Is Truth Worth Contending?

This entry was posted by Travis over at Stepping In Faith:

"I believe knowing something halfway can be worse than not knowing something at all. Don't get me wrong - I agree that discernment is probably most poignantly expressed by a person's ability to sift through life's 'gold and pyrite' until only 'gold' is left. But I also believe it would be a fearful thing to decide a person's fate with only half the story made available, for it is my opinion that errors in judgment are most often made not because the facts were mishandled, but because the whole of them were never surfaced. Add in a dash of presupposition with your half-truth and you may well have concocted a bowl of self-deception of the worst kind. Better is it for a man to know nothing at all than to know something all wrong."

Here is what followed:
Nick Says:
September 30th, 2006 at 5:09 pm

This very reason is why I'm not really willing to debate many issues I previously would discuss:

-soteriology (ie calvinism vs armenianism)
-can you fall away?
-inerrancy
-alcohol

and every other contraversial doctrine...

What's the point. Does any side of the debate really have all the answers? In humility, I have had to admit that really and truly I don't know how it works. I can't even say with a great measure of certainty what the Bible teaches. I can only say what I percieve it to teach.

Realizing this very thing, that I do no know the "FULL TRUTH" about any contraversial issues does wonders to mix in a few gallons of humility. Who am I to say I have the answers to many of the tough questions we pose. It also helps me value someone whom I may not totally agree with, because I realize that niether of us have all the answers. We are all just speculating really (in regards to debateable issues such as those listed above).

Great thought.

-nt

Bro. Hank Says:

Nick-

I feel where you are coming from with the controversial issues, but I will exhort you not to recoil at difficult and complex doctrinal issues just on the basis that humans are fallible. The Bible, and church history as a whole, is replete with men and women who came to the Word, sought out it's truths by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and then stood upon their convictions. John Wesley once said, "On every occasion of uneasiness we should retire to prayer, that we may give place to the grace and light of God, and then form our resolutions, without being in any pain about what success they may have." Wesley is, without a doubt, a prime example of a 'man of convictions'. He spoke on what he believed the bible taught about soteriology, apostasy, inerrancy, alcohol and many other difficult issues - and made no apologies for it. Protestant history is full of similar stories. Men seek answers to these questions, and for the most part, God speaks on them in His word. Alcohol aside, those are some tremendously important theological issues - and have, with good reason, produced many a heated debate. But are we not called to "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth" and "earnestly contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" ? -2 Timothy 2:15, Jude 1:3. These verses seem to encourage us to seek out that "full-truth", regardless of our shortcomings.

I grant that God's omniscience, in comparison to our meager knowledge is a humbling fact indeed. However; we stand without excuse - if we refuse to use the revelation that God has given us in favor of a pursuit of uncontroversial peace. As Luther said, "Peace if possible, but Truth at any rate".

blessings,
Bro. Hank

I would like to pose this question to you all:

Is biblical truth contendable?

So that's a loaded questions, I know. With it comes questions like, "What is biblical truth?", "What makes a truth biblical?", "Can man know biblical truth?, "Can he preach biblical truths?", "Do those biblical truths change through time?", "Are ALL biblical truths contendable?", "Are Christians called to contend for the truth at all?", "How long are they called to contend?", "What does contending look like?", "Is truth relative?", "Is contending relative?" and many more.

First, I submit to you some more background on our discussion thus far in the blogring:

The 'Half-Truth'
--check out the entire flow of comments here

A Call to Relevance
--Nick speaks to confrontationalism

And then Meghan from Redemption Now provides, what I think, is a tremendously insightful description of our discussion: "There is a need for both mercy and justice, for both grace and boldness, for Truth uncompromised."

God's truth is immutable, uncompromisable. Therefore, should we not preach it that way? That's what we'll take a look at...

For today's post however, I will just prime the discussion with a little bit o' Spurgeon:

"Don't go about the world with your fist doubled up for fighting, carrying a theological revolver in the leg of your trousers. There is no sense in being a sort of doctrinal game-cock, to be carried about to show your spirit, or a terrier of orthodoxy, ready to tackle heterodox rats by the score. Practice the suaviter in modo, as well as the fortiter in re. Be prepared to fight, and always have your sword buckled on your thigh, but wear a scabbard; there can be no sense in waving your weapon about before everybody's eyes to provoke conflict, after the manner of our beloved friends of the Emerald Isle, who are said to take their coats off at Donnybrook Fair, and drag them along the ground, crying out, while they flourish their shillelahs, "Will any gentleman be so good as to tread on the tail of my coat?" There are theologians of such warm, generous blood, that they are never at peace till they are fully engaged in war.

If you really believe the gospel, you will be decided for it in more sensible ways. Your very tone will betray your sincerity; you will speak like a man who has something to say, which he knows to be true. Have you ever watched a rogue when he is about to tell a falsehood? Have you noticed the way in which he has mouthed it? It takes a long time to be able to tell a lie well, for the facial organs were not originally constituted and adapted for the complacent delivery of falsehood. When a man knows he is telling you the truth, everything about him corroborates his sincerity. Any accomplished cross-examining lawyer knows within a little whether a witness is genuine or a deceiver. Truth has her own air and manner, her own tone and emphasis. Yonder is a blundering, ignorant country fellow in the witness box; the counsel tries to bamboozle and confuse him, if possible, but all the while he feels that he is an honest witness, and he says to himself, "I should like to shake this fellow's evidence, for it will greatly damage my side of the question." There ought to be always that same air of truth about the Christian minister; only as he is not only bearing witness to the truth, but wants other people to feel that truth and own the power of it, he ought to have more decision in his tone than a mere witness who is stating facts which may be believed or not without any serious consequences following either way. Luther was the man for decision. Nobody doubted that he believed what he spoke. He spoke with thunder, for there was lightning in his faith. The man preached all over, for his entire nature believed. You felt, "Well, he may be mad, or he may be altogether mistaken, but he assuredly believes what he says. He is the incarnation of faith; his heart is running over at his lips."