Can we know the truth?

A commentor named Annie left a good comment on my post called "Slippery Theology." I responded in the comments, but thought it deserved a post of its own. I agreed with some of what she said, but disagreed with some of it. I want to be clear that I appreciated the comment and the spirit in which it was offered, and I hope Annie will comment some more, and I hope this doesn't come off as a rant, or as if I am using her as a whipping boy for my own position. You can find the thing I will quote from her in alot of other places, and I'll also be interacting with Brian McLaren on this. So, Annie, if you are out there, please take this as a loving, brotherly interaction, and a desire to address issues that are raised by and applicable to a larger audience.

Annie mentioned that one thing we can take away from the postmodern discussion is the fact that "when it comes to God, we don't understand everything." I couldn't agree more. In fact, as I think about it I wonder if that might not explain something of what the postmodernists are so allergic to. In my response to her in the comments I mentioned that many systematic theologies begin with a section on the incomprehensibility of God. This is something that we can all agree on. However, we all have the tendency, at the end of our studies to come off as if we have totalized God, as if we have Him all figured out.

Where I disagreed with Annie is in her use of the expression "epistemological uncertainty." If by that she and the postmodernists are simply trying to find a technical term to describe their understanding of the fallibility and finitude of human nature, then I'm all for it.

However, that term sounds alot like ancient philosophical skepticism, the idea that leads us to doubt everything and denies the ability to attain certainty of knowledge. Practically speaking it doesn't deny the existence of truth, it denies our ability to know truth.

I can't figure out the difference between the postmodern view of truth and the skeptical notion of truth. If you look at Brian McLaren's Open Letter to Chuck Colson, you can see that he demurs on Colson's idea of objective truth, offers seven different possibilities of what truth can mean and never really comes down on any definition of truth, except to say that truth corresponds to reality. That's vague enough to be completely meaningless.

Augustine dealt with skepticism and came out of it through the realization that "I doubt, therefore I am." He reasoned that for him to doubt he had to exist, so his existence was something he could accept with certainty. From there, if he admitted that there was one thing he could accept with certainty, then there could be other things.

Also, Jesus didn't leave His definition of truth so vague as to merely be that which corresponds to reality. For Jesus, truth has content, and it has an object - Himself. John 8:31-32 says:

31To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, "If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free."

Notice the train of thought - how do we know we are Jesus disciples? We know if we hold to His teaching? That's His word, His "logos." If we hold to His teaching we are His disciples and we can know the truth.

I'm not arguing against the postmodernist contention that our culture and our sinful natures and our presuppositions cloud our ability to discern truth. What I am saying is that you need to begin where Jesus begins, with the idea that truth can be known. Do a search in your Bible software on the the Bible Gateway on the phrase "sure of" in the New Testament. Or do a search on the word "know" and you will find that, particularly for Paul, there were lots of things he was sure of, or confident that he knew.

Pilate is the biblical example of "epistemological uncertainty," Paul is the Biblical example of "epistemological certainty." I think I'll stick with Paul.