There are so many false prophets, churches, and now as a nation, that has been blessed more than any other. But!! Now God is removing his blessings, and our great country is crumbling down. We can cross the Ts, and dot the Is, but first we have got to repent, and mean it, so God can heal our land again. I pray we do so, as time is short. Thank you for nice site, and I look forward to joining all of you.

Billy Corbi

You wrote of Dr. Groothuis:

“As for Mr Groothuis, I would like to see how he harmonises his particular theory of truth with moral truths, analytical truths and metalogical claims. What does a true theoretical statement about correspondence between true propositions and reality correspond with anyway? And why is reality left undefined? Leaving the door open to pixies?”

I provided your comment to Dr. Groothuis and overnight he came back with this response:

“What do pixies have to do with anything?

“Murder is wrong” is true because the proposition “Murder is wrong” objectively exists in the mind of God. The same for analytical truths. There is a difference between the statement made by us and the proposition (or abstract object) that makes it true. These are eternally in the mind of God. I deal with this to some extent in chapter three of Truth Decay,

Douglas Groothuis, Ph.D.

Professor of Philosophy, Denver Seminary

Truth Decay is available from Koorong: http://orders.koorong.com/search/details.jhtml?code=0851115241

Sincerely, Spencer

F.Trpimir Kesina

Spencer seems to be giving us advice but I have no idea what he means. The differences between true propositions and false propositions are relevant facts specified by the meanings of the propositions. And if you heed the correspondence theory, the difference is reality. So what are we doing by moving beyond these differences?

As for Mr Groothuis, I would like to see how he harmonises his particular theory of truth with moral truths, analytical truths and metalogical claims. What does a true theoretical statement about correspondence between true propositions and reality correspond with anyway? And why is reality left undefined? Leaving the door open to pixies?

John Snowden

Thanks for another excellent exposition of the truth issues in our society. When we ask the question, “What is truth?” I am convinced that we ought to move beyond the difference between falsehood and that which is the opposite, truth (not a lie).

Doug Groothuis has written a brief article whose emphasis I support: “What is truth?” (http://www.leaderu.com/theology/groothuis-truth.html) The article begins:

“When Pontius Pilate interrogated Jesus before his crucifixion, Jesus proclaimed that “Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.” (John 18:37). To this, Pilate replied “What is truth?” and immediately left Jesus to address the Jews who wanted Christ crucified (v. 38). As Francis Bacon wrote in his essay “On Truth,” “‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate; and would not stay for an answer.” Although we have no record of any reply by Jesus, Christians affirm that Pilate was staring Truth in the face, for Jesus had earlier said to Thomas, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life” (John 14:6).

“This exchange raises the perennial question of the nature of truth. What does it mean for a statement to be true? This has been a subject of much debate in postmodernist circles, where the traditional view of truth as objective and knowable is no longer accepted. Many even outside of academic discussions may be as cynical about truth as Pilate. “What is truth?” they smirk, without waiting for an answer. But unless we are clear about the notion of truth, any religious claim to truth–Christian or otherwise–will perplex more than enlighten. Before attempting to determine which claims are true, we need to understand the nature of truth itself.

“I will briefly argue for the correspondence view of truth and then pit it against two of its main rivals, relativism and pragmatism. The correspondence view of truth, held by the vast majority of philosophers and theologians throughout history until recently, holds that any statement is true if and only if it corresponds to or agrees with factual reality. The statement, “the desk in my study is brown,” is true only if there is, in fact, a brown desk in my study. The statement, “there is no brown desk in my study,” is false because it fails to correspond to any objective state of affairs (i.e., to the facts of the matter). . .”

Groothuis, in emphasising that truth is that which corresponds to reality, concludes that: “When this is established, we can move on to considering which particular statements are true and reasonable and which are not. Unlike Pilate, we can stay and listen to what Jesus has to say to us.”

In Christ,
Spencer Gear

Of course we’d need a church whose heart was breaking for the lost and which was clean and pure hearted so it could carry the weight of God’s glory…

Garth Penglase

Yes as I mention in my article, we certainly need to affirm both. As John Stott puts it “Our love for others is not to undermine our loyalty to the truth. On the other hand, we must never champion the truth in a harsh or bitter sprit. . . . Out love grows soft if it is not strengthened by truth, and our truth grows hard if it is not softened by love.”

As to your comment: “It seems to me that people will be more open if we first tell them that they are loved, and invite them to discover for themselves what Jesus really said, than if we first tell them how bad they are, or that they have broken a covenant that they had no idea about,” it seems you have provided the answer yourself with your earlier comment: “A wise man once said that in order for people to accept salvation, they first need to understand that they are in need of saving.”

Ultimately the good news of the Gospel makes no sense unless one first comprehends the bad news. As you say, how best to do all this is always a good question, and we need the Spirit’s leading as we talk to people. Different emphases may well be needed for different people.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

I think that the essence of the Gospel is love. Love without truth is, of course, not love. I agree that the church, and many of my Christian friends, are in grave danger of preaching a Christianity so beige that it cannot possibly make the difference that Jesus designed it to. I agree that we have chosen the soft option too many times.

However, I also think that if we only preach Christianity as truth based, then we risk alienating people before we start. A wise man once said that in order for people to accept salvation, they first need to understand that they are in need of saving. My generation do not believe that they need saving or rescuing (however misguided they might be!). They do not believe that they are lost. They do not believe that they are sinners.

What they do believe, and do acknowledge, is that they are lonely. That their lives are not achieving fullness of purpose. It is my generation who are picking up the call to abolish slavery in their generation, to attack climate change (whatever people’s thoughts on the validity of that issue), and to preserve the environment. I see in this a desire for purpose, to make a difference to something bigger than themselves.

It seems like a tough tightrope to walk, but perhaps if we preached a God who loves them, Jesus who died because he loves them, a Father who wants to give them a calling that will have an eternal legacy, an omnipotent God who says that they have value – exactly as they are – then maybe people would listen.
As the father of the prodigal son first hugged his son, and THEN changed his filthy clothes, so it is with God.

It is our job to understand this love, and preach this. It is also our job to be open and clear on what Jesus taught with no holds barred. But ultimately, it is God’s job to bring people to a place where they see their sin, and their need for forgiveness.

It seems to me, therefore, that a relational perspective on God would be a better place to start than a legal perspective. It seems to me that people will be more open if we first tell them that they are loved, and invite them to discover for themselves what Jesus really said, than if we first tell them how bad they are, or that they have broken a covenant that they had no idea about.

Both are obviously vital. The question for me is where to start.

Janna Becker

But you are being unnecessarily harsh on C.S. Lewis. Indeed, you seem to be misreading him. He certainly was not weak in his affirmation of the truthfulness of Christianity.

Bill Muehlenberg, CultureWatch

If Jesus believed that he would have said so and specified the age of consent. One of course can play endless word-games about what Jesus would have wanted or would have said. If he had met a Greek man “in love” with his adolescent boy, shacked up in Jerusalem, would he have encouraged it? When Christ’s early followers entered ancient Greece to preach and convert, with His words fresh in their minds, did they applaud the homosexual practices for which the Greeks had a reputation?

John Snowden