Is truth knowable?

Anne Elliott graciously sought to call me out on some of the things I wrote on Wednesday. Not only did she write a brief comment on my post, but she wrote a full-blown post on her own blog.

I really appreciate her taking the time. It provided me a wonderful opportunity to better understand some of the things that have disturbed her (and many of her readers, I'm sure!), and it spurred me to dig deeper and seek to speak more clearly about issues I've been groping toward for too long.

I tried to post a response on her blog, but it didn't appear right away. I don't want to duplicate my post. I do want to continue the discussion. So I figure I'll post a near copy of what I wrote for her blog here and, if what I posted doesn't appear on her post within a reasonable time, I will attempt to re-post there.

Anne referenced two of my recent posts here (God or science? God or man? and Understanding the Bible: Can we just read it? Or do we need to interpret it?) and seemed to imply that I "argued that we need to carefully listen to and converse with others who believe differently than we do, because how can we be sure that we are truly interpreting Scripture accurately?" And [I'm less confident I am understanding her accurately on this one; perhaps she was referencing someone else, but it seems pretty clear that] she implied that I was asking questions like, "Isn’t it wrong to accuse others of being wrong? Isn’t it possible that others are right and we are the ones who are wrong? Is it even possible to know truth at all?"

I urge you to read her entire post if you would, and then come back here to read the rest of my commentary/response.

Here's what I wrote:

Thank you, Anne, for your thoughtful, insightful, biblical analysis and commentary! . . .

I wanted to respond to a few things you said.

You referenced a blog post of mine in the midst of a series of questions. Because of their close juxtaposition, I thought it might behoove me to make clear (lest someone get the wrong idea):

• I believe we need both to "stand up for our beliefs" and to "carefully listen to and converse with others who believe differently than we do."
   
• I also believe we need to speak with humility lest we discover that we have interpreted--or we are interpreting Scripture inaccurately.
   
• You ask: "Isn't it wrong to accuse others of being wrong?" --My opinion/conviction (based on Scripture, culture, and common sense): No! Of course it is not wrong to accuse others of being wrong. But we had better be careful how we do it. Depending on the kind of error or evil or misdeed, and how sure we can be that we are perceiving the error/evil/misdeed accurately, we may need to alter the manner in which we make the accusation.
   
• "Isn’t it possible that others are right and we are the ones who are wrong?" --Absolutely! Of course!
   
• "Is it even possible to know truth at all?" --Yes. To deny such a thing is, in itself, to declare that one knows the truth. One knows the truth that it is impossible to know truth . . . which, of course, is logically inconsistent and self-refuting. I think the questions come down, more, to such things as: How sure can I be that I know what I think I know?

But before getting further into your post, I'd like to jump to the top of the paragraph from which I just quoted.

At the beginning of that paragraph, you say you wrote a blog post concerning "a Bible curriculum that claims that God's Word is subject to our own interpretation"--and you linked to your post about Peter Enns' curriculum.

!!!!????

Now, I am at a disadvantage compared to you. I have not read Enns' curriculum. (I have read his book Inspiration & Incarnation that eventually got him kicked off the faculty of Westminster Theological Seminary.) But I saw nothing in your original post, nor have I seen anything in Inspiration & Incarnation that would lead me to think the Bible curriculum "claims that God's Word is subject to our own interpretation."

Would you mind developing that theme a bit? Where and how does Enns' curriculum claim that God's Word is subject to individuals' own [personal? private?] interpretation?

Based on what you and, even more (primarily because she actually quoted Enns), LeaAnn Garfias wrote, I share a lot of your deep concern about and, potentially, antipathy for or towards Enns' curriculum. I am offended by some of the things he says. (Please, read my referenced post for the specifics.) But I don't see the basis--in your post or in LeaAnn's--for your charge that Enns advocates for the idea that God's Word is subject to our own [personal/private] interpretation.

I jump on that point a bit primarily because, if it is true that Enns' curriculum advocates for private interpretation, this is the first I've heard of it and, as far as I can see, your description of your post from a few weeks back is either defective in describing your post or it is defective in describing Enns' curriculum. I don't know which. But I sense it is defective.

I think that, in general, is what has disturbed me about many people's comments about Dr. Wile's post, too: Rather than paying close attention to what he actually said, they jump all over him for saying or advocating for things he did not say and for which he did not advocate (and never has advocated).

Then one last major concern.

In discussing your first basic belief, you write, "Most people believe that there is such a thing as truth, but they don’t believe that truth is knowable." I don't know the statistics about what people do or don't believe. I am comfortable with the idea that many people believe this way. But whether it is "many" or "most," I am disturbed at how you follow up that comment. Because while I, for example, believe there is truth and that truth is knowable (i.e., therefore, I am not a member of the "many" or "most" to which you refer), I find myself agreeing pretty wholeheartedly with almost everything you say in the next many lines.

If I may modify your statements slightly, I find myself agreeing with the following:

What feels like truth to me may actually not be truth. Maybe I don’t have all the facts. As Proverbs 18:17 says, “The first to present his case seems right, till another comes forward and questions him” (NIV).

Even our use of language is subject to error when we attempt to interpret each other's words. Many people are not capable of expressing their meaning adequately. How others interpret my words is subject to how they define them (including both denotation and connotation), and to the life experiences with which they filter what I say. They feel differently about some subjects--some words!--than I do. And so they may respond with fury and passion to something to which I might merely shrug my shoulders: "No big deal!"

When I hear others’ words, I have to realize that I haven’t lived in their shoes, so I may easily misjudge their meanings as well. We need to be careful about how we judge people's meanings and intentions.

Supposing that such concerns on my part at least parallel what you were trying to express, and supposing your next sentences were meant to describe people like me, I would want to object to your characterization of such thoughts, attitudes and behaviors as being "post-modern."

Post-modernism, as the article to which you linked notes, "emphasizes . . . that religious truth is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual" and declares that "[t]here is no absolute version of reality, no absolute truths."

I am convinced there is an absolute version of reality, there are absolute truths, and I do not believe that truth—even “religious truth”—“is highly individualistic, subjective and resides within the individual.” My beliefs may be highly individualistic and subjective. And my beliefs, of course, reside solely within me. (My beliefs are my beliefs, and they may match yours to a certain degree or, perhaps, even, very much. But it is highly (highly!) unlikely (I dare say, impossible) that the two of us will share all the same beliefs up and down the ladder. Our beliefs may be very highly correlated, but at some point, they will differ. If not in specific content, then, at least, in passion (you, perhaps, holding one item as having greater importance than I think it has).) But the truth--real, objective truth--is "out there"; it exists whether anyone believes it or not.

Being careful in one's speech; being attentive to the fact that I may misunderstand you; seeking clarification from and understanding of the thoughts, feelings, values and sensibilities (not to mention sensitivities) of those with whom I am trying to communicate does not mean I must validate (what post-moderns would call) their [supposed] "truth."

Once we get beyond these points in your post, I really appreciate the emphases and flow of your Scriptural meditations.

A couple of minor quibbles: You may be correct, but I have a feeling you may be speaking a bit anachronistically when you refer to "the 39 books of the 'Old Testament' canon" in Peter's day. (See this and this.) And I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the words Jesus spoke (John 14:16-17, 24) "were not subject to human interpretation."

Clearly, 2 Peter 1:20 teaches us that "no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation." And I agree with you when you say that the "[w]ords spoken in the past, in 'the holy prophets,' are to be taken as truth, as God’s very words and with His authority." But I'm not sure we would agree as to how that truth is to be applied, in practice.

If you or others among your [and, now, with this comment, "my"] readers would actually want me to affirm with amen's every other statement you make, I would do so gladly. Please assume that that is what I am doing (because I am).

The only other quibble I have in your entire post is with your statement, fourth paragraph down in the midst of your discussion of "We can know the truth," that God's holding you accountable for misinterpreting the Bible and/or teaching Scripture incorrectly "assumes, of course, that there is only one right interpretation of His Word, and . . . also . . . that God thinks I will be able to figure it out."

I'm not sure why God's hands would be tied with respect to holding you or anyone accountable in case He didn't think that the referenced person was able to figure out the correct interpretation! I think there have been and are many false prophets in the world whom God has neither called nor equipped either to understand or to teach the Scriptures. But/and He will still hold them accountable. He still holds us accountable. Indeed, I believe He will hold us accountable for what we teach not only by word, but by deed as well, and not only--as the Westminster Catechism differentiates them--the things we teach purposefully, by commission, but also the things we may teach inadvertently, perhaps, even, by omission.

So, yes, there is a very great load upon the shoulders of all of us who claim the name of Christ, because our very behavior is teaching someone "how a Christian lives."

Continuing on from that point, I "amen" all your statements . . . right to the very end.

******

Now. One last point that strikes me.

The issue that blasted Ham and Enns and Wile to the forefront of the debate that has rocked the American Christian homeschool world for the last few weeks had to do with certain statements Ham made about Enns. Most particularly, the manner in which Ham made his comments.

After reading your post to which I am here responding, I noticed your site lists a number of "Related Posts." I followed the link to your Is God's Law for Us Today? . . . and from there to a couple of your Headcovering posts (I also looked at your earlier post on the subject).

May I note that your attitude, your demeanor, your approach, your words are very different from Mr. Ham's. I don't see or hear you "thundering from the mountain" about how all of us who eat pork, or who [among the women] don't cover our heads during church services, or who [among the women] actually wear pants (and/or panties), etc., etc. . . . --I don't see or hear you "thundering from the mountain" about how we are all "compromisers," "biblioskeptics," people who follow a "false ‘Christianity’ that glorifies man & the world’s kingdom & humanly imagined ’solutions,’" and so on and so forth.

Why is that?

Why don't you use the kind of language Ham uses toward any- and everyone whose teaching does not conform to his perspective on the age of the earth and his perspective on the manner in which God created the universe?

Is it because you believe our [Christians'] convictions about the age of the earth and the manner in which God created the universe is so much more important than what we [husbands and wives and members of the Christian community] eat and how we dress and how we behave in church?

Somehow, I don't think so. I imagine it may have something to do with your (rightful) understanding that, as important as some of these practices are to you, and as helpful as you have found some of these things to be in your own walk with the Lord, you recognize that maybe your view is not binding on the church as a whole. Maybe. And/or, maybe, despite the fact that you have found yourself drawn to these practices out of the very words of Scripture, maybe (it is possible that) these are not issues worthy of breaking fellowship over. They really don't quite merit you charging others with teaching "heresy" if they disagree with you.

And one last set of comments.

It is interesting to me that I don't find any Young-Earth Creationists (including Ham and company) charging anyone with "compromise" for advocating the (non-Biblically-based) modern (scientifically-based) Copernican cosmology. Nor do I find them charging people with biblioskepticism for advocating the (non-Biblically-based) idea of a non-solid firmament. Yet they themselves promote these non-Biblical ideas. And they use arguments that really have nothing to do with Scripture and—ultimately—everything to do with the scientific discoveries of the past few hundred years.

What’s really strange: As they adopt the exact same exegetical methods that they denounce when used by Old-Earth Creationists, they then turn around to blast their newfound “Bible-only” opponents as—you won't believe this!—“compromisers.” Of course! Kind of strange how they set themselves up as always right, no matter what methodology they follow, while their opponents are always wrong . . . even if and as the opponents use the methodology advocated 99 percent of the time by Ham and friends. . . .

Finally, while we're at it, I'd like to question why no one charges Christian medical personnel of using "a brain and reasoning powers distorted by the curse" (Dr. John Morris of the Institute for Creation Research), "a fallible methodology of sinful humans" (Dr. Danny Faulkner in an article published in the Creation Technical Journal), or "impos[ing] ideas from the outside" on the Word of God (Ken Ham) when said medical personnel permit modern scientific inquiry to modify the clear biblical teaching about how we are "knit together" by God in our mother's wombs (Psalm 139:13).

To be consistent, shouldn't we--beginning with Morris, Faulkner and Ham--be up in arms for such "compromise"? After all, there is nothing in Scripture to give us any reason to doubt that God really and truly, literally, "knits us together"! So why do we not charge these (obviously secular, God-hating??) embryologists and obstetrician-gynecologists with pursuing that which is "falsely called knowledge" (1 Timothy 6:20) when they tell us about sperm and egg and mitosis and meiosis and all the other details of what they call the "birthing process"?

Similarly when it comes to meteorology: Is there a biblical basis for calling into question the "obvious" teaching of Genesis 7:11; 8:2; Deuteronomy 28:12; Job 38:22; Psalm 135:7; Jeremiah 10:13; etc. concerning where the rain and snow and wind really come from and how they are made to impact us when and where they do?

Based on the testimony of Morris, Faulkner and Ham, shouldn't we charge any- and everyone who speaks of the water cycle and all the naturalistic means by which modern scientists seek to explain the action of the wind . . . --Shouldn't we charge such people with sacrilege for their ungodly, "scientific," man-made explanations of these phenomena? Aren't they preaching atheism when they refuse to acknowledge that God is in control? "God said it; I believe it; that settles it": yes?

Or no?

Ultimately, if Morris, Faulkner, Ham and their followers are to be consistent, do they really leave any room for scientific inquiry?

The fact is, I know of no one--even the most devout, Bible-believing Christian--who gets upset when meteorologists create computer models and use Doppler radar and thermometers and all the other instruments of modern meteorology to predict the weather for us . . . despite the fact that Scripture clearly teaches us that God controls the weather. And, as far as I'm aware, none of us gets upset when geneticists and embryologists and other students of human development study how human beings reproduce . . . despite the fact that, we are told, it is God who knits us together in our mothers' wombs. Similarly, we don't turn to Scripture in order to understand planetary motion or how to send a rocket into outer space . . . despite the fact that, again, the Bible tells us God placed the sun, moon and stars where He wanted and controls their motion by His will.

If we don't become upset about these scientific inquiries that call into question the literal meaning of words like raqiya ("firmament"--now "expanse"); or the idea that our bodies are, somehow, literally knit together directly by the hand of God; or the idea that God has literal storehouses for the wind and rain and literal floodgates for water: why do we become upset about the studies and discoveries of scientists who believe they have found evidence that calls into question the idea that God spoke and--bam! instantaneously--"it was"? Why should we out of hand, without any willingness to consider the evidence, determine that such non-literal interpretations absolutely cannot be true?

Please understand: I am open to evidence and arguments on both sides--evidence and arguments of the same nature and presented with the same humility and grace that you show in your posts about abstaining from pork and wearing a headcovering. I find it rather off-putting, however, to be confronted by people like Mr. Ham who are unwilling and/or unable to permit anyone to call their views into question and who, instead, prefer always to maintain an attack mode: "You question my teaching? Then you are 'not just compromising Genesis, [but you are teaching] outright liberal theology that totally undermines the authority of the Word of God. [Your views are] an attack on the Word—on Christ.'"