The document discusses different views of truth, including the correspondence view which holds that truth corresponds to reality. It also discusses relative views which hold that truth can vary by person, time, or place. However, the document argues that relativism is self-defeating, and that truth must be absolute to avoid contradictions. It defends a correspondence view of truth and addresses objections to this view.

1. PowerPoint Prepared by Dr. Mark E. Hardgrove
Chapter 7

2. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Up to modernity, orthodox theology had
held that truth is what corresponds to
the objects of its affirmations—this is
called a correspondence view of truth.

3. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
The Nature of Truth as Absolute
Not only is truth correspondence, truth is
also absolute. Evangelical theology is
predicated on the premise that the Bible
is the truth (John 17:17), not just a truth.

4. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
The Relative View of Truth
1. Some things are true only for some
people but not for all.
2. Some things are true only for some
places and times but not for all times.
3. Some things are only true in some
places not in all places.

5. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
ABSOLUTE TRUTH
An absolute truth refers to that which
would be true for all people, at all times,
and in all places.

6. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Pragmatism
Some, such as William James (1842-
1910), say truth is that which works.
This is known as a pragmatic view of
truth, or simply pragmatism.

7. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Critique of the Pragmatist ViewCritique of the Pragmatist View
1.Pragmatists think their view corresponds with reality,
therefore they really believe in the correspondence view
of truth.
2.They confuse cause and effect.
3.The concept that what works is true, is a narrow and
restrictive view of truth at best it refers only to practical
truths, not the theoretical ones.
4.The pragmatist view of truth is not how truth is
understood in everyday life.
5.Results do not settle the question of truth, for even
when the results are in, one can still ask if the initial
statement corresponded to the facts.

8. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Coherence
This view argues that truth is “that which
coheres,” that which is non-
contradictory, or that which is self-
consistent.

9. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Problems with this view:
1. It is offered as a view of truth that
corresponds with reality.
2. Even empty statements correspond.
3. A false set of statements can be
internally consistent, so just because
statements agree with each other,
doesn’t make them true.

10. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Intentionalist View
This view believes that truth corresponds
to the intention of the author. This is a
view that is behind some theologians’
denials of the inerrancy of the Bible.

11. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Problems with this view:
1. They have to use the correspondence
view of truth, to express this view.
2. Many statements agree with the
intention of the author, but they’re
mistaken, nonetheless.
3. If something is true because someone
intended it to be true, then all sincere
statements every uttered would be true.

12. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Comprehensive View of Truth
If a statement comprehends all the facts, if
it explains everything, then it’s true.

13. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
PROBLEMS WITH THIS VIEW
1. The claim that this view is true, is a
correspondence view of truth.
2. It is at best only a test for truth, not the
definition of truth.
3. If the view were true simply because it
were more encyclopedic, more
comprehensive, then a comprehensive
view of error, would be true, and a brief
presentation of truth would be in error.

14. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Existential Relevancy View
This is a form of a pragmatic view, but it’s
a little different. According to this view,
truth is what is livable, truth is what is
applicable to your life.

15. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Problems with this view:
1. The statement that “truth not found in propositions,” as
they say, “truth is found in living. Truth is not found in
knowing, it’s found in doing.” The statement that truth is
not found in propositions is itself a propositional statement
truth claim.
2. The existentialist confuses the nature of truth and the
application of truth. Existentialism presents too narrow a
definition of truth.
3. What is true will always be relevant, but not everything
that is relevant will be true.
4. Many existentialists make false dichotomies between fact
and value, relegating religious truth to the non-factual
domain.
5. Many existentialists make false dichotomies because one
cannot separate the truth of Christ’s death and
resurrection from the facts of His death.

16. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Truth is that which Feels Good
Truth is not that which feels good. This is
the popular subjectivist view of truth.

17. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Problems with this viewProblems with this view
1. This view is self-defeating for the claim
that what feels good is true, is so only if
it corresponds to the way things really
are.
2. Feelings do not always correspond with
reality.
3. Feelings are extremely subjective. What
may feel good to one, may feel bad to
another.

18. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
What is truth?What is truth?
Truth is what corresponds to
reality, whether it’s an abstract
reality or a concrete reality.

19. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
How do we defend the
correspondence view of truth?
First, philosophically
and then biblically.

20. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Philosophically:Philosophically:
1. Noncorrespondence views of truth are self-
defeating.
2. Even lies are impossible without a
correspondence view of truth.
3. Without correspondence there would be no
such thing as truth or falsity.
4. All factual communication would break down
without a correspondence view of truth.
5. Even the intentionalist theory of truth depends
on the correspondence view of truth.

21. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Biblical Arguments for a Correspondence
View of Truth
1. Even if you didn’t have philosophical arguments
for it, there are arguments inside the Bible that
demand that we take a correspondence view of
truth.
2. The Bible uses numerous examples of the
correspondence view of truth.
3. The biblical use of the term “error” does not
support intentionalist theory of truth.

22. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
ANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO THEANSWERING OBJECTIONS TO THE
CORRESPONDENCE VIEW OF TRUTHCORRESPONDENCE VIEW OF TRUTH
Objection 1: Jesus said, “I am the truth,”
He demonstrated that truth is personal not
propositional.
Reply: A person can be true, in the sense
that he is the reality of which truth
statements are made.

23. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Objection 2: If God is truth, then there is nothing outside
of Him to which He corresponds.
Reply:
1.God’s Word corresponds to His thoughts.
2.God’s thoughts are identical to themselves, which is a
kind of perfect correspondence. A is A, is about as
good a correspondence as you can get.
3.If truth is understood as what corresponds to another,
then in this sense God would not be true. But you don’t
have to define truth that way. It doesn’t have to
correspond to another. It could correspond to itself and
still be a correspondence.
4.Fourth, the basic fallacy in this objection, is an
equivocation of the definition.

24. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Summary of Truth’s Definition
Truth may be tested in many ways, but it
should be understood in only one way,
correspondence. There may be many
different ways to defend different truth
claims, but there’s only one way to
define truth. The confusion between the
nature of truth and the verification of
truth is at the heart of the rejection of the
correspondence view of truth.

25. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
THE NATURE OF TRUTH AS ABSOLUTE
What does relative mean?
Relative means true at some times, but not
other times. Or true for some people, but
not other people. True in some places but
not in other places.

26. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
1. Can something be true for one time and
not another?
2. Can something be true for some people
an not others?
3. Can something be true in some places
and not in others?

27. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Relativism Is Self-Defeating
 Most relativists believe that relativism is
true for everybody, which is an argument
for absolutism.
 You can’t deny absolute truth without
affirming an absolute truth.
 Relativism entails a world filled with
contradictions.
 Relativism means no one has ever been
wrong about anything.

28. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Answering the objections of the relative view
1. Absolute knowledge is not possible.
False, because one can absolute knowledge
that he exists. One’s own existence is
undeniable, for one would have to exist in
order to make the statement, “I do not exist.”
An absolute truth is absolutely true in and of
itself not matter what evidence there is to the
facts.

29. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Answering the objections of the relative view
2. Some things are in between.
In-between things do not disprove absolutism.
Though a man may be tall in one setting and
short in another, the truth of being tall in the
identified setting is a truth that corresponds to
reality.

30. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Answering the objections of the relative view
3. New truth or progress is not possible in an
absolute view.
Truth can be understood in news ways, but it is
only a matter of our discovering “old” truth.
Many truths have always been there, but we
are just finding out about them.

31. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Answering the objections of the relative view
4. Truth changes in our growth and knowledge.
Truth is not changing, but our understanding of
what is true changes. The truth that the sun is
at the center of the universe did not change,
but scientific understanding changed..

32. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Answering the objections of the relative view
5. Absolute truth is too narrow.
Of course truth is narrow. 4+4 is not 1. It is not
2. The only answer is that it is 8, and only 8.
That’s narrow, but it is correct. If Christianity
is true, then anything contrary to Christianity
is false. However, Christianity is no narrower
than atheism, agnosticism, or other religious
views.

33. The Nature of TruthThe Nature of Truth
Answering the objections of the relative view
6. Belief in absolute truth is dogmatic.
All truth is absolute. If something is really true,
then it is true for all people, times and places.
Even the relativists who claim that relativism is
true are being dogmatic. The problem is that
his argument is self-defeating, and the
correspondence view is consistent with its
claims.