12.19.05
Posted in faith, philosophy at 10:27 am by brandon
Lately, some questions have been raised about my committment to the concept of “truth”. It’s been assumed that since I’m progressive, and since I swear from time to time–I guess the logic goes that I don’t believe in truth. Well, I thought it only fair that I should be able to respond to these allegations, and, because I was planning on doing a bit of writing on reformed Christianity anyway, I thought I’d start by talking about one of the first tenents of this breed of Christianity: Total depravity.
I’d like to issue a disclaimer, however. I’m no theologian, nor am I a philosopher. I’m merely doing what people do on blogs. Waxing about the things that interest me. You probably shouldn’t read this post or other posts in my upcoming series about reformed Christianity as any sort of definitive statement about the belief system; I’m just telling y’all about what I beleive about total depravity and the concept of truth.
What does total depravity have to do with truth, you ask? Good question. I hope to get there by the end of this post. Sit tight.
First, though, what ISN’T total depravity. Total depravity doesn’t mean that everything in all of creation is totally and utterly overcome by sin. That’s probably the most common misconception about total depravity, that it’s saying that everything, everybody is dross, meaningless, worthless. That’s not really the idea at all.
Rather, total depravity argues that there’s nothing in all of creation, in all of humanity that hasn’t been touched by sin. This is a pretty straightforward concept for Christians. Pretty much everybody believes that we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it’s not hard to make that argument.
So, what’s this all have to do with truth? Well, if everybody has been touched by sin, and I think that that’s a pretty fair estimation of the way things are, then the idea of anybody really knowing the truth–completely, that is–is a little arrogant. I think it’s arrogant because by claiming that you ‘have’ the truth, you’ve got to also believe that you’re above sin.
Now, the obvious counterargument to this is that you’ve gotten your truth straight from scripture. The problem with this counterargument is not that scripture is untrue. The problem is that people, sinful people, have to interpret scripture. Thus, we end up with a bunch of people running around claiming that from the same place they’ve found opposite truths.
My understanding of reformed Christianity leads me to a place where I believe that there IS absolute truth. (This, of course, is contrary to popular–or at least loud–opinion.) But, while I do believe in absolute truth, I don’t believe that humans have the capability to know that truth completely, because they’re fallen, sinful little creatures.
Of course, just because I don’t believe that we can ever completely know the truth, doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in truth, or that I don’t think we can know some truth, or even that I don’t think we should try to pursue truth. In fact, I do think we need to pursue truth, even if grasping that truth in its entirity is unaccomplishable.
So, the moral of the story is that anybody who infers that I don’t believe in absolute truth is blowing smoke out of their ass, and they don’t have a fucking idea what they’re talking about.
Part two of this series will examine the modes and settings by which and in which we pursue truth.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Total Depravity, Truth.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/12/19/reformed_christianity_and_truth/trackback/
Posted in faith, philosophy at 10:27 am by brandon
Lately, some questions have been raised about my committment to the concept of “truth”. It’s been assumed that since I’m progressive, and since I swear from time to time–I guess the logic goes that I don’t believe in truth. Well, I thought it only fair that I should be able to respond to these allegations, and, because I was planning on doing a bit of writing on reformed Christianity anyway, I thought I’d start by talking about one of the first tenents of this breed of Christianity: Total depravity.
I’d like to issue a disclaimer, however. I’m no theologian, nor am I a philosopher. I’m merely doing what people do on blogs. Waxing about the things that interest me. You probably shouldn’t read this post or other posts in my upcoming series about reformed Christianity as any sort of definitive statement about the belief system; I’m just telling y’all about what I beleive about total depravity and the concept of truth.
What does total depravity have to do with truth, you ask? Good question. I hope to get there by the end of this post. Sit tight.
First, though, what ISN’T total depravity. Total depravity doesn’t mean that everything in all of creation is totally and utterly overcome by sin. That’s probably the most common misconception about total depravity, that it’s saying that everything, everybody is dross, meaningless, worthless. That’s not really the idea at all.
Rather, total depravity argues that there’s nothing in all of creation, in all of humanity that hasn’t been touched by sin. This is a pretty straightforward concept for Christians. Pretty much everybody believes that we’ve all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, it’s not hard to make that argument.
So, what’s this all have to do with truth? Well, if everybody has been touched by sin, and I think that that’s a pretty fair estimation of the way things are, then the idea of anybody really knowing the truth–completely, that is–is a little arrogant. I think it’s arrogant because by claiming that you ‘have’ the truth, you’ve got to also believe that you’re above sin.
Now, the obvious counterargument to this is that you’ve gotten your truth straight from scripture. The problem with this counterargument is not that scripture is untrue. The problem is that people, sinful people, have to interpret scripture. Thus, we end up with a bunch of people running around claiming that from the same place they’ve found opposite truths.
My understanding of reformed Christianity leads me to a place where I believe that there IS absolute truth. (This, of course, is contrary to popular–or at least loud–opinion.) But, while I do believe in absolute truth, I don’t believe that humans have the capability to know that truth completely, because they’re fallen, sinful little creatures.
Of course, just because I don’t believe that we can ever completely know the truth, doesn’t mean that I don’t believe in truth, or that I don’t think we can know some truth, or even that I don’t think we should try to pursue truth. In fact, I do think we need to pursue truth, even if grasping that truth in its entirity is unaccomplishable.
So, the moral of the story is that anybody who infers that I don’t believe in absolute truth is blowing smoke out of their ass, and they don’t have a fucking idea what they’re talking about.
Part two of this series will examine the modes and settings by which and in which we pursue truth.
Tags: Reformed Christianity, Total Depravity, Truth.
Permalink
Trackback URL »
http://www.badchristian.com/2005/12/19/reformed_christianity_and_truth/trackback/
Jason said,
December 19, 2005 at 4:29 pm
Brandon-
Decent rendition on the Reformed emphasis on sin and its relationship to total depravity. Moreover, a nice Platonic view of truth. IE- there are ideal “forms” out there, but we can only experience incomplete “reflections” of those forms. Much of this speaks to innate knowledge, that there is something within us that knows of an absolute perfect form, and realizes that our experiences of that form are merely poor reflections. I would add that Calvin wants to call sin pervasive and that all things that proceed from people is “to be imputed to sin.” Total depravity, for Calvin and the Reformed Church, means that sin is so pervasive that we are unable, as fallable human beings, to choose what is right through our own willpower. Moreover, sin is not just a personal thing. Sin is an economic, justice, oppression thing as well. Corporate sin flows from the individual dastardly decisions that each of us makes or refuses to make (a sin of silence is equal to a sin of action).
I wonder if you take things far enough regarding truth and scripture though. I agree with your idea that interpreters of scripture are sinful and thus prone to make mistakes regarding the “truth” interpreted when scripture is heard or read. However, I would like to see you take your argument to the writers of scripture as well, for they are not beyond reproach. I am talking about those who formed the initial texts (the Greek and Hebrew ones, not the crappy KJV that is full of so many errors and inconsistencies that its interpretation is sometimes laughable) who are sinful as well. Moreover, those bishops who formed the Canon that we swear by were sinful and left out many books that could have been helpful to the Christian church. The scribes that copied texts, inserting their own interpretations and stories in order for the whole of the Canon to “work a little better” were sinful. This is not to cast doubt on the importance of an INSPIRED Canon for the faithful. Rather, it is to draw attention to the ways we choose to see the Canon.
Biblioidolatry is the fundamental way we make scripture into something sinful. To hold onto the Bible as an ultimate source of truth, is to rob it of any power it may have to change the world. Much of our interpretation today borders on, if not blatantly stems from, Biblioidolatry. We can’t help it, especially when we think of the Canon as inerrant. Scripture is the product of a particular time and place, a particular culture and author with particular points of view. Moreover, scripture is timeless, because it tells a story, through the myths, legends, poetry and prose, of a love affair between God and all things of this world.
This leads me to wonder, if the Reformed emphasis on total depravity is applied to all who have shaped the Canon throughout the years, How should we understand its significance today? Moreover, where does your idea of absolute truth come from? I am not so much concerned with what the idea is, as how you know it to be a form of absolute truth.
Thanks for the fodder to ponder…
grace and peace
Brandon said,
December 19, 2005 at 4:58 pm
Frankly, Jason, I left out your suggestion intentionally. Not because I disagree with your assertion about the doctrine of total depravity applying to the writers of scripture. Honestly, I agree.
It’s just an argument that, for the purposes of this series, I didn’t want to dive into.
That’s not to say that it is an argument that shouldn’t happen. It should! I just hadn’t wanted to get into it here because I think it might just take away from the greater discussion about a contemporary interpretation of truth.
In response to your points, though, I would agree that the writers of scripture–in their writing of scripture–were subject to the touches of sin insomuch as they rarely saw the big picture. In the case of scripture, though, I think this effect was attenuated by the good ole’ holy spirit.
However, I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the matter, too, Jason!
Audrey said,
December 19, 2005 at 7:05 pm
What is truth?
Pilate asked that question almost 2000 years ago, and it is one that still troubles us today.
If you want to take a classical logical view, there are two sorts of truth. There are axioms, and there are theorems. Theorems are derived truths: they rely for their validity on the axioms, the rules of the logical system, and on previously derived theorems.
From a logical viewpoint, absolute truths correspond to axioms. The problem with axioms is that you can’t question them without deriving a whole new system of thought, like Noneuclidean Geometry. The same holds true for the rules of inference, although it appears that the results of mucking around with the rules of inference is extend or restrict the system of thought. And example of this is Constructive Analysis, which (among other things) denies the validity of proof by contradiction, demanding instead that all proof show how to construct the object in question.
Now, by analogy, if you accept that there is an absolute truth (as opposed to truths contingent on the truth of your axiom system) what you have done is to change the logical system. Your change denies the validity of questioning the axiom system, at least insofar as the absolute truth(s) is(are) concerned.
This was done in geometry for about 400 years, when people believed with Edna St Vincent Millay that, “Euclid alone has look’d on beauty bare.” When you compare Euclid’s parallel axiom (There is exactly one line through a point not on a given line which is parallel to the given line) to the others (There is at least one line through any point; A line can be extended indefinitely; etc.) it’s clear that the parallel axiom is really tortured.
People tried for centuries to prove the parallel axiom as a theorem from the remaining 9 nine axioms, but never succeeded. They didn’t succeed because the parallel axiom does not depend on the other nine. There are two other possibilities: there are no lines parallel to the given line (Riemann Geometries), or there are many lines parallel to the given line (Lobachevskii-Bolyai Geometries.) [Pedantic note: Riemann geometries require a slight modification in another axiom: while lines can be extended indefinitely they have finite lengths.]
As long as people were hooked on the idea of proving not only that Euclid (and all the Greeks and other ancients whose work Euclid summarized) got it right, but got the only possible right answer, there was no way to discover Noneuclidean Geometry.
I guess the moral of this dissipation (if there is a moral) is that finite beings ought to be really careful about declaring absolute truth. Once you do, you pretty much can check your mind along with your coat and hat. I happen to think that one of God’s most marvelous gifts is the gift of reason and so I want to be extra-cautious about denying it a paramount position in our lives.
Audrey
[Note: Audrey posted this elsewhere, but I thought it was probably intended to be placed here, so I moved it. Apologies if this is not what you meant, Audrey.
–Brandon]
jeff said,
December 19, 2005 at 11:20 pm
Brandon,
I think most would agree that scripture was inspired by God, originally. However, much has been said concerning the concept that as mortal man translated and re-translated the scriptures, much of its accuracy was somewhat lost-in-translation.
Do you feel the “good ole’ holy spirit” could have protected the original inspiration, even through multiple translations?
just curious…
Brandon said,
December 19, 2005 at 11:26 pm
Helluva good question, Jeff.
If I had a definitive answer, I’d probably be famous and popular.
My position is that the good ole’ holy spirit (gohs) did, in fact, play a role in the translation of scripture. I believe that the message–the gospel–was preserved.
Today, I believe that the scriptures still offer the key to understanding the righted relationship between humans and God. That’s been preserved, certianly.
I get more fuzzy beyond that.
Audrey said,
December 20, 2005 at 1:47 am
Brandon,
Yes, I meant to post it here. Thanks for moving it. I really don’t know how it ended up in the other thread.
Audrey
Christine said,
December 20, 2005 at 10:30 am
Brandon,
Agreed.
meg said,
December 21, 2005 at 11:01 pm
Well done, good and faithful Reformed Christian. I agree.
As to the inspiration of Scripture: I don’t find it especially helpful to place the inspiration of Scripture in the original autographs precisely because we have no copies of these texts. I think we ought to rely on the fact that if “the good ol holy spirit” was capable of the original inspiration, she has also preserved it all along the way (take, as an analogy, that God not only elects but also PRESERVES the saints.)
jeff m said,
December 22, 2005 at 1:08 am
You may have heard the expression “Scripture is the best interpreter of Scripture.” I use a Bible that has countless cross-references, or links, to other passages throughout the whole Bible. This provides an excellent correcting tool so I stay on course.
I also regularly read from the full Bible. This keeps me in a full perspective on what God is saying.
This doesn’t always work in group study, but it’s practical for individual reading.
goingape said,
December 22, 2005 at 11:08 am
Okay, so all ya’ll wise and faithful help me out. I’m not reformed..because I do believe while God has to do the work for us to reach beyond our depravity and see Jesus, Grace, Truth (insert any churchy Godspeak term here). However, it does not seem to me that we are without choice in the matter. I think that we can reject God, even if our eyes are opened to God’s Truth. Now, I am not trying to defend this statement or belief, as much as I am attempting to understand how one can be both Reformed and hold this belief, or if there is some theological somersalt that I’m missing.
meg said,
December 22, 2005 at 11:26 am
GoingApe,
you raise a good question which I, as a reformed seminarian, ought to be able to answer so let me see if I can. . .
I don’t think the question of election and human volition is an either/or. Rather, I think its better concieved as a “which comes first?” From our perspective it certainly looks and feels as though we make all kinds of free choices but, being Reformed means, that we acknowledge God working behind the scenes enacting it.
That’s the way I tend to short-hand reconcile the two. I also highly recommend Richard Mouw’s book, Calvinism in the Las Vegas Airport - maybe during school break?
Brandon said,
December 22, 2005 at 11:27 am
Hang in there Nicole. I hope to tackle this and other issues as I progress further in this series. Hopefully today!