This discussion takes place between 3 friends after a follow up discussion prior to dinner at the local pizza parlor.

Yang: Man, I’m really glad I’m full; it’s really hard to think on an empty stomach!

Paula: I agree!

Yang: That Pizza place is the best! There really is no other place that makes pizza as good as they do!

Paula: I disagree. I think that the pizza place on the other side of town is much, much better.

Mel: I think you’re both wrong; there is no better place than the little store we used to go to, when I was a kid. It’s still in business too; only it’s about 7 hours from here, so I don’t get to enjoy the pizza that often.

Paula: Once again, we see that beliefs are relative to the individual.

Yang: Paula, now that my hunger is satisfied I would like to pick back up where we were before dinner. But, this time, let’s get a little more serious. Before dinner we all came to the conclusion that beliefs are person relative, that is, each person holds their own belief, but that beliefs can also be true and objective.

Paula: Yes, I agreed to that, but I was hungry, and I just wanted to get something to eat, and I know you Yang, if I hadn’t agreed with you, you would have had us talking about it all night. You see, I still maintain, and want to underline that while beliefs are person relative, most truths are too.

Yang: If you are to take that position Paula, who is to say that your truth that states that most truths are relative isn’t itself relative? Then we’re right back to where I said we would be at the beginning: If a truth is relative, then it could be false, and a truth cannot be both true and false in at the same time in the same way, that violates the law of non-contradiction, so a truth is either true or false, but it can’t be both true and false.

Paula: See, that’s where we disagree, it’s not both true and false at the same time and in the same way, it’s different to each individual; it would only be true or false at the same time in the same way if truth was objective, which is a position by-in-large that I don’t support.

Mel: That’s a pretty interesting view Paula. Perhaps you can help Yang out, by defining what you believe truth is.

Paula: Well, I think truth is in the eyes of the beholder, for the most part. I mean, as you pointed out a while ago Professor, from your perspective, it is true that the moon is shining, but from a scientist’s perspective, the moon isn’t really shining, but it is reflecting.

Mel: Very good observation!

Paula: So, while you used that statement as an example of something that is objectively true, in reality it was subjectively true. So while you can say, from your perspective that the moon is shining, a scientist could just as rightly say, that it isn’t really shining, but it is reflecting.

Yang: But Paula, now you’re the one who is playing games with words and puzzles. If Mel had said: “It appears like the moon is shining tonight”, then that would be objectively true.

Paula: And yet, his statement would be person centric. If I was blind, I couldn’t agree with his statement that it appears like the moon is shining.

Yang: Ok, so what if Mel said: “It appears to me that the moon is shining”

Mel: Paula is right, this still suffers from the same problem, it is a statement that is obviously tied to my perception, and so does it not therefore seem to be relative to me?

Sophia: Hey Yang, Paula, Mel, how’s it going?

Mel: We’re doing well, except we’re in a pretty deep discussion about whether or not there is such a thing as objective truth.

Sophia: Wow that is deep!

Paula: Yes, but I think we were just about to wrap it up. We just agreed that any statement that I make is obviously tied to my perception, and because my perception is relative to me, then, any truth that I state is relative to me. And as a result, any truth that you state is also relative to you. So, because all truths are put forth by people, then truths are all relative, depending on the person that put it forth.

Sophia: Well, that is very interesting. Mel, what do you think about this statement that Paula just made?

Mel: It definitely has some truth to it!

Yang: Do you mean it definitely has some truth in it for everyone, or for just you? For me, it still doesn’t ring true, and if all truth is relative, that means, it isn’t true, because I say it isn’t!

Paula: Don’t start that again!

Sophia: Mel, let me ask you this question. Do you believe in God?

Paula: Mel already said yes.

Mel: Yes, I do, and I believe that this is a person-centric belief, but that it can also be true.

Paula: But how do we measure truth, except through perception, which is person centric, and therefore relative?

Sophia: Just a minute, let me continue. Mel, you believe in God, right? Now let me ask you this, does your belief in God make God real? What I mean is, if God isn’t real, can your belief in Him make Him become real?

Paula: Well, to Mel, He could be real or not real depending on whether Mel believes He is real.

Sophia: That’s not my question. Can Mel’s belief make God real, in actuality?

Yang: No, God either exists in actuality or doesn’t exist in actuality. What you believe about it is inconsequential.

Sophia: So, could we say, whether God exists or not, is an objective truth. Again, what I mean is that if God exists, then He exists in actuality, and if He doesn’t exist, then He doesn’t exist in actuality. And therefore, God’s existence is either objectively true, or objectively false, but either way, it’s objective. It doesn’t matter what your belief is on this question, it is either true in actuality or not true in actuality.

Mel: Yes, that’s a great point. So, at least in the case of God, there is objective truth as to whether He exists or not.

Sophia: Paula?

Paula: Ok, I see what you’re saying; my belief about the existence of God, while being subjective to me, in reality is being held to a standard of truth that is outside of me, that is, it is being held to actuality?

Sophia: Exactly!

Mel: What if we don’t agree on what God is?

Yang: Oh brother, here we go again.

Paula: Seriously though, aren’t we then tied to our perception of God to answer this question? And we’ve already stated that perception is person-centric; so therefore the answer of the belief of God is relative to the person answering the question. I could think God is a tree, or a spirit, or a word, or a breath, or I could define God as that which doesn’t exist, so then my definition of God, is that which doesn’t exist.

Sophia: Ok, let’s get even more basic. I say that I have a rock in my hand.

(Sophia holds up her hand)

Now, let’s vote, who thinks that I have a rock in my hand?

Mel: I do.

Yang: I don’t.

Paula: I don’t either.

Sophia: Ok, so, does whether you believe that I have a rock in my hand or not change the fact that I have a rock in my hand or not? Can your belief, person-centric as it is, affect actuality?

Paula: No, I suppose not, so then we’re right back to the same point we were at right before dinner, all belief is subjective, but some belief is true.

Yang: I think there is one important thing we have learned though….

Paula: What’s that?

Yang: Well, for one thing, there is at least one truth that is objectively true, so we can certainly no longer say that “All truth is relative”.

Paula: Yes, but I would still say that most truth is relative.

Sophia: However, let me change my last question to be a little different, and let’s see how your answer might change. Let’s say, for arguments sake, that I am omniscient, that is, I know everything. Now, ask me a question, any question!

Yang: Is there such thing as objective truth?

(Yang gets this evil grin on his face)

Sophia: Tricky, tricky! Ok, so that’s your question, “Is there such thing as objective truth”. Now, answer your own question, please.

Yang: I still say there is.

Mel: I’m pretty sure there is.

Paula: I don’t think so.

Sophia: Now here is the catch, all three of you have your beliefs, and yet, in order to have your beliefs, you must presuppose that your belief is valid on each other. Yang, if you say that there is objective truth, then you are binding Paula with that statement. Paula, even when you say there is no objective truth, you are binding Yang to that statement, by saying that Yang can’t hold you to an objective standard, because there is a standard that says there is no standard. So, in either case, you are both asserting there is an objective truth that stands outside of your person-centric perception. In order to argue whether there is objective truth or not, you both need to appeal to something outside of yourself.

Paula: Wow, I guess I never really thought of it that way.

Mel: So what you are saying is, the fact that we are arguing as to whether or not there is objective truth means that we are appealing to something outside of ourselves as the arbitrator to the answer of the question of objective truth?

Sophia: Exactly right. And here is the final thing to leave you to think about. I am not going to tell you whether or not I have a rock in my hand. So while there is an objective truth, each of you will continue to believe what you believe based on your own person-centric perception.

Paula: So, to sum up what you are saying: There is such thing as an objective standard for everything, but, as humans that rely on our perceptions, we may not be able to always understand or articulate what that objective truth is?

Sophia: You’ve got it.

Yang: So, someone out there knows the best pizza place then!

Paula: You are a piece of work….

Ok, this dialogue is all full of nerdy theological, historichal and philosophical humor – probably no one will get it but me 🙁 But, I laugh every time I read it! 😉

We were suppose to expand on a dialogue of free will in my philosophy class…

Augustine: Now that dinner is done; I would like to finish our meal with a prayer, if that is ok with you, Pelagius, John and Jacobus?

All: Fine by us.

Augustine: God, command us that which you desire, and grant that which you command. Amen.

Pelagius: I particularly liked the duck! But I have to admit that I’m not overly fond of your prayer there Augustine. You seem to be suggesting that God commands us to do what he desires for us to do. Correct?

Augustine: Yes, indeed, that is correct.

Pelagius: I have no problem with that, mind you; but I would like you to explain the other portion of your prayer. For it seems that you are suggesting that we can’t do what God has commanded us to do, unless he comes and gives us the power to do it? I do not like that one bit!

Augustine: Ah, so here we get to the heart of this whole discussion. Predestination versus Free will! I know, Pelagius how you feel regarding this conversation, and before we get started, I feel it important to point out that your position stands in opposition to all that has been considered orthodox in the Christian Churches from the beginning of Christianity. While God does command us to obey him, unless he gives us the power to obey him, we are unable to comply, and yet, God still holds us accountable.

Pelagius: Does that not make God unjust, Augustine? Can a just God tell us to fly, and not give us any wings? I believe that…

Augustine: Well, based on our letters that we have written back and forth, I can clearly see that you believe that deep down inside our hearts we have this protected portion of existence untouched by the curse of sin. Is that correct?

Pelagius: That is correct!

Augustine: And within this viewpoint, you also hold that mankind has the power within himself to choose to obey God; that within this self-contained power, there is no real necessity for the saving grace of God, and yet, you hold that grace is definitely helpful, but not necessary for one to be saved.

Pelagius: You have understood me correctly.

Augustine: Then I must pronounce on you anathema as you have denied the necessity of Jesus’ sacrifice for salvation. Let me draw to your attention a few scriptures that shall affirm your mistake in this matter.

Arminius: Augustine, I don’t mean to interrupt, but I too am interested in this conversation, because I also believe that we have the freedom to choose to obey God or not obey God, although I am in somewhat in a different place than Pelagius. While Pelagius believes that we don’t need grace, because we have this unbroken ability deep down inside of us, I believe in this concept of common grace. To me, God gives all men common grace, so that all men can come to Him, if they freely choose.

Calvin: Arminius, if I am to understand you correctly, you believe that mankind is indeed born radically corrupt (or as I would put it totally depraved), and that we are all tainted with the effects of original sin, is that correct?

Arminius: That is indeed correct, the bible affirms this.

Augustine: So we three are at least in agreement with that.

Pelagius: I don’t!

Augustine: We’ll get back to you in a moment, Pelagius.

Calvin: Arminius, you however, believe that while all mankind is born with original sin, after birth, God gives all humans what you call “common grace”, that is, a respite from Adam’s sin, until such time that a man (or woman) freely chooses to sin on their own, and then their potential sin becomes their actual sin?

Arminius: That is correct!

Calvin: Is it possible for someone to choose not to sin, Arminius?

Pelagius: I believe so! That’s why we don’t really need Christ!

Arminius: Hrm… I’m not quite sure, because if it was possible for a man or woman to not sin, then it would also mean that grace is not a necessary requirement for salvation, as humans could logically persist in a sinless state apart from Jesus’ sacrifice.

Pelagius: That’s what I’m saying!

Arminius: And yet, I know this is clearly spoken against in the bible.

Augustine: I was about to get to that point.

Arminius: However, if it’s not possible to not sin, then all men must sin, and then do we really have free will?

Calvin: Exactly!

Arminius: So my theory of common grace, which is intended to protect the freedom of men, is really a non sequitur?

Calvin: Precisely!

Augustine: Just a minute Calvin, because I haven’t said what I intended to say yet.

Calvin: Ok, please continue.

Augustine: You see gentlemen; the bible clearly affirms that the sinful man cannot submit to the law of God, as the mind of the sinful man is at war with God (Rom 8:6-10). In fact, a spiritually dead man can do nothing on his own accord, and we are spiritually dead apart from being made alive in Christ (Eph 2:1 & Eph 2:5). And, the bible clearly affirms that all men are sinful as a result of Adam’s sin (Rom 5:12-14)(Rom 3:23). Additionally, the bible affirms that no one even seeks after God on their own accord (Rom 3:11), and again it affirms that no one can understand and accept the teachings of God, unless God gives it to him to understand them (John 6:44, John 6:65).

Pelagius: I cut those parts out of my bible!

Calvin: We shall turn you over to the Geneva council!

Augustine: Gentlemen, let me finish! In final, we also see that God chooses whom He will save, for His own good purpose in election (and remember there is no shadow of turning in our creator) (Rom 9:11). So the bible says that it does not depend on man’s desire or effort, but on God’s mercy (Rom 9:16). For it is only through His grace that we’re saved (Eph 2:8). And yet, in the end, if we do not choose God, God still blames us, for who are we to talk back to God (Rom 9:19-20).

Arminius: But, I don’t quite understand, how can God be in absolute control, but still blame us?

Augustine: Here is how I like to explain it. First and foremost, you must understand that Adam was the representative of all mankind (including man and woman) when he was put on this earth. He was the headship of the covenant between God and mankind. So, as our representative, what he chose to do had a lasting impact on all of humanity. This is not an uncommon scenario; Adam was, if you will, our ambassador.

Arminius: Ok, I follow you so far.

Augustine: So, Adam was created with the possibility to sin, and the possibility to not sin. I have some really nifty Latin words I use to describe this, but I’ll refrain from using them.

Arminius: Thanks, I’m having a hard enough time speaking English as it is.

Augustine: So, when Adam, as the representative of mankind, chose to disobey God, he lost the ability to not sin; and was left only with the ability to sin. This was the effect of the fall; and what we refer to as “original sin”. God, permitted this to happen (we call this his permissive will in my circle), so therefore it still happened within the sovereignty of God.

Arminius: But what do you mean Adam was left with only the ability to sin, do you mean he no longer had free will?

Augustine: By no means, what I mean is that because of the noetic effect of sin; we still have the freedom to do what we choose to do, but what we desire the most to do (apart from God’s grace) is to sin.

Arminius: So we are free to do what we desire the most to do?

Augustine: But what we desire the most to do is to act in a self-seeking way; you see, we have the freedom to choose, but we don’t have liberty to choose.

Calvin: And yet, if we can only do what we desire the most to do, we are therefore determined to do what we must do (based on our desires), and we don’t really have free will!

Arminius: I still have a problem with this idea though, because some of our contemporaries believe that if God chooses some to be saved (as you state that the bible shows He does), then the rest He chooses to condemn.

Calvin: Yes, that is sometimes referred to as double-predestination.

Arminius: Also, some of our contemporaries think that if God has already chosen us for salvation or reprobation, then there is no point in trying to do anything good or just, rather we should just do whatever we please to do.

Calvin: Yes, that is sometimes referred to as hyper-Calvinism, but I would also caution that to argue against predestination in light of this concern is a very slippery slope!

Arminius: You know, I wish someone could have explained this to me while I was still alive [sic] we could have perhaps saved a whole split in the reformed camp!

Luther: I couldn’t help over hear your conversation gentlemen, and I wanted to let you know, that I think this idea that you have been talking about represents the heart of the church, I think I’m going to go write a book on it, perhaps I will call it “The Bondage of the Will”!

Erasmus: I couldn’t help but overhear either; I also agree, the duck here in purgatory is really, really good!