Speaking the Truth in Love
The following is taken from Vincent Cheung, Commentary on Ephesians (PDF, p. 102).
Instead of being tossed here and there by every heretical trend, we promote the growth of the body of Christ by "speaking the truth in love." Now, what does this mean? Many people seem to think that this means, "Assert the truth, but do it nicely." They define "love" according to secular social etiquette, the non-Christian standard of acceptable speech and behavior.
But if this is the right definition, and if this is the correct understanding of "speaking the truth in love," then Paul would be telling Titus to "speak the truth in hate" when he writes, "Therefore, rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith and will pay no attention to Jewish myths or to the commands of those who reject the truth" (Titus 1:13-14). Paul's concern is obviously similar to our present one, that is, doctrinal accuracy and maturity. Yet, he says, "Rebuke them sharply, so that they will be sound in the faith." Well, is this love or not? Why do you think Paul says to rebuke them in the first place? Because he loves them (Proverbs 27:5; 1 Timothy 5:20).
Of course, to harshly rebuke someone is often not the first step against false doctrine or spiritual immaturity, but it is usually reserved for the obstinate and unrepentant, and those in close danger of spiritual shipwreck. The point is that "speaking the truth in love" does not demand that we always speak softly and nicely, but it is precisely our love that sometimes requires us to let out a thunderous rebuke against the sinning or erring believer. Paul writes, "These, then, are the things you should teach. Encourage and rebuke with all authority" – sometimes I encourage and sometimes I rebuke, but I always teach. Some people think that I should always encourage, sometimes teach, and never rebuke, but Paul assures me: "Do not let anyone despise you" (Titus 2:15). So I will keep on encouraging and rebuking people. Why? Because I love them.1
NOTES
1 To love does not mean "be nice." Biblical love is much greater than this. It refers to an obedience to the laws of God in our relationship with God and with people (John 14:21; Romans 13:10). It is volitional and sacrificial, often resulting in some corresponding practical action that benefits others at our own expense. Here we stress "speaking the truth in love" among believers. For a specific discussion on what love and hate mean in our relationship with unbelievers, see my Systematic Theology.
Internal Change and External Conduct
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I have written to you before on this matter of temptation, and of course, the best thing to do is to fight it through prayer, biblical meditation, and extensive reading of the word. Negatively, we can get rid of some of the external things that tempt us, although my friend said that something must be resolved from the inside out and not outside in.
There is some truth to saying that holiness is worked from the inside out rather than from the outside in. However, without knowing more about what the Bible says, this can become misleading, so let us take some time to consider it.
Jesus says in Matthew 12:33-35, "Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks. The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him." That is, you do not change the fruit to affect the tree, but it is the tree that determines the kind of fruit that will be produced.
Then, he says elsewhere, "Are you still so dull?… Don't you see that whatever enters the mouth goes into the stomach and then out of the body? But the things that come out of the mouth come from the heart, and these make a man 'unclean.' For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander. These are what make a man 'unclean'; but eating with unwashed hands does not make him 'unclean'" (Matthew 15:16-20). By themselves, rituals, ceremonies, and religious traditions cannot make a person spiritually clean or unclean. If a person's heart is full of unrighteousness, a mere washing of the hands will do nothing to improve his condition. Thus growth in holiness cannot consist in reforming one's outward behavior alone.
On the other hand, the Bible refers to a put off/put on aspect of Christian sanctification. The believer casts away the bad and takes up the good. As he resists temptations and pursues holiness, he must perform the appropriate external actions.
So I tell you this, and insist on it in the Lord, that you must no longer live as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their thinking. They are darkened in their understanding and separated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them due to the hardening of their hearts. Having lost all sensitivity, they have given themselves over to sensuality so as to indulge in every kind of impurity, with a continual lust for more.
You, however, did not come to know Christ that way. Surely you heard of him and were taught in him in accordance with the truth that is in Jesus. You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
Therefore each of you must put off falsehood and speak truthfully to his neighbor, for we are all members of one body. "In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go down while you are still angry, and do not give the devil a foothold. He who has been stealing must steal no longer, but must work, doing something useful with his own hands, that he may have something to share with those in need.
Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice. Be kind and compassionate to one another, forgiving each other, just as in Christ God forgave you. (Ephesians 4:17-32)
Note the various contrasts in this passage. First, there is a fundamental difference between non-Christians and Christians. Non-Christians are characterized by "the futility of their thinking." They are "darkened in their understanding." But Christians have been enlightened with "the truth that is in Jesus." Biblical sanctification, then, also aims at this fundamental level, so that Christians are to put off their old self, and to be made new in their minds, so as put on the new self (v. 22-24). Therefore, the work of the Holy Spirit in the mind, causing believers to conform and develop more and more into the image of Christ, is the very essence of sanctification.
But Paul does not stop here. This principle of sanctification works in believers to produce changes in their behavior, enabling and moving them to adopt new actions and habits. So they do not only "put off falsehood," but now they "speak truthfully" (v. 25). They do not only avoid "unwholesome talk," but now they speak "what is helpful for building others up" (v. 29). They do not only "get rid of…every form of malice," but now they become "kind and compassionate to one another" (v. 31-32).
An especially illustrative contrast is Paul's instruction to put off stealing (v. 28). To paraphrase Jay Adams, who applies this principle in counseling, "When is a thief no longer a thief? It is not when he stops stealing, since no thief steals constantly. He might be taking a break. He might even be trying to stop. But he is still a thief, and he will steal again. A thief is no longer a thief only when he stops stealing and starts working, sharing, and meeting other people's needs. Only then can the change be genuine and permanent." The act of stealing stems from the heart, perhaps out of covetousness or some other evil motive. Therefore, the essence of change certainly lies in the work of the Holy Spirit, applying God's power and precept to the heart. But then the thief must actually stop stealing and start working, and he cannot start working without performing some appropriate external actions. Since this is integral to the process of sanctification, and not just the final result, these external actions are to be implemented even at the very beginning. Here is a corrective to the misunderstanding that may arise from an incomplete view of sanctification. Although sanctification is in a sense worked from the inside out, holy actions are required at the beginning as integral to the process of change. An important implication is that there is never an excuse for continuing to sin or neglecting good works.
Applying this to our own struggle against temptations, besides the inner work of the Holy Spirit, there is to be a change in our external behavior. The external change is not purely negative, but there is to be a corresponding positive development. Our focus and energy are not directed only at stopping something negative, but also at starting and continuing something positive. We do not only "put off" evil words and actions, but now we "put on" holy words and actions. So wickedness is not only abandoned, but it is replaced with righteousness, both in our thinking and in our conduct. The same principle applies when we are counseling and correcting other Christians. We must do more than to tell them to forsake sin, but we must also urge and help them to replace it, and to pursue righteousness. This will often entail some concrete external actions.
Of course, there is also the danger of bypassing inner transformation in favor of reforming the outward conduct alone, in which case no true and lasting holiness is attained, resulting in self-deception and hypocrisy. The problem occurs, however, only when we ignore part of the biblical teaching on the subject. In our passage from Ephesians, Paul makes the contrast between the basic spiritual/intellectual difference between Christians and non-Christians. His instruction to reform outward conduct is based on this foundation. We make these changes because we have come to know "the truth that is in Jesus."
Therefore, in even speaking about this principle of sanctification to someone, we first assume regeneration, which is a sovereign act of God by which he changes the basic disposition of a person from evil to good, from a sinner to a saint, and from a child of Satan to a child of God. Of course a good tree will produce good fruit — the problem is how a bad tree can become good. Scripture teaches that this cannot be done by making the fruit good, since it is the tree that produces the fruit, and not the other way around — somehow a bad tree must become a good one. How can this be done? Can a tree change its own nature? Or, as Jeremiah 13:23 says, "Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil." On the other hand, "What is impossible with men is possible with God" (Luke 18:27). What is it then? True holiness becomes possible only when God sovereignly — apart from human decision and effort — chooses to change the nature of a person. And thus true holiness belongs to Christians alone, to those whom God has chosen for himself and foreordained to perform good works (Ephesians 2:10). All non-Christians remain in futility and darkness.
RECOMMENDED
Graded Absolutism
The following is taken from my Commentary on First Peter. It has been revised and included in Blasphemy and Mystery.
Graded absolutism assumes that God's commands often contradict one another, and attempts to provide a solution. It is tragic that some of the most popular and respected scholars adhere to this view, including Norman Geisler, in his Christian Ethics, and John Jefferson Davis, in his Evangelical Ethics. As I complain below, this view of God's commandments makes him out to be an idiot, and the proposed solution is nothing more than creative rebellion. Therefore, it is paramount for Christians to perceive the impiety and danger of such a view.
There are those who believe that ethical dilemmas can occur within the divine command system of ethics. This is when we face situations in which two divine commands appear to demand contradictory responses. That is, in an ethical dilemma, one divine command appears to demand one response, but at the same time this response appears to be forbidden by another applicable divine command, and which demands a contradictory action. The question is, when two divine commands appear to contradict, which one should we obey?
This is what makes our discussion on divine command ethics relevant to our passage. Our case involves a conflict between divine and human authorities, with divine authority on the one side (Christ, Scripture, etc.), and a human authority functioning by divine authority on the other (human institutions). But before we address this, let us first consider a situation in which each side of the apparent conflict directly involves a divine command.
Here is a favorite test case, or mental experiment: Suppose a person comes up to you with a deadly weapon demanding you to disclose the location of another person, whom he intends to murder. It appears that two moral duties apply in such a situation. First, there is the duty to preserve the life of another. But if you lie to divert the man from his target, then it seems that you would be violating your duty to tell the truth. To put this negatively, on the one hand, you are forbidden to contribute to the unjust death of another person, and on the other hand, you are forbidden to lie.
A number of solutions and perspectives have been proposed. Among them, a favorite one is called "graded absolutism." It affirms that there is an absolute standard of ethics, and this standard is revealed to us in God's commandments. To transgress God's law is to commit sin; however, some moral duties are greater than others. Then, it proceeds to acknowledge that there are situations in which moral duties genuinely contradict one another. In these cases, a person must choose the "greater good," and when he does so, he is counted as righteous, and the fact that he violates the lesser commandment in order to fulfill the greater one does not count as sin.
When applied to our test case, according to graded absolutism, in order to fulfill the duty to preserve life, you would be morally obligated to lie. In fact, it would be a sin not to lie. Amazingly, many Christians consider this line of thinking a good solution to moral dilemmas. But there are several major problems with it.
First, graded absolutism is unbiblical, and permits men to sin. Although it claims to be a form of absolutism, in reality it is just a form of relativism. Moreover, it avoids sin by redefining it, and not by obeying God's commands. Scripture acknowledges that some commandments are greater than others, but it never acknowledges that they could ever contradict one another, nor does it say that we are to follow only the greater ones when they seem to contradict. When Jesus speaks of "the more important matters of the law," he adds, "You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former" (Matthew 23:23). And when he refers to the first and second greatest commandments, it is not to make the point that they are to be obeyed instead of the lesser ones. Rather, he adds, "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments" (Matthew 22:40). In both cases, he acknowledges a ranking among God's commandments only to insist that we should obey all of them.
Second, graded absolutism is unnecessary, because it deals with false dilemmas. Using the above test case as an example, there are many more options other than to lie or not to lie. By the biblical principle permitting one to defend himself and to defend others, the person faced with the decision could try to subdue the would-be murderer. Or, he could outright refuse to disclose the location of the intended victim and accept the consequences — whether injury, torture, or death. Depending on the situation and the many variables that are at play, a number of other options could be open to the person confronted with the decision. Of course he could even choose to lie! But instead of defining it away, let us still call it sin.*
Third, graded absolutism is unbelieving, in that it doubts the wisdom of God's revelation and providence. Many situations appear to be moral dilemmas only because we insist on doing God's job for him. This is when we judge for ourselves the best outcome and then manipulate the situation to attain it. Rather than obeying God's commandments as they have been revealed to us, we attempt to predict the consequence of obeying each of them, judge the desirability of each outcome, rank our moral duties accordingly (that is, not according to revelation but according to the projected outcome), and then make the one on the top of our list the highest obligation, excusing ourselves from obeying the rest.
There are numerous occasions in which I would give someone a set of clear instructions only to find him do something quite different because he thought that his way was better or that it produced a better outcome. Someone like this often expects to be commended for his creativity and resourcefulness, but what I see is someone who is rebellious, and who cannot follow simple instructions. What I see is someone that I cannot trust, since I can never know whether I will get what I ask for from him.
The problem is that, whereas I know precisely what I want when I make the instructions, I do not tell the person everything that is on my mind. And why must I exhaustively explain every request to a person, if he could perform the task perfectly just by doing what he is told? If I ask for a kitchen knife, I do not want someone to give me a gun just because he thinks that it would make a better weapon — perhaps I just want to make dinner. And if I ask for a gun, I do not want someone to give me a nuclear bomb just because it could cause greater destruction — perhaps I just want to hunt a bear. If I ask to have my photograph taken, I do not want someone to paint my portrait just because it has more artistic value. Perhaps I do not care about artistic value — perhaps I just need the photograph to renew my passport.
A person who often gets creative with straightforward instructions sometimes puts great effort into performing the task — his way, that is — but in reality he is useless and unreliable. He takes great pride in his work, partly because he gets creative with it and invests himself into it, but he fails to perform what has been asked of him. So he is reprimanded, but because he is thoroughly self-centered in his perception, he considers himself unjustly accused and becomes indignant.
Likewise, graded absolutism is nothing but creative rebellion. Scripture indicates which moral duties are greater and lesser, and therefore provides an objective (God's viewpoint) way to determine moral priorities — not to excuse us from the lesser duties, but to determine the degree of guilt and the severity of the punishment deserved when we disobey. But graded absolutism always takes more than this to make a decision when confronted with what it perceives to be a moral dilemma. It relies heavily on the person's human judgment to predict the outcomes of his actions, at times far from his immediate control and involvement, then to relate these outcomes to the applicable commandments, and then to choose the appropriate actions based on the ranking of the commandments. It has no confidence in God's wisdom in giving these commandments in the first place, and it takes his providence out of the picture altogether. In other words, it assumes that we are smart and God is stupid, and that we are in control while God is helpless.
The correct solution is simple. Rather than predicting the outcomes of my actions and then choosing which commandments to obey on that basis, my immediate responsibility and attention is to God's commandments, and I leave it up to the Giver of these commandments to take care of the outcomes. He knew what kind of world we live in and he knew what he was doing when he gave these commandments. It is not up to me to make things come out "right" when I might not even know what he wants out of the situation or why he wants it. "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law" (Deuteronomy 29:29). Our duty is to "follow all the words of this law," and not to follow what we determine to be the right course of action by predicting what would happen if we indeed follow all the words of this law.
Even when we follow this biblical and straightforward principle, there will still be difficult moral decisions. However, they will be difficult not because we must resolve moral dilemmas generated by divine commands that contradict one another — that never happens. Rather, one difficulty lies in the continual effort to attain a faithful and precise understanding of God's commandments and their implications for our thoughts and behavior. And the other difficulty is in the continual struggle against sin, exhibited in the tendency to think that we know better than God (as in graded absolutism), as well as in the tendency to outright refuse to do what we know is right and to insist on doing what we know is wrong. Moral decisions are often difficult not because there are so many dilemmas, but because there is so much sin and rebellion.
* The published version of this commentary includes a footnote that addresses the example of Rahab.
Recommended
Double Graded Absolutism
The Blasphemy of Graded Absolutism
Blasphemy and Mystery
The Sermon on the Mount
In God We Trust
The following is an edited email correspondence.
When I use your approach to debate atheists, they keep hitting me with this question: "If human reasoning is so faulty, then why do you fly on planes, drive in cars, and go to medical doctors?" We literally put our lives in the reasoning ability of the unregenerate. Do you have an article that directly deals with this problem?
As far as I can recall, I have not directly addressed this objection, and I will tell you why. If I am going to bring up non-Christian objections and answer them, then it is only fair that I present them in the best possible light, and deal with their strongest proponents and arguments. But the problem is that non-Christians have no intelligent representatives and arguments. And it is impossible for me to imagine something intelligent that an unbeliever can say against Christianity, because there is nothing intelligent that anyone can say against Christianity. It is often difficult for me to make up examples of what unbelievers would say against Christianity, because every conceivable possibility seems so stupid that, even with what I understand about the foolishness of unbelievers, I do not want to put in their mouths such stupid things if they would not actually say them.
This explains why I have been unable to write a book of dialogues between believers and unbelievers to illustrate the principles of biblical apologetics. It is no longer possible for me to stoop to that almost subhuman intellectual level, even in my imagination, in order to ascertain what they would say — they will have to tell me. So I usually deal with only those arguments and objections that I come across in published materials, personal encounters, and questions from readers and students. And sure enough, all of them are so stupid that I could never come up with them, or imagine that these are things that any sentient being could say. Here you have given me another example of something so stupid, so easy to answer, that it never crossed my mind as something that could be used as an objection against Christianity.
Now, if we reason validly from and about God's revelation to us, that is also "human" reasoning in one sense, since we are human, and we are doing the reasoning. Not only is there nothing wrong with this, but it is how God commands us to worship and to function. A human who receives and follows God's revelation is also one who reasons according to truth. So what we undermine is not human reasoning as such, but empty speculation, which is what the unbelievers call reasoning. Apart from divine revelation and his innate constitution, man has no epistemological power or principle to discover anything about the truth, so all non-Christian thinking amounts to false assumptions about reality processed by either valid inferences from these assumptions, which produce false conclusions, or invalid inferences from them, which also produce false conclusions. Therefore, all non-Christian thoughts are false, foolish, and futile. Christ is the savior of man's intellect and sanity. Without Christ, man is stupid and insane.1 This is the condition of every unbeliever.
There are three parts to my answer. The first two do not directly answer the objection, but make observations that neutralize it. The third part is a direct answer, and it is followed by some comments on apologetics in general.
First, the objection does not refute or even attempt to answer our arguments. It is directed at the part of our apologetic method that destroys several elements of non-biblical epistemologies, including empiricism, induction, science. But the objection does not refute our arguments against these things, nor does it provide positive justification for them. In fact, there is no direct relevance between the objection and our arguments against non-biblical epistemologies.
Even if the objection succeeds, the most that it can do is to show that Christians do not practice what they believe, that they are inconsistent — that is, we argue that non-biblical epistemologies are false, but then rely on their conclusions anyway. Again, this would not prove that non-biblical epistemologies are correct. But in fact, it does not even show that Christians are inconsistent, for who says that we do not like to live dangerously? Maybe this is the reason we use inventions and technologies produced by the unbelievers. Therefore, even if Christians are made speechless by this objection, it still does not mean that the Christians are wrong and the non-Christians are right. But as we will see in the third part of our response, we do have an answer for it. So this objection accomplishes nothing. On the other hand, it implies that they have no rational response against our attack on non-biblical epistemologies. If they have a proper response, and if they can provide positive justification for empiricism, induction, and science, then why do they even need to mention this irrelevant objection?
As for those Christians who defend non-biblical epistemologies, it is significant that they also use this type of objections. For example, they would argue that by denying these elements of non-biblical epistemologies, it becomes impossible for us to perform even mundane tasks, like reading a book or changing a tire. Such a disappointing argument has the stench of non-Christian incompetence all over it — for one, it begs the question, since without even arguing against our epistemology, it assumes that theirs is necessary. Moreover, they make this objection without showing that they can perform these tasks based on the non-biblical epistemologies. They cannot get out of the pit by taking others down with them, that is, even if they can take others down. So the effect of the objection is that they are the ones who cannot perform these mundane tasks, since they claim that these elements in their epistemologies are necessary, but fail to provide justification for them or answer our arguments against them. And what about the biblical epistemology that we provide? They offer no successful refutation.
Second, non-Christian inventions and technologies indeed fail very often. Thousands of problems related to planes, cars, computers, medicines, and so on occur every day. Thousands more are caused by human error that have to do with scientific reasoning, inductive inferences, and unreliable sensations. These errors not only result in various inconveniences and financial losses, but they cost hundreds upon hundreds of human lives.
So their objection serves only to reinforce our point — they have no idea what they are doing. That they will even bring this up as an objection against Christianity and as an answer to our arguments against non-biblical epistemologies is another illustration that these are indeed extremely stupid people. They actually think that this is an effective retort against us, but it is only an occasion for us to recall their failures, and the millions of people that they have killed.
Of course, they will claim that their methods have made many positive contributions and saved many lives. The third part of our answer takes care of this. But even here we can point out that, in a debate about the ability to know reality, to argue from effect is to commit the fallacy of asserting the consequent, which is also one of the fundamental fallacies of the scientific method. So effect is irrelevant. And to bring it up here is also to beg the question, since there must be a reliable epistemology to even detect and measure the effects.
Third — this is our direct and positive response to the objection — all non-Christians and their activities are under God's control, and it is in God that we trust, not the non-Christians. God is sovereign and powerful. If he wishes, he can cause a paper plane to carry us thousands of miles to our destination, or cause what is usually a deadly poison to exhibit healing properties.
There is no independently constant nature inherent in anything that God has created. In other words, a created object does not possess an inherent power to sustain its own existence and properties apart from God, but it is God who continuously maintains its existence and actively prescribes its properties, moment by moment. This is why Calvin writes, "Indeed, not even an abundance of bread would benefit us in the slightest unless it were divinely turned into nourishment." There is nothing inherent in bread that can nourish. Rather, on each occasion that bread is consumed, God acts on the bread so that it becomes nourishment to the body, and acts on the body so that it receives nourishment from the bread.
Since this view rests upon omnipotence and exhibits no self-contradiction, right away it is at least possible by definition. Then, given that it is the only position that does not crumble under analysis, and given that it is also what Scripture teaches and implies, it is also the only biblical, rational, and indeed the only possible position. This is a form of metaphysical occasionalism — every other view, whether or not it claims to be biblical, cannot withstand the simplest scrutiny. Then, since all of reality operates under God, including knowledge acquisition, a true epistemology must be derived from and consistent with this view of metaphysics. Therefore, biblical occasionalism is the only true metaphysic and epistemology. Given this understanding, there is no difficulty in affirming that even a plane designed by non-Christians just might fly, although we have zero confidence in their intellectual abilities.
The point of their objection is to allege an inconsistency in our position, and our answer shows that there is no such inconsistency. In other words, given our knowledge of God and our dependence upon him, it raises no problem for us to interact the way we do with the inventions and technologies produced by non-Christians, since all the processes and effects of what they do in fact rest in God's plan and power, for his glory and for our benefit. So, those who deny that there is a God, or that he is the absolute controller over creation, must attempt to refute our position from an altogether different angle. It is unspeakable stupidity to think that we are inconsistent just because we use cars and planes.
Of course, non-Christians might not believe that there is a God, or that God is the sovereign active controller over every person and every object in his creation. However, their objection removes God from the discussion without addressing this, and then poses a challenge against us on that basis. Our refutation of all non-biblical epistemologies is done in the context of proclaiming a God who is sovereign over all, including the thoughts and activities of all unbelievers, and the effects of their inventions and technologies. How then, can they defend these non-biblical epistemologies by claiming that we rely on them? Without providing a refutation, the objection ignores what we proclaim about this God who is sovereign over all. Where did they get this idea that we rely on their reasoning abilities? The whole debate occurs in the first place because we affirm faith and dependence on a sovereign God who controls everything. So their objection begs the question.
Here we find an instructive illustration for the apologist in training. The non-Christian objection takes God — the God that Christians affirm, and the very God that we are having the debate about — altogether out of the equation. And the only way that a Christian could be stumped by this objection is if he does the same thing. The apologist might be doing very well throughout a conversation, but all of a sudden, he comes up against a question, argument, or objection that returns him to a non-Christian way of thinking. When this happens, of course he does not know how to proceed. He probably thinks that biblical apologetics, even if it can answer the objection, does not equip him to come up with the answer. Perhaps he needs to ask someone who is more knowledgeable. Perhaps he needs to consult someone more experienced. Perhaps the best thing to do is to run down a long list of objections with an expert apologist and memorize the answers. But the only problem is that he has stopped using biblical apologetics.
There is no deficiency in the system of theology and apologetics that he has received, but he has for the moment laid them aside. This is the only possible cause of failure for anyone who has been taught the biblical method — that is, the only way he can fail is if he stops using it. The only way a person can lose to a moron in debate is if he begins to think like one. Now he sees things from the unbeliever's false perspective, and so he thinks, "Why, yes, I do depend on their reasoning abilities. How do I get out of this one now?" A Christian might stop thinking like a Christian in the middle of debate because something is said that puts pressure on a part of his belief system that has not been sufficiently renewed by biblical teaching. In that area of his mind, on that particular subject, he still disagrees with God — maybe not entirely, but his thinking fluctuates. This is why, although we can prescribe some techniques, and although we offer direct answers to many questions, we have always emphasized that biblical apologetics is not just a list of prepared answers to standard objections. Rather, it is a way of thinking — holding to divine revelation as the only infallible body of knowledge, it then processes information and interacts with opposition through a precise application of logic.
Holding fast to God's revelation to us means that we affirm all that it teaches, including what it says about the intellectual incompetence of unbelievers. The unbelievers are always wrong, and their objections are always easy to answer. In fact, their intellectual powers are so thoroughly diminished that every objection that they utter is thoroughly foolish. It is not only something easy to answer, but also something that we can use to destroy their belief systems. Therefore, unlike non-biblical approaches to apologetics, we do not play a game of block-and-punch with unbelievers. We do not block each objection, back off, take our stance, and then advance our own strike. And we know better than to expect them to stand still while we recite our twelve-part presentation, as one popular course in classical apologetics teaches. No, non-Christian objections themselves already show how stupid they are without the illumination of Christ, and each one provides us with the occasion to totally annihilate their belief systems and demolish their intellectual credentials. Everything that an unbeliever says is something that we can use to hurt him. So when the non-Christian throws us a punch, we do not just block it and wait for the next attack, but we grab his arm and pivot our body, using his momentum to pull him in while we snap his arm and crush his windpipe with our elbow — all in one motion.2 And we do this again, and again, and again. This is spiritual vigilance. This is biblical apologetics. Until Christians accept the biblical truth that non-Christians — those without Christ — are constantly and pervasively sinful and stupid, they will never become faithful and effective apologists for the faith.
Let us broaden our subject for a moment. Unbelievers assault our faith not only from an intellectual perspective, but they also use political and other kinds of pressure in the attempt to wipe out our influence, or even our very existence. In the face of this, we are certain of victory, not because of our effort, and not even because of their incompetence. But we know that unbelievers will never succeed in destroying the church because God has established his people on the earth, and he has promised that the gates of hell will not prevail against us. In Christ, we are invincible; we are indestructible. And we need not grit our teeth or prime our emotions as we say this, either, since the flesh possesses no power to enforce divine promises. God's word holds true by his omnipotence, and we rest in him.
We are confident of our enduring intellectual dominance, not because of our inherent superiority, but because the intellectual opposition against Christianity is in reality a struggle against the mind and the wisdom of God. And this is the clash that we arrange in biblical apologetics. When we learn to perceive the conflict from this proper perspective, all fears and worries melt away, and we become amused at the non-Christians' foolishness and presumption — they are so stupid that they would even try to overcome infinite wisdom in debate.
In a similar way, every other kind of opposition against Christianity is in fact an assault, not against the believers as such, but against the Lord. And how does he respond? Is he worried and fearful? Scripture says that he scoffs at them, that is, at those who think that they could conspire against him. Are they going to outlaw the Almighty? The Lord laughs about this (Psalm 2:4). In faith, may we all learn to laugh with him.
"Only rebel not ye against the LORD, neither fear ye the people of the land; for they are bread for us: their defence is departed from them, and the LORD is with us: fear them not" (Numbers 14:9, KJV).
NOTES
1 Name-calling is not a fallacy in at least two types of situations. First, if the derogatory name or label appears in the context of a valid argument, and is the result of this argument, then the name or label is in fact a logical conclusion, not a fallacy. Second, if it is part of a person's worldview to apply this name or label, then he must be permitted to express it just as he is permitted to express any other part of his worldview during the course of debate, so that his beliefs can be discussed and examined, and so that he can tell his opponent precisely what he affirms and wishes to defend. For someone to commit a name-calling fallacy, he must commit some logical error in his application of the name or label. For example, if the name or label is irrelevant to the debate, or if the person uses the name or label instead of an argument, then it is a fallacy. But if the person who applies the name or label can show that it fits his opponent, then it cannot be a fallacy, no matter how insulting the name sounds.
2 Many Christians are not foolhardy enough to oppose Paul's vivid military metaphors, but although ours are similar in principle, they are criticized and misrepresented out of sheer hypocrisy by those professing believers who disagree with Scripture on the subject, but who lack the audacity to directly oppose it. Let us make it clear that we are not urging physical violence, but using these metaphors, we are referring to what happens in the spiritual/intellectual realm as we perform biblical apologetics. In fact, we are not even encouraging Christians to defend the faith in a harsh or offensive manner, although that is sometimes acceptable and even necessary, but we are mainly referring to content, attitude, method, and strategy.
RECOMMENDED
Presuppositional Confrontations
Short Answers to Several Criticisms
Atheism as Non-Belief
The following is an edited email correspondence.
I debate many atheists…. Some of them insist that atheism is just non-belief in God. And they deny that man is inherently religious. But my main obstacle is to prove that atheism is not simple non-belief.
If it is not settled after some initial attempts, it could be misdirected effort to insist on arguing out whether atheism is one thing or another. Whatever they wish to call it, just let them tell you what they believe and then refute it. An accurate description of the belief is essential, but the name is not. If you are stuck on arguing about what they should call their position, or on arguing about what their position should be given what they call it, then you might never engage what they believe. You will be spending all your time trying to match their position with the appropriate label.
The relevant issue here is the claim that their position is mere "non-belief," or a lack of belief in God as opposed to a definite assertion that there is no God. This is what you must deal with. The tactic might be that if they could turn their position into a phantom, into something nebulous, then it will become difficult for you to attack. However, what they affirm is in fact definite and concrete — you only need to take one step closer. In reality their position is that non-belief in God is rational or correct. In other words, even if there is such a thing as mere non-belief about God, underlying this is a positive belief that non-belief is the correct position. This is something that you can confront and refute with ease.
Of course, one response is to argue that their position is not mere non-belief about God in the first place, but we do not need to get into that right away. We can begin by taking them at their word for the moment, and deal with them from that angle. What is their reason for non-belief? Is this non-belief rational and justified? If the non-belief is justified based on a lack of evidence, then what is evidence, and why is this kind of evidence correct or relevant? And since they claim that there is a lack of evidence, a lack of rational justification, they must also refute all the arguments that Christians present to them. Once they commit themselves to the stance that atheism is mere non-belief, seize it and beat on it again and again. Rain fire and brimstone on it. Kill it, resuscitate it, then kill it again. Analyze it from every angle, so that even they become sick of it. And then do it some more.
We can go further. Besides confronting their position that non-belief is correct and justified, you may also attack them for taking such a position. After so many centuries of philosophy and science, including thousands of guesses, speculations, and random musings, this is as far as they got? As the people of God, we have been sure of the truth for thousands of years — indeed, since the beginning of the world — and there was never any need to change our answer. What unbelievers call "progress" is just a nice word for revising previous answers. Such progress does not denote advance in knowledge, but it indicates that they never had any to begin with. Continual "progress" in this sense means only that they are moving from one error to another. But with God, truth is one, constant, and forever. So what is wrong with them? Do they lack the intellectual courage to commit to a position? Do they lack the competence to attain an answer to anything at all? And is atheism nothing more than non-belief in God? Good, then it also means that atheists are nothing more than cowards and idiots. They have been so since the beginning, and by their admission, nothing has changed after all these years.
Now, logic textbooks will tell you that personal attack is a fallacy. However, if Christians accept this without qualification or a proper understanding of why and when it is a fallacy, then they must also call the Bible itself a book of fallacies, since it constantly accuses and attacks sinners in its arguments. In fact, in teaching apologetics, many Christians have blasphemed Scripture on precisely this point because they have accepted an anti-biblical standard for debate and discussion. And so they urge believers to never employ personal attacks. But this is to betray a vital aspect of preaching, of evangelism and apologetics. No, personal attack is only a fallacy if the person is irrelevant to the topic. The fallacy, when it is a fallacy, is not in attacking the person, but in saying something irrelevant to the debate. However, when confronting non-Christians, we are indeed interested in talking about who and what they are before God. So at some point in the conversation, we must make it our topic to talk about them. Once we have done this, personal attacks are not fallacious, that is, if the attacks are accurate. Of course, in saying this, we also open ourselves to being attacked by them. We welcome this, since if they fail to make accurate accusations that they can support with sound arguments or to use rationally justified standards in making these accusations, then their attacks will backfire against them, and serve to illustrate what we assert about their competence and character.
It is not my approach to insist that atheism is "religious" or to say that man is inherently religious, although this language is sometimes used by both Christians and non-Christians. Rather, I affirm that every person has an innate knowledge and awareness of God, with enough content to condemn him as a sinner to everlasting extreme torture in a fiery hell. But this is different from saying that man is inherently "religious." This language is rather weak and imprecise. In our intellectual confrontations with unbelievers, we should charge ahead with a bolder and more specific thrust. The Christian system is able to back it up and put down all oppositions against it.
RECOMMENDED
Blasphemy and Mystery in Theology
A reader sent us a discussion he had with someone. Among other things, they touched on the relationship between God and evil. This other person wrote the following — his words have been slightly edited for readability:
In this book, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil, D. A. Carson says, "It is essential — I cannot say this strongly enough — it is utterly essential to doctrinal and spiritual well-being to maintain the diverse polarities in the nature of God simultaneously. For instance, if you work through the biblical passages that bluntly insist God in some sense stands behind evil, and do not simultaneously call to mind the countless passages that insist he is unfailingly good, then in a period of suffering you may be tempted to think of God as a vicious, sovereign thug."1 This view allows for the mystery of this doctrine to remain rather than trying to follow it out to its perceived logical end. Where Scripture does not go we must not also.
INTRODUCTION
On this subject, faithful readers already understand my stance and my reasons for it. What we have here is another instance of a popular and traditional position, which has been demonstrated as not only unbiblical, irrational, but also blasphemous, even if not by intention. Thus we must issue a harsh condemnation of what is said. Since the discussion involves respected biblical scholar D. A. Carson, I wish to offer a broader perspective on the person before I proceed.
Carson is one of my preferred Christian writers. His works are characterized by sober exegesis and readable style. In a number of places, he is unafraid to break free from traditional fallacies in order to affirm alternatives that are more biblical and rational. Although I must disagree with a number of details, I offer a general endorsement of his works with two major exceptions. The first exception is the book mentioned above, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil. The second is Divine Sovereignty and Human Responsibility: Biblical Perspectives in Tension. Rather than carrying the subtitle, "Biblical Doctrines in Harmony," which would sound like something that I might write, it reinforces the tiresome allegation that Scripture contains internal "tension," a pretty word for contradiction.
The point is that, in general, I do not challenge Carson's orthodoxy, piety, or competence; however, on this topic, he fails to break from the traditional unbiblical and irrational position, and as a result commits himself to a position so profane and sinful that, if not for the sake of education, I would hardly dare to repeat it. This person who cites Carson also echoes some traditional slogans, so we will examine his statements as well.
How shall we proceed? Almost every clause in the paragraph contains some theological abominations. The most thorough method would be a phrase-by-phrase analysis, but it would also be inefficient and repetitious, since along with each phrase, we will have to examine its relation to other phrases that come before and after it. So, instead, we will go through the paragraph and highlight several topics for discussion.
BLASPHEMY
Carson writes that it is essential to "maintain the diverse polarities in the nature of God." To the careless reader who is accustomed to this kind of talk, the statement appears rather innocent, and the word "polarities" may even seem classy and intriguing. But "polarities" refer to opposites — this is what the word means. And "diverse" refers to variety or multiplicity. These words are applied to "the nature of God."
In other words, Carson says that it is "utterly essential" to say that there are many opposites in the very nature of God. He does not say many facets, but many opposites. Satan himself can hardly come up with blasphemy worse than this. It reaches into God's very nature and tears him apart from within.
But this only sets up what is to follow.
As an example of the need to maintain the idea of opposites in the very nature of God, Carson writes, "…if you work through the biblical passages that bluntly insist God in some sense stands behind evil, and do not simultaneously call to mind the countless passages that insist he is unfailingly good, then in a period of suffering you may be tempted to think of God as a vicious, sovereign thug."
Again, to an unthinking person who is accustomed to this kind of nonsense, this sounds innocent, and even reverent. But consider what he is saying here. Keep in mind that Carson is speaking of polarities — opposites — in God's very nature. There is no wiggling out here — he does not say that these are merely apparent contradictions, which would be bad enough, but polarities in the nature of God. Then, the above offers an example of one of these polarities. Therefore, according to Carson, the fact that God sovereignly "stands behind evil" is the opposite of being "unfailingly good." In other words, when God "stands behind evil," he is evil, or he is doing evil. If this is not the implication, then there is no polarity here.
I get nervous even when just pointing out what Carson's statement implies, but it seems that many Christians are proud to proclaim this blasphemy. And when someone thinks this way, no wonder he is tempted to consider God a "vicious, sovereign thug." Carson suggests that we must also remember that God is unfailingly good. However, if God is good when he sovereignly "stands behind evil," then where is the polarity? And if the polarity is maintained, then it must mean that he is evil at those times when he sovereignly stands behind evil, while he is good at all other times. But if so, then how he is unfailingly good?
And what kind of person would think that God is a "vicious, sovereign thug" when he reads the biblical accounts of God's sovereignty over evil? Does the Bible itself suggest this idea? If the Bible does not suggest it, where does it come from? A non-biblical standard has been used to judge God's sovereign control over evil. The false notion is not inherent in the biblical passages. And if it is not inherent these passages, then no polarity is needed to balance it out.
Against Carson, the biblical position is that God is good by definition and is the sole standard of goodness. It is nothing less than shameless rebellion to bring in an anti-biblical standard of goodness and see if God measures up to it, saying that he seems to be a thug sometimes, while at other times he seems to be good. Rather, we discover the meaning of goodness by God's words and actions as recorded in Scripture, and from this perspective, we see that God is "unfailingly good" even as he sovereignly controls evil. There is no polarity in his nature.
Carson's statement does not permit this harmony, since he offers this as one instance of the "diverse polarities" in God. Therefore, to him it must mean that one set of biblical passages pulls us toward the direction of thinking that God is a "vicious, sovereign thug," and this is balanced by another set of biblical passages teaching an opposite part of God's nature, that he is "unfailingly good." I am happy to assume that this is not what he intends to assert, and that it is an oversight, but this is indeed what his statement implies. Here I bring no charge of deliberate blasphemy, but who can blame me for accusing him and others of unclear and unbiblical thinking? Who can blame me for standing up against this "orthodox" sacrilege?
Let no one be so foolish as to accuse me of misrepresentation. If I have misrepresented him, then what is his true position? Any suggested understanding of his position must maintain his insistance of "diverse polarities in God" and his use of two sets of biblical passages that exhibit these polarities, and this view must still avoid the problems that I have specified. But there is no misrepresentation — although some versions are better formulated than others, Carson's is a popular view taught in Reformed and other theological traditions, and it is blasphemy.
MYSTERY
Then, the person who cites Carson comments, "This view allows for the mystery of this doctrine to remain rather than trying to follow it out to its perceived logical end. Where Scripture does not go we must not also." Again, different people might state it in slightly different ways, but this represents a popular stance. Continuing with our topical analysis, here we must discuss the ideas of mystery, of logical implication, and of the extent of biblical revelation.
If mystery means something that we do not fully understand, and indeed cannot fully understand in this life, then broadly speaking, it has not been shown that there is any mystery at all regarding God and his sovereign control over evil. I have repeatedly demonstrated that Scripture clearly tells us that God controls evil, how he does it, and why he does it. It is true that we do not know everything about the subject, if for no other reason than that Scripture does not grant us omniscience. But this limitation is irrelevant, since omniscience is not the issue here. Rather, it is contended that the matter remains a mystery even on the broadest level, and this is outright false. What we have from Scripture is full enough to answer all broad questions, as well as many specific ones, and to eliminate all logical problems in our understanding, so that there is not even a hint of contradiction, paradox, tension, or any such thing.
The so-called mystery, then, does not exist because God withholds information from us, nor is it because the matter is so complex that our so-called "finite human mind" cannot grasp it (indeed, that we even need to have this discussion indicates that some minds are vastly more finite than others). But the mystery exists because these people refuse to accept what God has clearly and coherently revealed. There might be a problem of theological aptitude, but along with that is a strong rebellion against divine revelation. The matter is very simple in itself.
They claim that they appeal to mystery where biblical revelation terminates, but this is a lie. Scripture provides an elaborate doctrine on the subject, much more complete than they are willing to acknowledge. The truth is that for them mystery does not begin where revelation ends, but it begins where their position becomes so obviously false and incoherent that they appeal to mystery to stop the discussion by force. For them, mystery begins where their acceptance of Scripture ends.
Here this person says that we should call the matter a mystery even before we follow what Scripture reveals to its logical end. To be fair, whether or not he is being intentionally precise, he writes "perceived logical end," allowing for the possibility that he is objecting only to false inferences that are regarded as true. We readily agree that false deductions are just that — false. But what about true inferences, valid deductions?
The common resistance to follow what Scripture teaches to its logical conclusion represents the misunderstanding that the logical conclusion of a set of premises can produce something different from or disallowed by the premises. But this is only true of induction. With deduction, the reasoning process by definition derives a logically necessary conclusion from the premises, that is, one that is already contained by the premises. The deduction does not manufacture new information, and the conclusion produces nothing in addition to or different from the premises. This conclusion is not invented as a best estimation based on the premises; rather, it is merely pointed out and made explicit. Therefore, refusing to make or accept a deductive inference from what Scripture asserts is the equivalent of refusing what Scripture asserts, since the conclusion of such a deduction is what Scripture asserts.
He writes, "Where Scripture does not go we must not also." Good! However, this should be the least of his worries. His problem is his refusal to go where Scripture plainly and explicitly goes. This popular slogan is true in itself, but as it is often used, it is nothing but a smokescreen to cover up a blatant refusal to accept what God reveals. Let us first go where Scripture takes us before worrying about going beyond it.
CONCLUSION
It is excruciating to bear the constant blasphemies that our brothers in Christ level against God, all the while thinking that they are doing him a service. But blasphemy is not a lesser sin than even murder or adultery — in principle it is much worse. Therefore, as painful as it is to deal with, we must boldly condemn their false teachings and stubborn rebellion in the harshest terms possible, urging their repentance and correction.
The few of us who affirm the obvious perfect coherence of God and his revelation are often accused of teaching rationalism. If the accusation is that we exalt reason above revelation, I am puzzled as to how this is possible, since I affirm that only revelation is rational. And often we are just expounding on what Scripture directly teaches, even in its explicit statements, whereas our opponents create problems where there is none. They seem to love the idea of mystery even more than they love the God who has spoken so clearly to us. They would rather murder God, tearing him apart from within, than to sacrifice their mystery.
A more accurate description of non-biblical rationalism is that it exalts a non-revelational epistemology of human speculation in order to judge the content of revelation. Certainly I do no such thing. In fact, by this definition, our opponents are more readily labeled rationalists, since as we have seen, they judge God's sovereign control over evil by their non-biblical standard. Applying this term to them is, of course, confusing, since they are not at all rational. The truth is that their rejection of revelation, of valid deduction, and their illegitimate appeal to mystery combine to produce a form of anti-Christian irrationalism.
In any case, if to affirm that God is clearly and perfectly harmonious in his nature and in his revelation is to teach rationalism, then THANK GOD FOR RATIONALISM. May the Lord of Reason sends forth many more laborers to teach this kind of rationalism! This rationalism is not of a humanistic or anti-supernatural variety, which is not rational at all, but it is of a biblical kind — a biblical rationalism, acknowledging the perfect coherence of God and his revelation.
NOTES
1. D. A. Carson, How Long, O Lord? Reflections on Suffering and Evil (Baker Books, 1990), p. 225. The statement appears in a chapter in which compatibilism is expounded and defended. I have reviewed the chapter to make sure that we are not taking this statement out of context. As for compatibilism itself, I have refuted it elsewhere.
RECOMMENDED
"Forced to Believe" (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
The "Sincere Offer" of the Gospel, (1) , (2)
More than a Potter (1) , (2) , (3) , (4)
Freewill Offerings and Human Freedom
Creatures Cannot Initiate Motion
1 Timothy 2:3-6 and 2 Peter 3:9