07 Jan The Truths of Historic Christian Faith

Introduction: In the contemporary global culture, especially in its cultural theory, no idea is more unpopular than that of absolute truth. The phrase ‘absolute truth’ smacks of dogmatism, authoritarianism, a belief in the timeless and universal. The culture in which we are living (both locally and globally) is so much against the notions of 1) absolute and exclusive truth and 2) uniqueness of one religion among the many that they are meted with antagonism and rejection. Many years ago, an Indian and a global figure, Ravi Zacharias described the culture in these words: “Philosophically you can believe anything as long as you don’t claim it to be true. Morally you can practice anything as long as you don’t claim it is a better way. Religiously you can hold on to anything as long as you don’t bring Christ into it.” It is against this backdrop that we are considering our (UESI) third aim (this is also the fourth aim of NEGF) of raising a testimony to the truths of the historic Christian faith and to present the message there of as the solution for the problems of mankind, covering whole of life.
We can see straight away the religious, philosophical, political, and cultural context in which we are called to present, represent, and stand for the truths of the historic Christian faith, is post-Christian and post-truth society. It is a very challenging task now than ever before and therefore, we need to think and act very clearly, critically, and strategically.

In this essay or article, our aim is to learn i) the logic of truth, ii) the truths of the historic Christian faith, iii) raising testimony to the truths (or creating a plausibility structure to prepare the ground for evangelism or witnessing, which is our first aim), and iv) showing the message of the truths of the historic Christian faith as the solution for all human problems.

The Logic of Truth: “All roads lead to Rome and so any way will get you there” is a statement of Religious Pluralism, according to which, different religions are likened to different routes to the same destiny. Similarly, some hold that religions are like rivers and just as different rivers ultimately merge with the same ocean, different religions take us to the same God. It is said that just as we can reach the top of a mountain from different sides, we can reach God by choosing one of the many religious routes that are available. In this context, any exclusive claims are considered as expressions of outmoded thinking and of narrow-mindedness and religious bigotry.

In a context like this, we should draw the attention of people to ‘the truth about truth’ by helping them to grasp ‘the logic of truth’. The most fundamental law of logic, the law of non-contradiction shows that truth is narrow and excludes falsehood. Truth never contradicts itself. Any statement that contradicts itself can never be true. When we are dealing with contradictories, it must be either A or non-A, but never both A and non-A. We can apply this logic of truth to the many different claims that people make about truth and evaluate them.

A. Truth – Different Views: We will consider the first set of statements expressing different possible views that a person could possibly hold about truth and the questions that will help us to evaluate their validity.

1. “There is nothing called the truth.”
Let us consider this statement. Is this true or the truth? If this is not true, then the claimer is giving us a false statement (and we need not take it seriously). Even if it is true that “there is nothing called truth,” it still means the same thing (i.e., it cannot be true, because it contradicts itself). This means that there is some truth and this is inescapable.

2. “All views about truth are false or wrong.”
Is this also false or wrong? If ‘yes’ then we do not have to pay attention. But if ‘no’ then the claimer is contradicting himself and her view cannot be true. This means that some view of truth must be true or right.

3. “All views about truth are equally valid or true.”
What about the first two views? If they are true, then this cannot be true! Therefore, we must conclude that some views of truth are better than other views.

4. “Some views about truth are or must be better than other views.”
When can we use the words ‘better’ or ‘worse’ (or words like ‘taller’ or ‘shorter’ etc.) meaningfully? Only when there is an objective standard against which things are compared can we use the word ‘better’ meaningfully. Therefore, there must be a standard, one unchanging reality or view, the Absolute. So, absolute truth is inescapable. All truth or truth claims cannot be relative and there must be some absolute truth.

B. Truth – Different Views about Its Knowability and Nature: Now we will consider a second set of statements expressing different views about truth, especially its knowability and nature that one can possibly hold.
1. “We cannot know anything about truth or any truth.”
Do you know this? If ‘yes’, then the claimer is contradicting himself. If ‘no’ then he is not really offering anything for us to consider. Therefore, we must conclude that we can know something about truth and some truth. This is inescapable.
2. “We have to doubt everything or every view or every truth claim.”
Should we doubt this view? If ‘yes’ then you are not offering us any solid truth. If ‘no’ you are contradicting yourself. If we must doubt every claim, then we must doubt this claim too. Therefore, we must conclude that we must believe in something. This conclusion is inescapable.
3. “All truth is relative, a matter of one’s own perspective.”
This is that claim that there is nothing called truth which is truth for all and all claims about truth or truth-claims are equally valid. This is a denial of the claim that truth is objective and hence the same for all.
What about this statement? Is it just the claimer’s perspective or is he telling others that this is true? You see, if it is just his perspective, then he should not or need not tell it out. The fact he is telling it out shows that he is offering it to others and it is no longer just his private and subjective opinion. Therefore, we must conclude that all truth is not relative and a matter of one’s own perspective and that there is some truth that is objective and hence truth for all.
Based on the foregone analysis, we conclude that there must be some truth that is truth for all. If there is no truth that is truth for all, we cannot live harmoniously as human beings. For example, if there is no moral truth (we should not harm others or kill others), there will be moral and existential chaos and life cannot be lived. So, all truth cannot be relative and there must be some truth that is truth for all. And hence absolute. But what is truth? What do we mean by the words ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ or ‘true’ and ‘false’?

C. Truth and Falsehood: What are they?
Truth is the characteristic of a statement or proposition where what is stated by it corresponds to reality. On the contrary, false means that what is stated or affirmed by a statement does not correspond to reality. But this raises another question: What then is reality? That which is, is real. Reality is that which is (or that which exists) or the real state of affairs. Reality is objective in the sense that it is outside of us or exists independent of us. Here is what a great philosopher of the past, Aristotle, said about truth and falsehood:
“To say what is, is, is truth,
To say what is not, is not, is truth,
To say what is, is not, is false, and
To say what is not, is, is false.”
This is simple (free from philosophical or complex jargon) and yet very profound. This is not simplistic. This brings great clarity. However, what are the characteristics of truth and falsehood? Let me explain them briefly.

D. Truth and Falsehood: What are their Characteristics?
Truth is absolute (not relative to an individual or culture or society), objective (not subjective or private to an individual but accessible to others also), and universal (applies to all). It is the same for all people in all places. It does not change from place to place, person to person, culture-to-culture, and country to country. But it might change from time to time if the reality itself changes. For example, the statement “Sudhakar Mondithoka is not married” was true until the 21st of September 1991, but not true after that.

Falsehood is not the same for all people (not absolute) in the sense that it can come in any number of forms. But what is false is also false to all people, whether they know it or not or accept it or not.

Let us now consider a final set of statements about truth that seem to give us, or comment on the ultimate basis for truth:
Truth is true – even if no one knows it.
Truth is true – even if no one admits it.
Truth is true – even if no one agrees what it is.
Truth is true – even if no one follows it.
Truth is true – even if no one, but God grasps it fully.

If we apply the logic of truth (which says that two contradictory or incompatible statements cannot be true at the same time and in the same sense, and that truth is the same for all) to the issue if all religions are the same, it will become obvious very quickly that all religions are not the same. They might look the same superficially, but they are different fundamentally and even contradictory. There are superficial similarities but fundamental differences between religions. Therefore, we must conclude that exclusive and unique truth claims, like the biblical-Christian claims or the claims of Jesus Christ to be the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6) do make sense. We cannot complain about such truth claims. We should examine them to see if they are supported by evidence and if they are corresponding to the reality and hence true. If they are found to be true, we must accept them. If not reject them. With this frame work in place, we can present the unique and exclusive claims of Christianity and Christ and invite people to honestly and objectively consider their validity. However, what are the essential truths of the historic Christian faith? It is to this question that we will turn our attention now.

II. The Truths of the Historic Christian Faith: We are now turning our attention to what we believe, and where those beliefs come from, because unless we know what we believe, we cannot know why we believe and hence cannot raise a testimony to these truths or true beliefs. The Bible is the ultimate source of the truths of the historic Christian faith. For the evangelical Christians the world over, the Bible is the ultimate authority in all matters of faith (or belief) and practice (or behaviour and conduct). One of the 5 Solas that guided the Protestant Reformation Movement was ‘Sola Scriptura’ (Scripture Alone).

Historically, these truths have been distilled and codified in the form of the Creeds of Christendom and Faith Statements and Catechisms. Many Protestant denominations and seminaries and Bible Colleges also have their doctrinal positions and statements (like we have our 10 essential doctrines). We will do well to refer to these Creeds that have been developed in the history of Christianity or Christian church through Church Councils to most faithfully represent the truths taught in the Bible, the Word of God. What are some of the most important truths of the historic Christian Faith that unite all true Christians and for which we need to raise a testimony? We will list them in the footnote and refer to them in the following sections. But now we will focus on the most important aspect of raising testimony to the truths of Christianity.
Raising Testimony to the Truths of the Historic Christian Faith:
Showing the Message of the Truths of Historic Christian Faith as the Solution to All Human Problems
(Sections No. III & IV will be covered in a forth coming issue of CL)

Rev. Sudhakar Mondithoka is the Principal and Faculty in Apologetics and World Religions at HITHA (Hyderabad Institute of Theology and Apologetics). He is married to Mrs. M. Santa Kumari, Academic Dean and Faculty in Theology at HITHA and their son, Mr. Samuel Susheel is a singer-song writer and is pursuing BS Psychology at Biola University, USA. They have been a part of the UESI family for 45 years.