Defending Truth

In the last blog entry I spoke of a new breed of sinner. It is not that sin has changed, but that the perspective of the sinner has changed. I tried to give a summary of why people have abandoned the belief in absolute truth. So, what is the next step in our examination? To be honest, our first inclination is to turn to the Bible and begin citing verses about truth, the existence of God, and the legitimacy of the Word of God. While I do not want to exclude Scriptural supports, and would not minimize the work of Holy Spirit, from a purely practical point of view in light of people’s perspective, I believe the place to begin is with a foundational line of reasoning for the existence of truth. People who do not believe truth exists must be led to consider otherwise. However, the all-consuming question is how so we do that.

I believe the place to begin is with a law of logic called the law of noncontradiction.  Simply stated it says that something cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. In other words, something cannot be both true and untrue. This is called relativism. It is the pervading belief of most people today. Norman Geisler says relativists usually make two primary truth claims: 1) there is no absolute truth; and 2) there are not absolute moral values. However, the everyday person expresses this by saying that the Bible can be true for you, but it is not for me. I have actually heard claims that adultery might be wrong for some people, but I just love this person so much, it can’t be wrong for me. People say they believe this way, but do they really? No.

When you pin people down, most apply this line of faulty reasoning only to the situations that are convenient for them or serve their purpose. Reality is that for everyone moral law is undeniable. Let me illustrate. Let’s say that I meet a person that says that absolute truth does not exist and there is no right and wrong. I would counter him by saying to you really believe that? Of course, he would say yes. By virtue of his own answer, he has destroyed his claim. If you don’t believe absolute truth exists, then you cannot say it is absolutely true that nothing is true. His argument is self-defeating.

A person might say that something is right for you, but is not right for me. Does that mean that Hitler was as justified in his actions in killing millions of Jews in order to help the German race as Mother Teresa (I’m not making a theological endorsement) was in aiding the hurting in India? If a person keeps to the tenants of their argument, they have to say yes. When a person follows their line of reasoning out to its logical (or illogical) end, it will either validate their line of reasoning or expose the error of their thinking. In fact, the relativist has no justification for a moral life or good deeds if there is no such thing as truth, righteousness, or goodness. By the same token, any immoral act is as justifiable as any good act if absolutes do not exist.

As Geisler points out, there are many reasons that Moral Law exists.

1. The Moral Law is undeniable.

2. We know it by our reactions.

3. It is the basis of human rights.

4. It is the unchanging standard of justice.

5. It defines a real difference between moral positions (Hitler & Mother Teresa).

6. Since we know what is absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of righteousness.

7. The Moral Law is the grounds for political and social dissent.

8. If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn’t make excuses for violating it.

You may have noticed that I have capitalized Moral Law throughout this article. Why? Because every law has a law giver. Therefore, if Moral Law exists, then there must be a Moral Law Giver. My friends…there is.

Does the issue run deeper? Yes it does. However, my point is that while we may not be able to engage in technical philosophical arguments, we can all connect with everyday life and lovingly and logically challenge people about the existence of truth. Then we will be able to move them to consider belief in God.

I would like to issue one final challenge. For years, Free Will Baptists and many other movements have emphasized emotions and feelings. I for one am grateful that God, at different times and in sundry ways, stirs the emotions. Emotions are an intricate part of our personalities. Also, that is part of our revivalist roots. However, if we are not careful, emotions will take center stage and our emphasis on “feeling” will be the only criteria by which we measure reality and even our Christianity. That is an error. We will not have right emotions if we do not have right thinking. A person may feel justified in an action or belief, but if it is not true in light of God’s Word, it is wrong. Every Christian must be rigorously committed to truth. Every Christian should be a thinking Christian and a committed student of truth. It is not wrong to pursue education (formal or otherwise). In fact, the Bible says that we are to love God with our minds. The root word for disciple means “learner.” Christ is God Incarnate. He is the Perfect Embodiment of Truth. If He is truly our Master, then we must be committed and disciplined pupils. We must immerse ourselves in God’s Word and know the foundations of truth upon which it is based. Emotions that are not based on firm truth claims will lead us astray.

Jesus said in Matthew 22:37: “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.” Christianity is not just a feeling. It is a way of life based on the truth and revelation from God, the Bible. And, when we know the truth, it will make us free to love God (John 8:32), through faith in Jesus Christ. It will also enable us to be used by the Lord to lead people whose lives are lived in contradiction to live in the truth of God’s ultimate reality.