The Argument For Inerrancy and the King James Bible: Introduction

Over the next couple of weeks I will be posting pieces of a sixteen page paper I wrote entitled, The Argument for Inerrancy and the King James Bible. At the end I will post the article in its entirety in PDF format. This first posting contains the introduction containing the main thesis of the paper. I hope you find this article edifying and enjoyable.

In recent years, popular books and movies such as Dan Brown’s The Da Vinci Code have done much to popularize the secular view that the Bible is riddled with mistakes and therefore should not be trusted. A causal stroll through the local Barnes and Noble turns up many volumes, such as Misquoting Jesus by Bart D. Ehrman, all of which seek to paint the Bible as less than trustworthy as a source of truth in modern society. While these attacks on the veracity of the Scriptures are nothing new, they do appear to be increasing in our day as the notion of absolute truth continues to be challenged by postmodern thought. As a result, many sincere although ungrounded believers have had their faith rocked by assertions that the Bible is full of mistakes as well as political and sexist conspiracies. How should one respond to these attacks on the accuracy and reliability of the Bible? Simply stated, is the word of God inerrant?

Christian philosophers and theologians have spilt much ink debating the doctrine of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. In his book, Basic Theology, Charles C. Ryrie outlines the ongoing debate amongst Evangelical Christians regarding this issue. In Chapter 12 entitled “The Inerrancy of the Bible,” Ryrie asks the following important questions with regard to inerrancy:

How important is this doctrine then? If it is a biblical teaching, then to
deny it is to deny part of the truthfulness of the Bible. But consider
this: If the Bible contains some errors, however few or many, how can one be
sure that his understanding of Christ is correct? Perhaps one of those
errors concerns something about the life of Christ. It would not be
impossible that there might be an error about the crucial matter of His death
and resurrection. What then would happen to one’s Christology? It
would be changed, perhaps so drastically that there would be no Christian faith
to embrace.(1)

The modern critics referred to above are endeavoring to sow the seeds of doubt in order to overthrow the faith or some and/or cause people to view the Bible as unreliable. Consequently, a detailed study on the issue of the veracity of the Scriptures is paramount given the state of our current culture.

Unfortunately, much of professing Christendom is not equipped to deal with the issue of inerrancy because their own teaching on the subject is inconsistent. For example, conservative evangelical theologians will argue for the inerrancy of the original autographs and then admit that the original manuscripts have been lost and all that remains are copies which are subject to error. If only the originals were inerrant and they are lost, how can the Bible still be without error? While in Bible College, this author was ridiculed for holding the position that the King James Bible was God’s perfectly preserved word for English-speaking people. Apparently, only uneducated believers were foolish enough to believe that the same God that could exercise the supernatural energy to verbally inspire every word of scripture could also exert the same supernatural force to preserve that which He inspired.

In short, if only the originals were inerrant, then maybe the modern critics are correct. Perhaps the Bible has been altered by the work of a sexist church leadership bent on oppressing woman and maintaining male authority as suggested by Dan Brown in The Da Vinci Code. While my former professors would dispute Dan Brown’s assertions and affirm that the Bible is inerrant and reliable, something is drastically wrong because these same men also teach that there is no such thing as a perfect Bible. Herein lies the goal of the current essay, to utilize scholarly arguments for inerrancy in an attempt to show the logical inconsistencies of those who would argue that a perfect Bible does not exist. In short, why argue for inerrancy if what you’re arguing for has been lost?

Endnotes
1) Charles C. Ryrie, Basic Theology (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1986), 77.

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.

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.

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.

What Is Truth? Inadequate Views of Truth Defined and Exposed

In a previous article, What is Truth? An Introductory Study posted on March 27, it was demonstrated that relativism is self-defeating and that absolute truth does exist. Despite proving that competing beliefs are possible and that competing truths are not possible, the nature of truth itself has yet to be clearly defined.

In philosophy, questions regarding the nature of truth fall under the category known as epistemology. Precisely defined, epistemology is the study of the nature of knowledge and justification.(1) As such, epistemology endeavors to establish a framework from which one can construct genuine and accurate understanding. In addition, this branch of philosophy entails indentifying and developing criteria and methodologies for determining what we know and why we know it.(2) According to John Chaffee, author of The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas, epistemology seeks to answer the following questions:

• Can we ever really know anything?
• How do we know when we don’t know anything?
• What is the difference between belief and knowledge?
• Is truth possible?
• Does truth evolve or is it unchanging?
• Can there be different “truths” for different people or is “truth” the same for all?

As one might expect, philosophers throughout history have offered many divergent answers to the questions raised above. Therein lies the conflicting viewpoints regarding the nature and knowability of truth.

As we have already seen, one can believe everything is true but one cannot make everything true. Tom Morris, author of Philosophy for Dummies, observes that human actions are a consequence of our beliefs interacting with our desires. Morris elaborates by presenting the following equation: Beliefs + Desires = Actions.(3) Beliefs are a well spring for action. Therefore, having right beliefs is not just a matter of intellectual importance, but it is of the utmost practical importance.(4) At this point the problem is clear: people hold and operate on the basis of false beliefs. One can sincerely believe and operate their daily life upon the assumption that the Earth is flat, but no matter how sincerely the belief is held, if it does not correspond to reality it is not true.

Clearly, truth must transcend belief. In short, people ought not want their most important beliefs to be mere opinions: real knowledge is what all rational people desire. This of course raises the question of what is knowledge. Professor Morris offers the following definition, Knowledge=Properly Justified True Belief.(5) While belief is necessary for knowledge, belief alone is not sufficient for knowledge. In others words, in order for someone to possess knowledge of anything, their beliefs about the item in question need to be true. For example, one can not know something to be true unless it is. Similarly, one can not know something unless it is not false. Got it?

In order for one to possess true knowledge, their beliefs about the idea or item in question must correspond to reality in order to be true and thereby result in real knowledge. All of this proves the necessity of the correspondence view of truth which teaches that truth must correspond to its object. However, truth can be understood both from what it is and what it is not, according to Norman Geisler.(6) Hence before turning our attention to what truth is it is prudent to consider what truth is not.

Truth Is Not “That Which Works”

Many people believe that truth is found in utility or what works. Philosophically, those who hold this view are known as Pragmatists. Pragmatism asserts that knowledge is a form of practical involvement. In other words, “Knowing is something we do, and is best seen as a practical activity. Questions of meaning and truth are also best understood in this context.”(7) Pragmatist William James summed up his position when he wrote, “truth is the expedient in the way of knowing.”(8) Thus, a statement is known to be true if it brings the right results according to Pragmatism.

Geisler outlines the following inadequacies regarding the pragmatic approach to truth. Pragmatists desire that one accept their view of truth not because it seems to be effective but because it corresponds with the way they believe things actually are.(9) Consequently, one is required to utilize the correspondence view of truth even when asserting that correspondence is incorrect. Does this sound like a self-defeating argument?

Truth Is Not “That Which Feels Good”

A second commonly held and equally inadequate view of truth is propagated by the Subjectivist. Supporters of this position argue that “truth is what provides a satisfying feeling, while error is what feels bad.”(10) Thus truth is found in our subjective feelings, according to this form of subjectivism. Many involved in New Age Mysticism view truth in this manner.

Like the Pragmatic view, the Subjective view is self-defeating. The statement, “what feels good is true is so only if it corresponds to the way things are,” once again presupposes the accuracy of the correspondence view of truth. In reality, Subjectivism defines truth not by what feels good but if it corresponds to the facts of the matter in question.(11) Second, it is readily apparent that bad news which makes us feel bad can be true. However, if what feels good is always true why don’t my students feel good when they receive poor report cards? How does that old saying go? The truth hurts.

Furthermore, feelings are relative to individuals. Therefore, what feels good to one might not for another. Is truth how one is to account for these subjective differences? If so, then truth would be relative, however, it has already been demonstrated in a previous posting that relative views of truth are self-defeating. Finally, even if one could equate truth with what feels good, one cannot be convinced that what feels good is necessarily true.(12) “The nature of truth is not the same as the result of truth.”(13)

Pragmatism and Subjectivism are not the only challenges to the correspondence view of truth; however, they are the most prevalent and popular. Therefore, for brevities sake they will be the only ones discussed in this posting. For further discussion on what truth is not, the author recommends Chapter Seven of Systematic Theology Volume One by Dr. Norman Geisler.

In the next posting the correspondence view of truth will be considered along with its philosophical and Biblical justifications. Stay tuned.

Footnotes:

1) John Chaffe, The Philosopher’s Way: Thinking Critically About Profound Ideas (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, 2005), 415.
2) Ibid., 415.
3) Ron Morris, Philosophy for Dummies (New York, NY: Wiley Publishing, 1999), 43.
4) Ibid., 43.
5) Ibid., 45.
6) Norman Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume One (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2002), 110.
7) Bryan Magee, The Story of Philosophy: The Essential Guide to the History of Western Philosophy (New York, NY: DK Publishing, 1998), 183.
8) Geisler, Systematic Theology Volume One, 110.
9) Ibid., 110.
10) Ibid., 113.
11) Ibid., 113.
12) Ibid., 113.

13) Ibid., 113.

The Protestant Revolution and the Thirty Years' War

A year ago at this time, I was in the middle of researching and composing my capstone paper for my Masters Degree in Military History. As one might expect, this was no small task. Consequently, I wanted to choose a topic in which I had sufficient interest, since this endeavour would be so time consuming. Originally, I wanted to write about religion as a cause of war. However, I was quickly advised by my capstone advisor, that I needed to narrow my thesis since there was no way I could sufficiently cover such a broad topic in 50 to 60 pages.

For brevity's sake, eventually I choose a thesis that set out to prove two essential points. First, the events commonly referred to as the Protestant Reformation were in fact a revolution that lead to the transference of power and property across the European landscape. Second, the Thirty Years' War was not an isolated religious conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but the end of the revolution started by Luther over 150 years before.

For those of you who are interested in church history please enjoy The Protestant Revolution and the Thirty Years' War.

More is still to follow in the series What is Truth?

The Peopling of the Americas: A Scientific, Historical, and Scriptural Investigation

Do you remember your high school history class? Do you recall learning the Land Bridge Migration theory as an exploitation for how the Native Americas arrived in the Americas before the time of Columbus? In case you forgot, archaeologists and historians have postulated that Siberia and Alaska were once connected by an ice sheet which allowed Asians to cross over into North America. Upon arriving in the Americas these people groups slowly matriculated throughout North and South America settling in various regions.

Have you ever looked at a map and thought to yourself, "it looks like South America and Africa could fit together like the pieces of a jig saw puzzle." Scientists have long postulated that the Earth was originally one land mass, a phenomenon known as Pangea. Millions of years ago, through the natural processes of subduction, accretion, folding, and faulting Pangea broke apart and the continents drifted into their current locations, according to the theory of Continental Drift.

Both of these theories rely heavily Charles Darwin's theory of evolution for their theoretical support. Should the believer accept Lang Bridge Migration and Continental Drift without considering the subject through the lenses of Scripture? Ten years ago, I investigated the subject and wrote the following paper explaining my findings for a collegiate course in United States History. Please enjoy, The Peopling of the Americas: A Scientific, Historical, and Scriptural Investigation.

Stay tuned for more in the series entitled What Is Truth?

What Is Truth? An Introductory Study

In John 18:38, Pilate asks Jesus a simple yet extremely profound question, “what is truth?” One can almost hear a tone of sarcasm in Pilate’s voice as he utters forth this infamous question. It is almost as if Pilate questions whether or not truth exists. Throughout history many philosophers have offered various perspectives on the nature and knowability of truth. Many in our current postmodern culture question whether absolute truth exists and/or deny that it can be known.

Unfortunately many Christian young people have been spoiled by the culture’s current mantra which alleges that truth is relative to the individual and that absolute truth does not exist. In his book, The Last Christian Generation, author Josh McDowell cites the results from a recent survey in which 81% of teenagers said they believe “that all truth is relative to the individual and his/her circumstances.”(1) While most observers of modern culture would not find these statics overly surprising, the response offered by churched young people to same question is quite disturbing. McDowell reports that 70% of Christian young people believe that there is no absolute moral truth.(2) In short, our Christian young people, indeed some grace young people, are being adversely affected by the world system. Mr. McDowell’s commentary on the situation is both instructive and accurate, when he writes “they (Christian young people) have adopted the view that moral truth is not true for them until they choose to believe it. They believe that the act of believing makes things true. And then, once they believe, those things will be true for them only until they choose to believe something else. As soon as something more appealing comes along among they are likely to begin believing that—whether or not it’s Biblical.”(3)

For those of you who may be tempted to view McDowell’s thoughts as an overstatement, rest assured they are not. As a Christian educator in a public school, my heart has been broken numerous times upon listening to young people who call themselves Christians say things like, “Christianity is true because I believe it is” or “other religion can be true as long as they are sincerely believed.” Grace teens are not immune from this confusion and any thought to the contrary is near-sighted and ought to be guarded against. Just because young people are taught Pauline Mid-Acts dispensationalism does not ensure that they are equipped to withstand the unrelenting attack of the adversary upon the notion of absolute truth. In fact, keeping the second or third generation grace believer in the doctrine is a major problem that merits further discussion.

Americans are fickle when it comes to the issue of truth. On the one hand we demand the truth from our spouses, children, bosses, doctors, bankers, stock brokers, lawyers, and politicians. One need only look at the recent public outrage over the bonuses paid to AIG executives or the hatred directed at hedge fund scam artist Bernie Madoff for proof of mans demands to be told the truth. People expect to be told the truth when reading a reference book, pill bottle, road sign, food label, or watching a news story. In fact, Americans demand the truth in every facet of our lives that affects our money, relationships, safety, or health.(4)

Why is it then when it comes to religion and morality all of a sudden truth is relative? Why do people demand the truth in everything but morality and religion? Why does one say, “That’s true for you but not for me,” when discussing morality or religion, when they would never accept such nonsense when talking to their banker about their money market account or a doctor about their health? Most people’s rejection of moral or religious absolutes is volitional rather than intellectual. Consequently, many have swallowed self-defeating truth claims in their attempt to escape being held accountable to any moral standards or religious doctrines.

Simply stated, relativism is the belief that absolute truth does not exist. Relativists will often say things like “there is no such thing as truth.” Statements such as this are self-defeating; that is they fail to meet their own standards. If one says, “there is no such thing as absolute truth,” are they not making an absolute statement? In other words, the statement, “there is no such thing as absolute truth,” claims to be absolutely true. Comparatively speaking this is like writing, “This sentence is not in English.” Clearly such a statement must be false since it was written in English. The sooner grace believers learn how to recognize self-defeating statements, turn them against our opponents, and teach our young people to follow suit, the more powerful we will be as ambassadors for the message of Grace.

In their book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist, Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek present the following seven truths about truth:

• Truth is discovered, not invented. It exists independent of anyone’s knowledge of it. (Gravity existed prior to Newton)
• Truth is transcultural; if something is true, it is true for all people, in all places, at all times. (2+2=4)
• Truth is unchanging even though our beliefs about truth change. (The earth is round
• Beliefs cannot change a fact, no matter how sincerely they are held.
• Truth is not affected by the attitude of the one professing it.
• All truths are absolute truths. Even truths that appear relative are really absolute
• Truth is that which corresponds to its referent.(5)

On the strength of these seven points, it is easy to see why Geisler and Turek concluded “that contrary beliefs are possible, but that contrary truths are not possible.” In short, we can believe everything is true but we cannot make everything true.(6)

In John 17:17, Jesus indirectly answers Pilate’s question about truth. Jesus states, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” The bottom line here is that absolute truth does exist and the Bible claims to be the sole source of this truth. In other words, the word of God and the truth are synonymous with each other. Even II Timothy 2:15, a favorite verse of Mid-Acts dispensationalists, touches on this important issue. While the entire Bible is true, the portion of the truth which is applicable and in force today can only be discerned through rightly dividing the word of truth. In conclusion, consider the following statement--while most religions have some beliefs that are true, not all religions’ beliefs can be true because they teach opposites. So it is with the word of truth. The word of truth teaches opposites that need to be distinguished and divided from each other in order for the big picture to come into focus. A solid defense of absolute truth is crucial to Mid-Acts theology.

Footnotes:
1)Josh McDowell, The Last Christian Generation (Holiday, FL: Green Key Book, 2006), 45.
2)Ibid., 45.
3)Ibid., 42.
4)Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek. I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 36.
5)Ibid., 37-38.

6)Ibid., 39.

The Logic of Grace

Please consider the titles of the following books and pamphlets written by grace authors, Things That Differ, Distinctions That Matter, Parallel Not Identical, Are There Contradictions in the Bible? Questions and Answers About Dispensationalism. As their titles imply, all of these books argue that there are differences in the Bible that need to be recognized if the Bible is going to be properly understood. How does one ascertain that there are passages of Scripture that contradict each other? The answer is quite simple, through the application of the laws of logic. Logic is based upon four undeniable principles or laws that there is no getting around.

In the previous post dated March 5, 2009, it was asserted that philosophy possesses an interesting conundrum for the believer, since it is both unavoidable and dangerous. The goal of the current posting is three-fold: 1) to familiarize the reader with the four basic laws of rational thought, 2) to demonstrate that Mid-Acts Dispensationalists use these laws when presenting their doctrinal positions, and 3) to attempt to prove that the Mid-Acts position is the only logically tenable conclusion. The methodology of dispensational Bible study is intimately entwined with the laws of logic. Proponents of right division have often argued that it is simply by observing the distinctions that God has placed within His word that one can understand God in God's way. Statements like these are meaningless unless there is a way to ascertain differences in the way God has dealt with humanity throughout time.

If one defines theology as "a rational discourse about God," then all theology, dispensational or otherwise is built upon the elementary laws of logic.(1) "If logic is a necessary precondition of all thought, then it must also be necessary for all thought about God."(2) Logic is supported by four undeniable principles. These laws are self-evident as well as self-explanatory, there is no way around them. In order to deny them, one must assume the very principles one seeks to disprove. In other words, any attempt to falsify these laws would require that one assert the very principle one is attempting to deny.

In philosophy these are known as first principles and are considered the foundation of all knowledge. Without them nothing could be known.(3) These include the following:

• The Principle of Existence--Being Is (B is)--The fact that I exist is undeniable for I would have to exist in order to deny my existence.(4)
  
• The Principle of Identity--Being is Being (B is B)--A thing must be identical to itself. If it were not then it would not be itself. Theologically, if this law of were not binding, one could not say that God is God (G is G).(5)


• The Principle of Noncontradiction--Being Is Not Nonbeing (B is Not Non-B)--Being cannot be nonbeing, for they are direct opposites, and opposites cannot be the same.(6) Without this law, one could not say that God is not non-God (G is not non-G). "Thus, God could be the devil or whatever is anti-God."(7)
  
• The Principle of Excluded Middle--Either Being or Nonbeing (Either B or Non-B)--"Since being and nonbeing are opposites, and opposites cannot be the same, nothing can hide in the cracks between being and nonbeing. The only choices are being and nonbeing."(8) Theologically speaking, if the law of excluded middle did not exist there would have no way to discern whether it was God or not God we were speaking about. It is clearly absurd if when we were using the term God it could refer to both God and not God.(9)

These four laws, along with the laws of valid inference, whereby a conclusion can be properly drawn from given premises, form the basis for all theological discourse. As stated earlier, these principles are self-evident because any attempt to deny them requires one to assert that which one is attempting to disprove. Consider the following examples: "I think that I cannot think," "I know that I cannot know," or "I reason that I cannot reason." In each of these examples one is doing precisely what he or she claims is impossible. Similarly, without the law of noncontradiction, one would have no way to distinguish between statements that were true and false.

Pauline Dispensationalists utilize these laws routinely when presenting their unique doctrinal positions. Proponents of the Mid-Acts position often stress the following theological distinctions as elemental. The laws of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle are unavoidable when distinguishing between: prophecy and mystery, earthly and heavenly programs, Israel and the Body of Christ, or law and grace. Simply stated, when you have two things that are different, they both cannot be the same. Consider the following example:

• Acts 3:21--Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.
  
• Romans 16:25--Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began,

The principles of Noncontradiction and Excluded Middle, necessitate that one acknowledge there is a difference between that which was spoken since the world began and that which was kept secret since he world began. Likewise, it would be totally illogical for someone to assert that the divergent instructions regarding circumcision found in Genesis 17:9-14 and Galatians 5:6 were in fact the same. While Genesis 17 was binding upon the people to whom it was given, it is impossible for both sets of instructions to be binding today because they teach opposites. Circumcision cannot be both required and not required as an ordinance upon the same people at the same time. Many more examples could be cited to prove the overall point that rightly dividing the word of truth is impossible without utilizing the four basic laws of logic.

Consequently, one is forced to conclude that Mid-Acts Dispensationalists utilize logic and philosophical argumentation when formulating and articulating their theological positions. It is the point of view of this author that instead of running from this conclusion, as some have done in the past, efforts should be made to present the Mid-Acts position for what it is, the only theological position that is not contrary to reason. Think about it for a moment. Virtually every other system of Biblical interpretation glosses over or flat-out denies that there are contradictions in the Bible that need to be recognized. The result is a theology which makes the untenable assertion that passages which plainly contradict each other are in fact the same.

Acts 2 or Acts 28 dispensationalists may attempt to cry foul on this conclusion, but there are details of those positions that defy logic. For the Acts 2 position to be correct, prophecy would have to become a mystery. Moreover, how can the last days of prophecy be the beginning of the Body of Christ? Similar problems exist for supporters of the Acts 28 position. Paul writes to the Corinthians about the Body of Christ prior to penning the Prison Epistles in Acts 28. If the Body of Christ did not begin until Acts 28, one is left with the bizarre conclusion that there were members in the Body of Christ before it began.

If sound reasoning is important to your belief system, look no further than the Pauline position. Mid-Acts Dispensationalism is the only theological viewpoint that consistently applies the fundamental laws of logic. It is time for the supporters of the Mid-Acts position to acknowledge and stand for the rational roots of our viewpoint.

Footnotes

1)Norman L. Geisler, Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 15-16.

2) Ibid., 16.

3) Norman L. Geisler. Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1999), 250.

4) Ibid., 250.

5) Norman L. Geisler. Systematic Theology: Volume One. (Minneapolis: Bethany House, 2002), 82.

6) Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, 250.

7) Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 81.

8) Geisler, Baker Encyclopedia of Christan Apologetics, 251.

9) Geisler, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 82.

The Believer and Philosophy

In Colossians 2:8, the Apostle Paul issues the following warning concerning the dangers of philosophy: "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." According to Webster's 1828 Dictionary, the word "beware" carries the following meanings: "to restrain or guard one's self from. Hence, to regard with caution; to restrain one's self from anything that may be dangerous, injurious or improper; to avoid; to take care; followed by or before the thing that is to be avoided." Consequently, there can be little doubt that Paul viewed philosophy as a discipline that possessed the capacity to spoil, or ruin the believer who over indulge in its study. Paul's usage of the military term "spoil," which means to carry off as booty, or to carry one off as a captive or slave, indicates the stern nature of Paul's warning with regard to philosophy.(1)

Many believers have taken this verse as a complete prohibition against engaging in any type of philosophical study. Others have understood the verse to be speaking about the specific philosophy of Gnogoticism that had begun penetrating the thinking of some of the saints in Colosse. Regardless of one's personal position, there is no doubt that philosophy needs to be respected for its potential spoiling capacity. Paul's knowledge of Epicurean and Stoic Philosophy, including his ability to quote their own poets in Acts 17, indicates that it is possible for believers to engage in philosophical pursuits without being spoiled by them.


In their book, Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective, Norman L. Geisler and Paul D. Feinberg argue that philosophy can contribute to the understanding of one's faith. Geisler and Feinberg assert, "Christianity can stand up to the intellectual challenges mounted against it. The result of such a challenge should not be the loss of faith, but the priceless possession of a well-reasoned and mature faith."(2) When one considers the number of disciplines that are impacted by philosophical inquiry, it becomes apparent that even Mid-Acts Dispensationalists utilize aspects of philosophical argumentation when supporting doctrinal positions. Ethics, Social and Political Philosophy, Asthetics, Logic, Philosophy of Religion, Philosophy of History, Philosophy of Science, Epistemology, and Metaphysics, are all subjects that are impacted by philosophical study.(3)

Theology, whether it be Dispensational, Systematic, Covenant, or Historical, cannot make any assertions without utilizing the laws of logic. Believers who claim, "logic does not apply to God," defeat their own argument because they use logic in making such as statement. Therefore, logic is unavoidable. Grace Believers cannot argue that Covenant or Charismatic Theology is wrong without utilizing the laws of rational thinking because the basis of all logic is that some statements are true and others are false.(4) At this point, some might raise the following objection, "using logic puts logic before God." Believers need to make a distinction between the order of being, and the order of knowing. "In the order of being. God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing)."(5) Without God, nothing could have existence. Logic comes from God not God from logic.

In the end, believers cannot escape engaging in philosophical thinking; however, we are still warned not be spoiled by it. In Romans One, mankind corrupted the knowledge of God and became fools, by professing themsleves to be wise. In 1 Corinthians 1:22, Paul writes, "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:" The Greek's attitude toward wisdom is demonstrated in Acts 17:21 where Luke comments that the sole passion of the Athenians was "either to tell, or to hear some new thing." Herein lies the problem with an unchecked affection for philosophy-- it pampers the flesh and entices the mind. Human wisdom seeks to utilize logic to explain the existence of all things without acknowledging the source of the very logic it extolls as the source of all truth and reality. 1 Corinthians 1:21 teaches that God in his wisdom created a situation whereby man by his own ability to reason could never know God.

For believers philosophy is both a necessity and an ever present danger. When one finds oneself elevating human reason and viewpoint above the word of God rightly divided, should run for the nearest mental exit, to escape being ensnared and spoiled by vain deceit!

Footnotes
1) Strong's Concordance
2) Geisler, Norman. and Paul D. Feinberg. Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990), 23.
3) Ibid., 23-37.
4) Geisler, Norman. and Ronald M. Brooks. Come Let Us Reason: An Introduction to Logical Thinking. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1989), 15-16.
5) Ibid., 17.