Wednesday, May 27, 2009

2009 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference

My wife and I would like to thank all of the churches of Ohio Grace Ministries for putting on a wonderful conference this past Memorial Day weekend. The facilities, fellowship, preaching, and hospitality were top notch and a welcome break from the routine of everyday life. It was great to see old friends and make new ones.

On a personal note I was extremely encouraged by the maturity, depth, and commitment to the doctrines of grace displayed by two young men. Charlie McQuillan one of the weekend’s speakers, and Kurt Fellows both displayed a maturity beyond their years and are an example of the edification the doctrine can produce even at a young age. It is my desire to encourage these men and others like them to keep the faith because they are the future of our message. Both Charlie and Kurt remind me of myself and where I was ten years ago in my late teens and early twenties. Keep up the good work and let me know if there is any way I can help or encourage you as you face difficult decisions over the next couple of years.

For those of you who requested copies of my PowerPoint notes on Rewards for the Kingdom Saints, they are now available on our churches website.

  • For a copy of the PowerPoint Notes click here.
  • For a copy of the notes for the entire message in PDF format click here. Note: These notes were not proof read for typos, spelling, or grammatical mistakes.
  • For audio of this message as well as the rest of the 2009 Great Lakes Grace Bible Conference click here.

Thanks to all for a great weekend.

Tuesday, May 19, 2009

What Is Truth? Truth Verses Tolerance

Miss California’s recent answer to a question regarding her personal views on same sex marriage has touched off a firestorm of discussion about tolerance in this country. Perez Hilton, and his supporters, have charged Miss California, and all those who share her views regarding marriage with being intolerant. Is it not ironic that those who scream the loudest in the public square about being tolerant are selective in their application of the term? Hilton preaches tolerance with respect to his lifestyle while he demonizes Miss California for not agreeing with him. Who is really being intolerant? Herein lies the dirty little secret of those who advocate for the new tolerance. They are only tolerant as long as one agrees with them; thus, they are hardly tolerant at all.

Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek address the redefining of tolerance in our postmodern culture in their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. They write, “Tolerance, no longer means to put up with something you believe to be false (after all, you don’t tolerate things you agree with). Tolerance now means that you’re supposed to accept every belief as true.” (1) Josh McDowell echoes these sentiments in his work entitled, The Last Christian Generation, in which he demonstrates how the current postmodern culture has redefined certain words. McDowell offers the following list as an illustration.

  • Tolerance--Accepting others without agreeing with or sharing their lifestyle choices (Your Understanding/Traditonal Meaning = TM).
  • Tolerance--Accepting that each individual’s beliefs, values, lifestyle, and truth claims are equal (Postmodern Understanding/Youth Culture = YC).
  • Respect--Giving due consideration to others beliefs and lifestyles without necessary approving them (TM).
  • Respect--Wholeheartedly approving of others’ beliefs or lifestyle choices (YC).
  • Acceptance--Embracing people for who they are, not necessarily for what they say or do (TM).
  • Acceptance--Endorsing and even praising others for their beliefs and lifestyle choices (YC).
  • Moral Judgments--Certain things are morally right and wrong as determined by God (TM).
  • Moral Judgement--We have no right to judge another person’s view or behavior (YC).
  • Personal Preference--Preferences of color, food, clothing style, hobbies, ect, are personally determined (TM).
  • Personal Preference--Preferences of sexual behaviors, value systems, and beliefs are personally determined (YC).
  • Personal Rights--Everyone has the right to be treated justly under the law (TM).
  • Personal Rights--Everyone has the right to do what he or she believes is best for him or herself (YC).
  • Freedom--Being free to do what you know you ought to do (TM).
  • Freedom--Being able to do anything you want to do (YC).
  • Truth--An absolute standard of right and wrong (TM).
  • Truth--Whatever is right for you (YC). (2)

These differences in meaning are more than just semantics. Rather, these shifting definitions explain the growing hostility toward the gospel in the marketplace of ideas. Young people evaluate the claims of Christianity through the diction and syntax of their own culture, which has distorted and redefined the meaning of words. Consequently, Christians are increasingly viewed as intolerant and close-minded.

As we have seen in previous postings, competing beliefs are possible but competing truths are not. One can believe everything is true, but one cannot make everything true. When it comes to religion, most religions have some beliefs that are true. However, not all religious beliefs can be true because they are mutually exclusive and teach opposites. (3) Consequently, some religious beliefs must be wrong. The laws of logic, specifically the laws of excluded middle and noncontradiction lead one to conclude that when two things are different they cannot be the same. Therefore, it is the height of absurdity to teach that all religious roads lead to God when the religions cannot even agree as to the nature and character of God. One should not be so open-minded that they become empty-minded.

World Religions: Complementary or Contradictory?

Volumes have been written detailing the divergent teachings of the world’s religions. The reality is that the world religions have more contradictory beliefs than complementary ones. The commonly held notion that all religions teach that mankind ought to love one another demonstrates a serious misunderstanding of the religious landscape. It is true that most religions have similar moral codes (best explained by the moral law written on the hearts of men), but the religions disagree on virtually every major doctrine including the nature of God, man, sin, salvation, heaven, hell, and creation.(4) Consider the following major areas of disagreement:

  • Jews, Christians, and Muslims believe in different versions of a theistic God, while most Hindus and New Agers believer that everything that exists is part of an impersonal, pantheistic force.
  • Many Hindus believe that evil is a complete illusion, while Christians, Muslims, and Jews believe that evil is real.
  • Christians believe that people are saved by grace through faith while all other religions if they believe in salvation at all, teach some kind of salvation by good works.(5)

So much for the idea that all religions teach the same thing!

The Absurdity of Religious Pluralism

The religious freedom that Americans enjoy demonstrates the necessity of religious tolerance for the orderly functioning of our democracy. However, that is a far cry from suggesting that we ought to embrace the impossible notion that all religious beliefs are true. Since the various religious worldviews have mutually exclusive truth-claims, only one can be true. A true system of thought must be comprehensive of thought and life. Therefore, it must correspond to reality--past, present, and future, natural and supernatural.(6) Despite these clear contrasts between the teachings of the world’s religions the religious pluralists demand that people accept all religious truth claims as being equally valid.

Religious pluralists routinely accuse Christians of being too exclusive, intolerant, and close-minded in their religious outlook. What do the pluralist supporters of the new tolerance mean when making such statements? Simply stated, exclusivism asserts the following with regard to a truth claim, “if one truth proposition is true, all propositions opposed to it must be false. This is based on the logical law of excluded middle. This law states that if A is true than all non-A is false.”(7) When applied to religion, exclusivism holds that only one religion can be true, and all others opposed to it must be false.

In contrast, supporters of religious pluralism and the new tolerance will fall into one of the following viewpoints with regard to philosophy of religion: pluralism, relativism, or inclusivism. Please consider the following brief definition of each position:

  • Pluralism—is the belief that every religion is true. Each provides a genuine encounter with the ultimate. (8)
  • Relativism—is similar to pluralism, claiming that each religion is true to the one holding it. There is no objective truth in religion, so there are no criteria by which to determine which is best. (8)
  • Inclusivism—claims that one religion is explicitly true, and all others are implicitly true. (8)

As we have already seen, religious pluralism is absurd based on the law of noncontradiction. Similarly, religious relativism will not hold water because relativism is self-defeating (see posting entitled What is Truth An Introductory Study). Therefore, the intellectually honest reader is forced to concur with Scripture that there is only one pathway to God and consequently, only one right religion.

Defense of Biblical Exclusivism

Philosophically, religious exclusivism is the only position that makes sense. Therefore, it should not be surprising to the Bible believer that Scriptures assert and support an exclusivist view. Consider the following verses:

  • John 14:6-- Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.
  • I Timothy 2:5-- For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Could there be two more exclusive statements than the ones quoted above? The testimony of the Scriptures is clear: Jesus Christ is the only way of salvation. It is only by placing saving faith in the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ that mankind can be saved from sin and its penalty. True Biblical Christianity is an exclusive religion.

Rather than fleeing in intellectual embarrassment from this conclusion, believers need to embrace the soundness of their position and understand that it is the religious pluralists who are operating contrary to reason. First, “if holding an exclusivist view makes one intolerant, then pluralists are also intolerant, for they claim their view is true to the exclusion of opposing views (like exclusivisism); they certainly would not tolerate the position that their pluralistic view and the nonpluralist views were both true.”(9) Second, the statement, “you ought not to question someone’s religious beliefs” is itself a religious belief for pluralists. Stated another way, pluralists think that all non-pluralists beliefs are wrong. Therefore, pluralists are just as dogmatic and close-minded as anyone making truth claims in the court of public opinion. (10) Finally, the entire notion of tolerance implies the existence of a real disagreement. People do not tolerate that which they agree with. Rather they embrace it. Consequently, the concept of tolerance presupposes a nonpluralist view of truth.(11)

In addition to the charge of intolerance, pluralists also accuse Christians of being narrow minded or intellectual imperialists. The allegation of narrow mindedness is laughable at best. Both pluralists (P) and exclusivists (E) make an equal claim to truth and error in that both claim that their view is true and whatever is opposed to it is false. Consider the following logical statements, If E is true, then all non-E is false. Similarly, if P is true, than all non-P is false. An evaluation of the facts demonstrates that charge of narrow mindedness is a hollow one because pluralists are just as narrow-minded as any exclusivist.(12)

The charge of intellectual imperialism steams from the notion that Christians only utilize the Bible as a source of truth and ought to be open to input from more than just one source. By calling exclusivists totalitarian, the pluralist is utilizing an ad hominem technique which attacks the person holding a particular position rather than answering the position in question. Moreover, the basis for this attack is unjustified because it assumes that truth should be more democratic, while in reality truth does not hinge on the number of inputs but correspondence with reality. Lastly, Pluralists do not really believe that all views are equally true or good or they would have no basis to argue that Nazism was a bad form of governance and American representative democracy is good.(13)

Paradoxically, pluralist advocates of the new tolerance are not really tolerant at all. They only tolerate those who already agree with them, which is not tolerance by anyone’s definition. Furthermore, “are pluralist ready to accept as truth the religious believes of Muslim terrorists—especially when those beliefs say that all non-Muslims (including pluralists) should be killed?” (14) In the final analysis, pluralists’ really do not believe in pluralism.

Conclusion

There is a big difference between being open minded and empty minded. Believers should be open minded in the sense that we recognize that while the Christian system is a system of truth we all hold some individual beliefs that may not be correct according to God’s Word. In this sense we all continue to need instruction from God’s word rightly divided to help correct the errors and road blocks in our own understanding. However, it is quite a different thing to be open minded to the point of embracing every wind of doctrine as valid. The only system of truth is the Christian system when the word is righty divided. All non-Christian religions and denominational systems are systems of error with some truths.
Grace believers are a unique breed. Not only are we at odds with the world system, but we fight against a religious system that does not want the truth we are offering. Despite these challenges we need to acknowledge who we are and stand for it. We are exclusivists, who operate in the traditional definition of tolerance and are open minded enough that when we see truth we can embrace it and apply it to the details of our lives.

Endnotes:

1) Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 46.

2) Josh McDowell. The Last Christian Generation. (Holiday, FL: Green Key Books, 2006) , 22-23.

3) David Horton. The Portable Seminary. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2006), 420-421.

4) McDowell., 46.

5) Ibid., 46.

6) David Horton. The Portable Seminary. 425-426.

7) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 238.

8) Norman Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. 238.

9) Norman Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One. (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 132.

10) Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 47.

11) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One, 132.

12) Ibid., 132.

13) Geisler. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, 48.

14) Ibid., 48.

Friday, May 8, 2009

What Is Truth? A Defense of the Correspondence View of Truth

In the previous posting we surveyed two of the most prevalent inadequate views of truth, Pragmatism and Skepticism. Rather than focusing on what truth is not, we shall now turn our attention to articulating an adequate view of truth. Simply stated, “truth is telling it like it is.” In other words, truth is that which corresponds to its referent, and therefore, truth is that which represents the way things really are. It does not matter if one is discussing abstract or actual realities, or mathematical, or theoretical ideas, truth is that which accurately expresses its referent.(1) In short, truth is that which correctly depicts that state of affairs whatever they may be. (2)

In contrast, falsehood is that which does not correspond to its object and therefore misrepresents the way things actually are. One’s intentions or beliefs are inconsequential; if a statement lacks proper correspondence, it is false.(3) Therefore, error does not tell it like it is, but like it is not. It is a misrepresentation of the way things are.(4) A host of philosophical and theological arguments exist to substantiate the necessity of the correspondence view of truth.

Philosophical Arguments for a Correspondence View of Truth

There are many philosophical reasons to accept the veracity of the correspondence view of truth.

First, noncorespondence views of truth are self-defeating. One cannot deny the correspondence view without utilizing it in the attempted denial. For example, the statement, “the noncorrespondence view is true” implies that the noncorrespondence view reflects reality. As a result, noncorespondence is self-defeating because the view cannot be articulated without utilizing the very correspondence view that it alleges to be false.(5)

Second, noncoresspondence views of truth make lying impossible. “If our words do not need to correspond to the facts, then they can never be factually incorrect. Without a correspondence view of truth, there can be no true or false.”(6) This would create the absurd situation where any statement is compatible with any given state of affairs.(7)

Third, noncorespondence views of truth lead to the breakdown of factual conversation. “Factual communication depends on informative statements, but informative statements must be factually true (that is, they must correspond to the facts) in order to inform one correctly.”(8) If facts are not to be used in evaluating a statement, then one hasn’t really said anything. Even literary devices such as metaphors have no real meaning unless one understands that there is a literal meaning with which the figurative is comparable. One who seeks to deny the correspondence view does so at own’s peril.(9) Consider the following example: if one was seeking to board a plane and was informed that the plane had no wings, how long should one wait to see if the statement was in fact true? In the final analysis all communication depends on the correspondence view of truth.

Biblical Arguments for a Correspondence View of Truth

Theologically, it is paramount for Bible students to recognize the Bible’s use of the correspondence view of truth when delivering God’s message to humanity.

Consider the ninth commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”(10) The veracity of this statement rests upon the correspondence view of truth. According to this verse, “false witness,” equals spreading information about one’s neighbor that is not correct and thereby does not correspond with the actual state of affairs. Consequently, the Scriptures support the philosophical claim that any denial of the correspondence view makes lying impossible.

John 8:44 identifies Satan a liar and the father of lies. In Genesis 3:4, Satan misrepresents the state of affairs by telling Eve, “Ye shall not surely die,” when God actually said certain death would follow from breaking the prohibition against eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.(11) In like manner, Ananias and Sapphira received swift destruction for misrepresenting the facts regarding their financial situation in Acts 5:1-4. The testimony of Scripture is clear; lying is not possible without recognizing the correspondence view of truth.

The Bible also offers numerous other examples of the correspondence view of truth:

Genesis 42:16—“Send one of you, and let him fetch your brother, and ye shall be
kept in prison, that your words may be proved, whether there be any truth in
you: or else by the life of Pharaoh surely ye are spies.” By sending one
of his brothers home Joseph is testing the veracity of their claim. In
other words, Joseph is testing the witness of his brothers to see if corresponds
with the way things really are.

Deuteronomy 18:22—“When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him..” According to Moses a prophet’s authenticity should be judged by whether or not his predictions come true. A message is to be considered false and therefore not from God if events did not proceed as they were predicted or the prophet contradicted or undermined a portion of the Law.(12)

Psalm 119:163—“I hate and abhor lying: but thy law do I love.” Truth and falsehood was judged based on whether or not it corresponded with God’s law.

Proverbs 14:25—“A true witness delivereth souls: but a deceitful witness speaketh lies.” This verse teaches that what is factually correct is the truth. “In court, intentions alone will not save innocent lives when they have been accused. Only the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth will do it.”(13)

Ephesians 4:25—“Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: for we are members one of another.” Paul clearly juxtaposes lying with the truth. Truth equals telling it like it is. Anything less is a lie and therefore devoid of the truth.

As we saw in the first posting in this series, Jesus asserts in John 17:17, “Sanctify them by your truth. Your word is truth.” In order for Jesus’s statement to be true and not false, the word of God must be true or Jesus violated the principle of correspondence. Therefore, we concluded that the Scriptures are true and accurately represent mankind’s spiritual state as well as God’s historical, present, and future dealings with mankind. Furthermore, this reality also makes right division of the word of truth paramount. If one fails to recognize the distinctions God has placed within his word one is faced with having to reconcile contradictory statements that seem to undermine the Bible’s claim to be the only source of objective truth about God. As we have already seen a thing cannot be true and not true in the same sense at the same time. Mid-Acts dispensationalists need to press this point home when dealing with our non-Pauline brethren because it is them, not us who make the word of God of no effect through failing to approach God’s word in God’s way.

The correspondence view of truth is the only adequate view of truth and is supported by philosophy and the testimony of both the living and written word.


Endnotes
1) Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1999), 742.
2) Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume One (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 114.
3) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 742.
4) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One, 114.
5) Ibid., 114.
6) Norman L. Geisler, and Ron Brooks. When Skeptics Ask: A Handbook of Christian Evidences. (Grand Rapids, MI; Baker Books, 1990), 263.
7) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 742.
8) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One, 114.
9) Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 742.
10) Exodus 20:16
11) Genesis 2:17
12) Deuteronomy 13:1-4

13) Geisler. Systematic Theology Volume One, 114.