because it is the Word of God.[9]
> 9. II Peter 1:19-20; II Tim. 3:16; I John 5:9; I Thess. 2:13; Rev. 1:1-2
> 
> v. We may be moved and induced by the testimony of the church to an high and reverent esteem of the Holy Scripture.[10] And the heavenliness of the matter, the efficacy of the doctrine, the majesty of the style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole (which is, to give all glory to God), the full discovery it makes of the only way of man's salvation, the many other incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof, are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence itself to be the Word of God: yet notwithstanding, our full persuasion and assurance of the infallible truth and divine authority thereof, is from the inward work of the Holy Spirit bearing witness by and with the Word in our hearts.[11]
> ...



I don't see the WCF ever citing Church authority, but only the Bible. It seems to me the fathers in the Church thought that the Bible's authority was sufficient and perspicuous. They also tell us about the fact that God's Spirit Himself lives in us to reveal the objective Word to us,


> vi. The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men.[12] Nevertheless, we acknowledge the inward illumination of the Spirit of God to be necessary for the saving understanding of such things as are revealed in the Word:[13] and that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed.[14]
> 
> 12. II Tim. 3:16-17; Gal. 1:8-9; II Thess. 2:2
> 13. John 6:45; I Cor. 2:12, 14-15; Eph. 1:18; II Cor. 4:6
> 14. I Cor. 11:13-14; 14:26, 40


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> I don't see the WCF ever citing Church authority, but only the Bible. It seems to me the fathers in the Church thought that the Bible's authority was sufficient and perspicuous.



I said in my post above,



> I know the Word of God is objective truth by Faith, which is given to me by God, not from anything material or temporal that is part of my natural experience. The knowledge that the Word of God is objective truth is a supernatural experience, not an experience grounded in our finite reality.



We must be talking past each other.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 14, 2006)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_I don't know what you mean by "we interpret everything through our minds" so I can't comment on that.


Our “window” to the world is through our minds. I don’t know how it can be explained any simpler than that. 



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Abstract, invariant universals such as mathematics are also much different than knowing an "objective truth" in the sense I would be using the term, in my opinion. So, I don't really think that applies here. I could be wrong.


Then in what sense are you using the term? How do they not apply to objective truth? 

Do you have knowledge that God exists before any sense experience Gabe? Or do you have to have experience in order to have knowledge that God exist?

There may be some confusion here on what you mean when you say “Finally, I reject the notion that the Canon of the Church is *merely* a "combination of minds," therefore, arbitrary. Individuals interpreting the Scriptures can err just as easily as a group of individuals can err, true. However, I believe *by faith* that God has, through His Spirit, orchestrated the development of the Church's doctrine throughout history for His own end and purpose. Therefore, the people called by God and set apart to formulate our doctrine throughout the history of the Church are not necessarily under the same scrutiny as an individual would be, per se. They are still subject to error, no doubt, but it is a matter of faith that we can believe that the Spirit has called them to formulate doctrines that are TRUE and FAITHFUL to God's Word. So, I reject your notion as unBiblical and incorrect that the "interpretation is the same" *for the authors of our Creeds and Confessions.*

What exactly are you referring to here? I would suggest for your sake you aren’t referring to anything outside of the canonization of the bible…



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_ We know that what they have authored is true because it is in harmony with the Word of God, but not by such a standard alone. I also believe we know what they have said is true because we believe that Christ is building His Church and would not leave it in the hands of arbitrariness and guess-work.



Never mind, my fears have become true. You know this how? By your interpretation of scripture? I thought you said that was subjective. Hmmm…

Don’t be quick to call other peoples views unbiblical.


[Edited on 10-14-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## BobVigneault (Oct 14, 2006)

> Do you have knowledge that God exists before any sense experience Gabe? Or do you have to have experience in order to have knowledge that God exist?




Caleb, when scripture says the law is written on our hearts (minds) doesn't that mean that it is there independant of experience? Or how would you explain that passage?

Look at the language of Romans 1:

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 

God has created us, even in our fallen state, to KNOW certain things about God's invisible attributes in such a way that we are without excuse. How can we KNOW an invisible attribute except God instill his word in us? Verse 21 says that we 'knew God' but didn't honor him. Everyone regardless of worldview or mental capacity holds a certain objective truth that makes him responsible for suppressing the truth.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 14, 2006)

I was going to use Romans 1 to argue that if the bible is true, then we should believe that everybody has objective knowledge of God, namely that he exists. And that they know this inherently without any experience or empirical data. So I totally agree with you in what you are saying about Romans 1 Bob.

[Edited on 10-14-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 14, 2006)

Caleb,



> Besides, you only know that the word of God is objective truth because you interpreted it through your mind that it is objective.



This is not true. That would make it subjective again. You are forgetting the singular work of the Spirit that makes us alive to the Scriptures, the Good Report of Christ and Him crucified for me. This is how the objective Word becomes truly the Word of God to us. It’s not some Gnostic smoky “insight” into the pages of Scriptures as many speak, “The Spirit revealed this and this to me.”. If it doesn’t go back to Christ one can be quite certain the Spirit had little to do with it and one’s dreamy imagination had much to do with it. 

The Word of God never actually is the Word of God TO ME until Christ crucified for me comes through it, though it is the Word of God objectively in spite of me one way or the other. Then and only then is its majesty revealed and does it really become the infallible objective true Word of God or God’s Word or the Word sourced and generated from THE true and living God that alone IS God. If only I read it and through my mind I call it the Word of God I may very well be honing nothing more than an idol out of it and greater and lesser examples are plenteous. 

This is where reason our most prized idol fails us. Reason pre-exists and cannot derive faith, only the Gospel can, and can exist without faith. This is why it is fool hardy and idolatry to appeal to it in adults or children. Reason cannot arrive at the word of God being the Word of God, faith must come and that faith comes from instrument of the Word, singularly the Gospel, and sacraments through which the Holy Spirit works. 

For example it is utterly futile to argue with an atheist that the Word of God IS the Word of God. His faculty for reason and logic, some of whom are greater than most Christians, will NEVER take him there, in fact his reasoning will lead him away from Christ. And if he cannot arrive at Christ by his reasoning, then he never will affirm the Word of God as objectively the Word of God. A man can come to the idea of God being true but it need not be through the Scriptures as Romans 1:18 points out. However, at best all you will succeed in doing to an open rank atheist is to make him an open theist atheist, or religious person of any tagged name.

If you do not see Christ AS Christ in all of Scripture then you cannot have faith and if you cannot have faith it is not the Word of God to you for reason cannot arrive at the Gospel/Cross. I don’t mean literally every Word is “mystically” Christ but that the whole of every Word is singularly the story that reveals Him and what HE DID, either directly or indirectly. E.g. If you watch the movie “Schindler’s List” the whole movie is about Oskar Schindler and what he did. Now every single scene is not immediately about him but either directly or indirectly weaving the story. But if you are watching the movie and come to the scene where they are loading the Jews onto the train before he re-routes them and say, “Hey, this scene (verse and chapter) is about how to load people onto a train.” Then it’s no longer the movie or “revelation” of the life and work of Oskar Schindler to you. You have subjectively interpreted it by reasoning in isolation. The analogy breaks down at a crucial point of course because “Schindler’s List” hardly has the Holy Spirit revealing it to us.

L

[Edited on 10-15-2006 by Larry Hughes]

[Edited on 10-15-2006 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Larry Hughes_
> Caleb,
> 
> 
> ...


Bingo, that was my argument. That it would just resort back to subjectivism. I completely agree with you that men cannot come to the faith by mere mental assent to some proposition. Men are totally depraved and can only come to the knowledge of the truth through the working of the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Larry Hughes (Oct 15, 2006)




----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2006)

This subject seems to be moving in a neo-orthodox direction, who are accustomed to accuse conservatives of bibliolatry. The Bible teaches that depraved men have knowledge of the truth, only they hold it in unrighteousness. Or, in Jude's phrase, what they know, they know naturally, as brute beasts.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by caleb_woodrow_
> I’m fine with saying that we interpret everything through our minds, but I am not going to submit that we cannot have knowledge of objective truth because of this. Namely because I don’t think the bible is the only objective truth we can have knowledge from. I had a priori knowledge of mathematical concepts and logical laws before I ever read the bible. ...



This is interesting. This comes up a lot because people confuse logical priority with temporal. Saying Scripture is objectively true does not mean we can not know things in the sense of have certain beliefs - but that the epistemic justification of the truth of the belief is always going to be wanting apart from Scripture. You may "know" things (in the informal sense) before you learn the Scriptures - but these beliefs may not be objectively true. The logical priority that justifies knowledge often comes after one thinks they "know" something.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> This subject seems to be moving in a neo-orthodox direction, who are accustomed to accuse conservatives of bibliolatry. The Bible teaches that depraved men have knowledge of the truth, only they hold it in unrighteousness. Or, in Jude's phrase, what they know, they know naturally, as brute beasts.



I think they (the unregenerate) know things only in the sense that they believe true things - not because they can justify the truth of the things they believe. Epistemologically, they know nothing at all. Ironically, only the Christian can provide the justification for their beliefs - that God has written some things (the Law, knowledge of God's existence) onto their hearts (minds).


----------



## MW (Oct 15, 2006)

I think I prefer the realist philosophy of the Holy Ghost to your idealism. If the Scriptures say they "know," then they "know," and woe be to the man who argues with God.


----------



## Civbert (Oct 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> Our worldview is a collection of sensations and it does not contain all of the possible sensations. So truth can be apart from our worldview.



Our worldview is the framework through which we understand things. This includes how we interpret sensations - but is not the sensations themselves. Ones worldview determines what one believes is true - regardless of whether what we believe is in fact true. So truth can be "apart from our worldview" if we use a false framework. 




> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> I affirm the creature and Creator distinction meaning that we cannot know same truth as God knows it. We are created as analogs which is the image of God.



Then all is subjective and the Scriptures are pointless - for we can never know them. But we have the mind of Christ. We have the Spirit that makes it possible for us to know the exact same truths God knows - the very truths He has revealed to us in his Word. Not _all_ the truths God knows, but the ones He wants us to know and has shown us.


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 16, 2006)

I admit that the last sentence of mine you quoted was not a good argument. Yet, I still contend that I can have objective knowledge of mathematics that aren't deduced from scripture. Of course then you reply that "Basic arithmetic is deducible from scripture. And geometry is tautological. Same for calculus." Yet, I can't see how you can 'deduce that geometry and calculus are tautological' from scripture...


----------



## Cheshire Cat (Oct 16, 2006)

Btw, I think some people here are underestimating the process of self-deception in respect to 
epistemological knowledge. From reading Romans 1 I see nothing less than knowledge in this sense. 

[Edited on 10-16-2006 by caleb_woodrow]


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



I will grant your conception of what a world view is. However, to interpret what is truth requires propositions that judge what the truth is. I guess you would say that these propositions are the framework by which we judge what are the true from the false. 



> _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> I affirm the creature and Creator distinction meaning that we cannot know same truth as God knows it. We are created as analogs which is the image of God.





> _Originally posted by Civbert_
> Then all is subjective and the Scriptures are pointless - for we can never know them. But we have the mind of Christ. We have the Spirit that makes it possible for us to know the exact same truths God knows - the very truths He has revealed to us in his Word. Not _all_ the truths God knows, but the ones He wants us to know and has shown us.



We do not have to know the same way God knows things. Why do our minds have to intersect with the divine? Can we not have the human mind of Christ and not the divine one? The Scriptures are accommodation for our humanness of which God stooped down as it were so we could understand. I used to believe that we can know the same things God knows, but I changed my mind recently because that idea is an illegitimate search for religious certainty. 

The Confession speaks plainly in Chapter VII Section I: The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.


----------



## Vytautas (Oct 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by armourbearer_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Vytautas_
> ...



Is there are difference between Ectypal theology and Archetypal theology or is it a false dichotomy?


----------

