Essay: Contending for Truth…(Part 1)

Those of you that follow me or are familiar with my writings know that Truth, or defending Truth, is a huge part of my life and my lifestyle. Some readers and casual thinkers may see this is a huge waste of time and energy. There are several conclusions one could draw about that. It could be that they have conceded to form their personal philosophy and worldview around the popular ideology of Post-Modernism.   This and other philosophies are rooted in extracting Absolutes from their foundation. The thinking is that it is too difficult to determine Truth because their are so many opinions and variables to consider.

I can distinctly remembering during my formative years being told by skeptics that there was no such thing as Truth. These intellectual pacifists and non-confrontational people proclaimed that there are 2 topics that are off-base for all relational conversation and small talk: God and Politics. The reasoning behind these claims is that there will be disagreement and conflict in your personal relationships if you engage in the 3 topics I just mentioned.

This passive ideology has led to the Rise of Political Correctness and Tolerance; an infestation of improbable moral (double) standards and unsustainable (top heavy) intellectual censorship of those who cannot and will not believe everything and nothing at the same time. (I do not disagree that prejudice exists but to the extent that this movement has risen is ridiculous. It disallows any thoughts other than those the the movement deems tolerable.)

Like I said in my recent essay, Sacred, if you remove any moral and ethical absolutes you must replace it with a convention that merits the same universality that is inherent in Truth. What we have is the exact opposite; we have replaced “God & Politics” with “Tolerance & Political correctness.” We have substituted Truth for Nothing can be Truth. The (unrealistic) payoff is that there will be no contention or strife because everyone’s beliefs are deemed equal, even if they are unequivocally wrong. Like it or not there is  always a wrong and a right, and everyone is aware of it consciously or subconsciously . Truth is the omnipresent elephant in every room.

I am wrong for thinking that there is Absolute Truth?

If I am, then that means that I am promoting a false ideology and that the philosophy and opinion that “there can be no Truth” is actually the Truth. How can an argument be true that declares there is no Truth? It contradicts itself in to insolvency.

It can take years to weed through the verbiage of the intelligent commentary and convoluted propaganda of Post-Modern/Post-Logical Reasoning. These self-contradicting statements should be easier to spot than they are, but my filter (and yours) had been smudged with sin, anger, disdain, rejection, etc.. I have found that the necessity of Forgiveness has allowed me to see more clearly and to tackle other erroneous philosophies. Christianity is not about me or you, but about the person of Jesus Christ. Stop and think about that statement for a minute…

A few years ago I also threw off the chains of Post-Logical Christianity that says, “don’t study Theology. Theology is dry and Spiritless. Only those who want to puff up their pride and their egos spend hours studying the Word, philosophy, and commentaries. Real Christians spent time in prayer and listening to the Holy Spirit for wisdom”. The thought is that some how Logic and Reason are enemies of the Spirit. This is erroneous and dangerous thinking, as it lends itself to people being more susceptible to Spiritual abuse. Many Christians have been wounded by leaders who deviated from Christ and promoted themselves and their ministries, declaring their words to be direct from God when they contradicted the Bibles basic teachings. These floundering Christians are left with no defense because for years they ate only what the Pastor or Teacher feed them, they didn’t know the Word or God for themselves. Fear and laziness can destroy the understanding of Truth within a generation.

I recently re-read Proverbs, and in the first chapter I was blown away by what was said,

1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:

for gaining wisdom and instruction;
for understanding words of insight;
for receiving instruction in prudent behavior,
doing what is right and just and fair;
for giving prudence to those who are simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young—
let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance—
for understanding proverbs and parables,
the sayings and riddles of the wise.

The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,
but fools despise wisdom and instruction.

It says that only fools despise wisdom and instruction, and that the wise listen, learn, and discern for guidance and understanding. They use this understanding and guidance to reason out proverbs, parables, and riddles of the wise. Proverbs goes on to say in chapter 4:7 (NIV New International Version)

“Wisdom is supreme; therefore get wisdom. Though it cost all you have, get understanding.”

Understanding and learning are spiritual disciplines and should be viewed as such.

1 Peter alludes to this gaining of understanding and wisdom in a much more logical way.

“But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:” (1 Peter 3:15)

The word “answer” here is not just a response or a reply, it is “apologia” in the Greek text. This is the word from which we derive “APOLOGETICS“. It means “answer (for self), clearing of self, defense“. So, if we read the scripture correctly and understand it correctly, then we should know that we should be ready to give a defense of ourselves and our worldview to every man that asks for it…but we need present it with humility and grace. We are all at the same disadvantage of being slaves to sin, even those who are Christians still battle the same urges, thoughts, and consequences of sin as everyone else; Grace doesn’t make us better or worthy, it is a gift given despite of our unworthiness…because of the worthiness of Jesus Christ.

The misconception is that if you are free from constraints of disciplined or learned theology and just “Spirit-led” in your theology. This some how makes you not responsible for the content of your faith, only that you believe it to be true. There is no self-discipline that is require to make sure that you actually understand the answer that you have been “given” (by the Spirit) and are giving as a defense. This mostly leaves us regurgitating Christian-catch phrases we’ve heard in church or using analogies that have been run through the filter of our unproven and untested worldview, leaving ungodly and non-Christian dogmas being proselytized.

Can you answer this simple question, do you know what you actually believe? and can you defend all of your beliefs?

It may be that you have a mismatch or Heinz 57 worldview that contradicts itself on multiple fronts.

For example, have you ever said, “…there is no such thing as Truth.” Is that absolutely true?

Or ,”It is deplorable for someone to think or say that there is such a thing as good and evil.” Really?

Did you just say that?

Should I have the court reporter read that statement back to you?

Here is what you said, “It’s wrong and offensive for you to belief in the existence of absolute good and evil / right and wrong..because that allows you to judge other’s opinions absolutely, and I don’t like that…but I want to judge and discredit you by the same criteria that I criticized you for expressing, because I think I am right.” The grounds for sound judgment are dissolved by the reason of your disregard for logic and your unmitigated agenda to free yourself from the constraints of Truth. Truth is so true that it can not be refuted, nor can a person by mere suggestion free themselves from the very Truth that allows their existence and unfounded suggestions.

I am well aware of the plethora of intelligent persons who have argued before me and have come to understand varying and different conclusions than I am proposing. Understanding Truth has little to do with IQ and more to do with the person’s philosophical filter; all of our thoughts, actions, and spoke words are born from our philosophy and worldview. It is impossible to be impartial to incoming information or data, as it must first be filtered through our brain which is programmed with our personal philosophy and worldview. If your filter is wrong then even correct or true data will be twisted and tainted by your worldview. This is even more true if the data comes from another person who bent the information to the direction of their misguided tendencies and leanings. Even the simplest person can understand Absolute Truth, but only a few hyper-learned people can concoct or promulgate ideologies that are merely distracting riddles based on metaphysical rebellion; in short they are mad at God and use their anger and free will to rebel against Him. It may take years to find the Roots of a philosophy but in the end they will lead to a few conclusions:

  • Man is inherently Good
  • Man is his/her own savior
  • Rebellion against God (Christian God) is necessary to ensure true autonomy

(I will explain these in later essays but I feel that I needed to express these now and get the intellectual and inquisitive wheels greased.)
Let’s take this philosophical proposition: “All religions lead to God.”

Of all the major religions in the world there are at least 3 differing views:

  1. only by the a penal substitutionary atonement can absolution of mankind come, because man is inherently flawed and can not attain to goodness or worthiness necessary for absolution.
  2.  a life of penance, and promising/striving to doing more good works than bad, is the only way for absolution. Basically, there is a universal recorder that keeps a morality score and a person only needs one more good deed than bad to redeem themselves.
  3. life is an illusion and that nothing is real. People are simply instructed to come to the realization of this illusion, while in the illusion, and then use the illusion of enlightenment to “think” their way out of the illusion.

These 3 ideals and worldviews are mutually exclusive and cannot all 3 be correct. Think about it, really think about it.

… for the rest of this article look for the coming of Essay: Contending for Truth…(Part 2)

if you find any grammatical, syntax, or linking errors please email me at Thanks!

Comments, Thoughts, or Suggestions?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s