Does the Bible Require Truth-Maker Maximalism?

As far as the maximal truth -making is concerned, I made the argument, I don't know if you saw the program,

I made the argument day before yesterday, I think, on the dividing line that I cannot possibly, when we're talking about the very nature of God, and that's what we're talking about here, nature of God, nature of man,

I cannot possibly think how you can hold to a meaningful Christian theology of creation and not be a maximal truth -maker for one simple reason.

If it's true, it's true because Jesus makes it true. I've been teaching that for decades.

It is a radical claim of the Christian faith that the one who created all things, for by him were all things made, whether in heaven and earth, visible, invisible, principalities, powers, dominions, or authorities, all things created by him and for him.

He is before all things. Do we really believe that? And in him, all things soonest they can.

They hold together. Do we really believe that? Paul is exhausting the prepositions of the

Greek language to emphasize the exhaustiveness of the creative act of Jesus Christ.

Okay, I wanna stop you there. I wanna stop you there because you said something that's very, I think, very key because Dr.

Craig's main response to your criticism, the grounding objection, was this issue that you're presupposing a truth -maker maximalist position.

And I think that's very interesting. I wish you would have said it. I think you probably said it in a different way, but you said that you don't see how someone who believes in creation wouldn't hold to a truth -maker maximalist position because God is the one who's creating everything.

And so that seems to indicate that the fact that he creates things have the truth value they have because they issue from his creative decree.

Right, not only that, and it's not just in a bare theistic sense of creation, but when

Paul expresses it there in Colossians 1, when he says all things are cohesive, they adhere together in him, he's talking about Christ.

And so to admit that there is anything that is true and that has, and here's one of the questions that I haven't heard really answered yet, has sufficient truth existence to delimit feasible worlds for God that cannot be changed by God.

He cannot alter the truth content of the subjunctive conditionals.

Would you agree that that's necessary in Craig's position?

It would seem to be the case. Yeah, okay, so if that's the case, then there is not a small set, but a huge data set of inviolable truth that does not come forth from God's will, does not come forth from God's creative decree.

And hence, how can you say that it's soonest they can, it holds together in Christ?

And I think another point there is getting back to the sola scriptura thing, because you were talking about at first, when you said that Dr.

Craig, who is challenging the truth maker maximalist assumption, you said that it's something that he's assuming outside of scripture and laying it on.

At first I thought, well, one could make the argument that Dr. White is begging the question.

Maybe it's his version of truth that is the scriptural one. And you're assuming until you said that in light of God's creative decree, you were giving kind of a biblical reasoning for why you hold to the theory of truth you are putting forth.

And so that this other view that entails that there doesn't have to be truth makers actually is coming from outside of scripture.

I thought that was interesting because it kind of showed biblically why that version of the truth maker theory is something that we should consider.