THE MYTH OF PLURALISM
John 8:32; 14:6
The uniqueness of the Christian faith quickly surfaces when compared with the other major religions of the world. Most religions focus on doctrinal statements, transcendent truths, rules and regulations. However, while Christianity has similar characteristics, its primary focus is on relationships, both vertical and horizontal. First we focus on our vertical relationship with Christ. Secondly, we focus on the horizontal relationships with our fellow humans.
It is natural that Christians have some objective propositional truths that call us to, and guide us in our vertical and horizontal relationships. These doctrinal teachings are found in the Bible. They are reliable and trustworthy and we call them "the truth." While we have much to do with the truth, we understand that those truths are revelations of a gracious God, given to His children, whom He loves. It is this God with whom we desire to enter into a saving relationship. The Apostle John's words in 1 John 5:12 reveal the importance of this relationship which is testified to in those revelations: "He that hath the Son hath life and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life."
Doctrinal truths are intended to lead us into and help us maintain our relationship with our Lord, Who alone can meet our needs in this life, Who alone can give us eternal life. It follows that Seventh-day Adventists are concerned about the truth. We vigorously oppose anything that obscures or destroys those doctrinal realities. Why? Because false doctrines interfere with, and often completely destroy the believer's relationship with, Jesus Christ.
As Jesus said in John 8:32: "You shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."
Jesus also said that He is "the Way, the Truth, and the Life." (John 14:6)
A true knowledge of Him sets us free. To know and embrace the truth revealed in Jesus is to be set free from fear and anxiety and guilt. We can be certain about our relationship with Christ and our standing with God the Father. Thus we can have the assurance of eternal life.
Our concern for correct doctrine refers to the trustworthiness of all that Scripture teaches and affirms (Rom 15:4), and particularly the account of Jesus and His work for the salvation of humankind. In contrast to this true account, Satan has invented lies about Jesus and His work for the salvation of human beings. Jesus said in John 8:44 that Satan is a liar. Being a liar, Satan hates the truth. He constantly seeks to obscure the truth. Only then can He break our relationship with Christ and enslave us.
Satan has a thousand ways of achieving this goal. One of those ways is to convince us that there is no one single meaning of truth. He insinuates that, even if there is truth, we cannot fully understand and grasp it. In the theological world this concept is called Pluralism.
Defining Pluralism
The term "pluralism" may be used in several ways. In a general sense it may simply be a descriptive term for the side-by-side existence of varied and contradictory positions in society, culture, and religion. It also may simply mean a toleration for this diversity. We live in a pluralistic society with many different cultures, races, and religions existing together, and we should be tolerant of this situation. But in the technical philosophical-theological sense, pluralism refers to a specific ideology. Religious pluralism "is the belief that the differences between the religions are not a matter of truth and falsehood, but of different perceptions of the one truth; that to speak of religious beliefs as true or false is inadmissable."(1) More narrowly, the term theological pluralism refers to this same ideology as applied to "a plurality of doctrinal interpretations within a denomination."(2) In the discussion that follows we use the term pluralism to refer to the ideology of religious and theological pluralism.
Those espousing pluralism are fond of illustrating it by means of an ancient Buddhist parable. The Buddha tells of a king who calls together all the blind men in Savatthi and has them assembled around an elephant. Each of the men touch and feel the different parts of the huge animal and report their discoveries. Those who felt the head of the elephant say to the king, "Your majesty, the elephant is like a cauldron." Those who touched the ear say, "Your majesty, the elephant is like a shovel." Those who felt its trunk report, "The elephant is like the shaft of the plough." Finally, the story goes, the blind men attack each other with their fists, crying, "An elephant is like this, not like that...."(3)
The message of the parable for pluralists is that there is no universal, absolute truth, or if such does exist, each individual or church or religion can have only a partial grasp of it. None can say that their understanding is true and others false. Those who make normative claims to truth are censured as imperialist and divisive.(4) A rejection of pluralism is viewed as intolerance or exclusivity.(5)
Ironically, pluralism is tolerant of all theological views-except views that reject pluralism. The only absolute creed is the creed of pluralism, and pluralists are intolerant of all who reject this creed.(6) Pluralists insist that all language is culturally conditioned and therefore cannot communicate absolute truth. Yet if this is so, it would apply also to the absolute claims of pluralism. If even the best language cannot convey absolute truth, then the pluralist's claim that pluralism is true is also meaningless and must be discarded.
Pluralism, not willing to admit its own self-contradictions, appears to be open and eager to embrace many and varied theological positions. It promises to insure peace and harmony even within various different theological disciplines. However, just the opposite is true. Theological pluralism will openly embrace different theological and ethical positions only as long as those positions fall within a liberal and humanistic framework. Already a generation ago the conservative scholar Allan Bloom, called this so-called openness, "the closing of the American mind." (7)
One biblical scholar has pointed out how theological pluralism is often championed by those who have grown up inside the church, but no longer agree with the doctrines of the church, and yet want to stay in the church.(8) This is verified by autobiographical accounts of those who have become pluralists.(9)
The Modern Roots of Pluralism
In modern times, the roots of pluralism may be traced back to the rise of the Enlightenment in the 18th century. The Enlightenment placed implicit faith in the power of autonomous human reason (unaided by divine inspiration) to provide the criterion for determining truth. Human reason became the final authority to judge and evaluate the truthfulness of Scripture. The method that was developed to critique Scripture became known as higher criticism, or the historical-critical method.
For three centuries now, the higher critics have used their procedures of dissection, conjecture, and reconstruction of the biblical text to attempt to lay bare the many hypothetical layers of oral and written traditions and sources that were finally shaped by editors into the canonical form of Scripture. The conclusions reached concerning the origin of various parts of Scripture are often in direct contradiction to the explicit explanations in Scripture. Those who employ the historical-critical method admit that the method does not allow for absolute truth, but only deals in probabilities.(10) But in the same breath they announce the "assured results" of their critical evaluation of the Bible's truthfulness.
What are some of these assured results? --The Pentateuch was not written by Moses, as claimed by Scripture, but is the late editing of various source documents (J, E, D, P). The book of Isaiah was not written by a single prophet as claimed by Scripture (Isa 1:1; Matt 3:3; 8:17; 12:17-21; etc.), but is the work of at least three "Isaiah's" over a period of several centuries. Daniel was not written by Daniel in the 6th century B.C., as indicated by Scripture (Dan 8:1; 9:2; Matt 24:15; etc.), but by an anonymous writer in the 2nd century, who fabricated prophecies concerning Antiochus Epiphanes after the fact and put them in the mouth of Daniel. The few prophecies of Daniel pointing beyond the time of the writer never came to pass-prophecy failed.
The account of creation in Gen 1 contains glaring contradictions with Gen 2, and neither are to be taken literally. The flood account in Gen 6-9 also is riddled with contradictions, and cannot be taken literally as a world-wide event. The Exodus from Egypt and the Conquest of Canaan never actually happened. The book of Joshua is in stark contradiction to the book of Judges. Even the existence of King David and Solomon is widely questioned. Davidic authorship of the Psalms attributed to him , and Solomonic authorship of Proverbs, Song of Solomon, and Ecclesiastes, though indicated in the text, are almost universally denied.
In the NT many of the sayings of Jesus were never actually uttered by Him, but invented by the early church and placed in His mouth. Jesus' Virgin Birth was also an invention of the early church, along with many of His miracles. Likewise Jesus' bodily resurrection is a myth. The four Gospel accounts were written from within different theological schools in the Early Church and these accounts often contradict one another as they invent or modify stories to further their particular theological agendas. Paul's theology is contradictory to that of Jesus and Peter. A number of the books of the Bible attributed to Paul and Peter were not written by them but much later in the second century A. D. The book of Revelation has nothing to say about distant future events but is simply written to encourage the early Christians during the time of persecution under pagan Rome.
We could extend the list of the so-called "assured results" of higher criticism. Ellen White incisively encapsulates the nature of higher criticism and its devastating results:
"The work of higher criticism, in dissecting, conjecturing, reconstructing, is destroying faith in the Bible as a divine revelation. It is robbing God's Word of power to control, uplift, and inspire human lives." (AA 474) "Is not faith in the Bible as effectually destroyed by the higher criticism and speculation of today as it was by tradition and rabbinism in the days of Christ?" (MH 142) "The higher critics put themselves in the place of God, and review the Word of God, revising or endorsing it. In this way, all nations are induced to drink the wine of the fornication of Babylon. These higher critics have fixed things to suit the popular heresies of these last days." (The Upward Look, 35) "The word of God is wrested, divided, and distorted by higher criticism. Jesus is acknowledged, only to be betrayed by a kiss." (Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, Feb 1, 1897, p. 6)
In 1893 while attending a Camp Meeting in New Zealand, Ellen White described how someone had brought Elder Starr, one of the campmeeting speakers, a pamphlet favoring the "higher criticism" of the Bible. Ellen White then wrote, "we were surprised to see the extent to which our own brethren had been affected by this infidelity [of higher criticism]" (Bible Echo and Signs of the Times, June 6, 1893, p. 13).
Would she be even more surprised if she were alive today? Many who do not accept the more radical results of higher criticism still retain the fundamental principle of the method-the principle of criticism--which places human reason as the judge of Scripture. The Methods of Bible Study report voted in Annual Council in 1986 rightly warns: "Even a modified use of this [historical-critical] method that retains the principle of criticism which subordinates the Bible to human reason is unacceptable to Adventists."(11)
Yet despite this caution, the higher-critical critique of Scripture continues to insidiously pervade the Remnant church. We find creeping into the church a subtle undermining of many of the biblical foundations of Adventism: the principle of Sola Scriptura; a literal six day creation week and world-wide flood; the substitutionary atonement and bodily resurrection of Jesus; a literal ministry of Christ in the heavenly sanctuary and the investigative judgment beginning in 1844; the year-day principle and the historicist method of interpreting prophecy; the historical fulfillment of the signs of Matt 24 and the imminent return of Jesus; the Spirit of Prophecy and the Remnant Church; a literal personal devil and divine retributive judgment on the wicked; various lifestyle issues such as the distinctions between clean and unclean meats, the wearing of jewelry and use of alcohol, homosexual practice, and the biblical teaching on divorce and remarriage. The list could go on and on. Using the buzzwords of pluralism, some are appealing for "tolerance" and "openness" to diverse theological viewpoints, while at the same time those who seek to stand for these biblical foundations are often labeled "divisive" and "exclusive" and "intolerant."
The seeds sown by the historical-critical method have yielded an abundant harvest of pluralism. After all, if the Bible is not reliable, trustworthy and truthful, then why should we uphold the necessity of absolute truth in the church? If there is theological pluralism in the Bible itself, then why should we not allow and even welcome it in the church?
Postmodern Pluralism
In the past several decades, the gradual shift from modernism to postmodernism has taken the concept of pluralism to unimaginable limits. With its new identity and a more sophisticated appeal, postmodernism is radically reshaping our culture and religious faith.
Gene Veith, in an article entitled, "A Postmodern Scandal,"(12) presents four concepts of postmodernism that disclose its efforts to reinterpret reality in such a way as to destroy truth as revealed in Scripture. They are:
Veith points out that postmodern philosophy and theology rejects all claims of objective truth. While the Enlightenment program with its historical-critical method still maintained that there was absolute truth (though only understood partially), postmodernism takes a pluralistic stance toward the nature of truth itself. It has altogether abandoned the quest for truth as absolute and knowabIe . In this sea of relativity, individuals and nations construct their own individual understanding of what truth is. Every statement of truth is just as valid as any other. Truth is exclusively what is true for me.
Taken to its radical conclusion, such a position makes lying impossible, since lying presupposes objective reality. Consequently, in postmodern thought, convincing others that you are right is a matter of spin. As we so often hear these days concerning the world of politics, "Spin is literally everything." If all claims about truth are merely construction, then they can be infinitely reinterpreted, i.e. "deconstructed." There is no fixed, absolute meaning in the Biblical texts. Hence everyone and every group has a right to their own "reader-oriented" interpretation: there is a black reading, a feminist reading, a Methodist reading, an Adventist reading, etc. None is to be preferred over another as absolute truth. There is simply no means for determining what is absolute truth over and above the various personal constructions (or deconstructions) of truth.
Postmodern pluralism then has given birth to the concept that truth is a purely human construction. Truth as an absolute no longer exists. Inconsistencies or apparent lies and errors no longer perplex the postmodern mind because words themselves have ceased to have any fixed meaning. Truth then depends on the interpretation given to it. Those in power impose their concepts of truth and reality on others. What matters is not truth, but power. Whoever can best communicate or sell their interpretations to others is accepted as being right.
Another postmodern concept that confuses reality is the idea that truth can be compartmentalized. There is no overarching "metanarrative" or worldview that reveals universal truth; there is no one reality out there that gives coherence to one's beliefs and actions. Thus the different components of our characters and actions have no bearing on each other. This has been dramatically demonstrated in the experience of American politics in recent events related to the morals of our leaders. Many are the postmodern cries that what a leader does in his private life has nothing to do with his ability to lead publically.
Postmodernism has subtly made its way into Adventism, touching the very grass roots. When a church member remarks, "The Bible says..., but I think" -that's a postmodern reaction. When the head elder of a local congregation agrees that the Bible does portray God as a God of retributive justice, but adds, "If that kind of God meets your needs, ok, but that's not my kind of God. My God is represented by the more mature picture of the Father in the story of the prodigal son, a God of love and acceptance."-- Such a response is postmodernism in action. Truth is what is true for me. I can pick and choose my kind of God, my type of lifestyle, my brand of worship, my brand of church organization, the cause that I want to give my tithe to, the doctrines that meet my needs, the parts of Scripture that are meaningful to me.
Pluralism's Implications for Adventism
If our church accepted such pluralism, no longer would we be able to claim to know and teach and preach the truth. Even if we could claim that truth was relevant for one part of the world, we could not say that a particular truth is relevant for all the world. Given this possibility, our evangelistic work would quickly be gutted of its message and power to win others to our faith. The entire mission program of the world church would be compromised. And, our reason for existence would be lost.
All our truth claims: the authority of Scripture, Special Creation, the Seventh-day Sabbath, the Sanctuary message, the End of the World, the nearness of the Second Coming of Christ, the Seventh-day Adventist Church as the True Church, and so forth--all would be robbed of their meaning. A disastrous loss!
The following quotations describe what happened to the United Methodist church after 1976 when it officially embraced pluralism and incorporated the concept into its doctrinal manual:
In recent years we have tended to lose sight of that central core of doctrine' and have allowed ourselves as United Methodists to dwell on the divergent interpretations,' to which we have given the hideous name pluralism.' And sometimes we have talked as though it is our pluralism' which holds us together and which is our most distinctive mark!... To suggest this is to suggest only chaos and disintegration.(13)
It seems apparent, then, that the official acceptance of pluralism has generated deeper problems than it has solved. Instead of leading United Methodists to a greater understanding of their faith, Pluralism has caused them to lose sight of the core of doctrine which should bind them together. And this in turn has undermined the sort of unity which is needed for vital outreach and ministry.(14)
Katherine Ching documents similar results in other mainline Protestant churches that have practiced theological pluralism. Ching concludes:
Churches that have allowed theological pluralism to dominate "peripheral" doctrinal beliefs have discovered that it gradually sways all doctrinal interpretation, finally leading to theological indifference and intolerance of firm doctrinal standards. With a loss of mission, eventually the very structure of the church's organization-e.g., agencies, programs, and polity-becomes confused, and major decline in membership, financial contributions, and evangelism is all too evident. By the time the crisis is apparent, the damage seems irreparable, and attempts at recovery deteriorate into pitiful appeals for increased financial support. Commitment to theological pluralism becomes an empty, substitute faith, a virtue in itself, while authoritative principles and standards are trampled in its path.(15)
Is this the direction we want the Seventh-day Adventist Church to take? We have been, and continue to be, a church founded on the truths of Scripture. Do we want to abandon this Scriptural foundation? Unless we maintain the Bible as our guide and authority, what would we have to say to the world?
The Basic Issue: What is Truth?
Alister McGrath has rightly stated that "the first casualty of pluralism is truth."(16)
The basic issue in the discussion of pluralism is the nature of truth. From a pluralistic perspective, there is no absolute truth, or if such truth exists, it is not knowable to human beings. All truth is relative, subjective, culturally-conditioned, constructed, and compartmentalized.
Can the pluralist's view of truth be substantiated? Pilate's question begs to be answered: "What is truth?" For Bible-believing Christians, the Bible's own testimony regarding the nature of truth must be decisive for our understanding.
According to the Bible, the pluralists are partially right! The parable of the blind men and the elephant is correct that from a purely human standpoint, there are no absolutes, there is no way to know absolute truth. We are all blind beggars groping in the dark. As Paul puts it in 2 Cor 4:4-"the god of this world has blinded the minds of unbelievers" (NIV).
But even the Buddhist parable gives a larger perspective that pluralists constantly fail to emphasize: there is someone out there that knows absolute truth. The king in the story can see the elephant as it really is! He knows absolute truth. The Bible tells us that such a king is not just part of a parable, but truly exists, and this King is none other than the King of kings-Yahweh, the Creator and Sustainer of the universe, the only true God (Jer 10:10; Jn 17:3; 1 Thess 1:9).
And what is more, this King has graciously offered to restore sight to the blind, to reveal His light so that they can see truth as it really is. Paul continues in (2 Cor 4) vs. 6: "For God, who said, 'Let light shine out of darkness,' made his light shine in our hearts to give us the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ." (NIV) This truth about truth is inscripturated in the Bible.
So let us look more closely at the biblical understanding of truth. The Hebrew word for "truth" ('emet) appears over 120 times in the Old Testament, and has a basic meaning of "that which is firm, stable, reliable." The Greek word for "truth" (aletheia) appears some 109 times in the New Testament, and has the basic meaning of "nonconcealment, the disclosing of a thing as it is." But the full contours of the meaning of the term "truth" in Scripture can only come from an examination of all its occurrences in context. From such an examination the biblical picture of truth emerges, in stark contrast to the claims of pluralism.
1. Truth is absolute, universal, and knowable
According to the biblical testimony, God not only knows and reveals truth: He Himself is the Truth! All three members of the Trinity are described as Truth. The Father is called "the God of truth" (Isa 65:16); the Son says, "I am the . . . Truth" (John 14:6; cf. Rev 19:11), and the Holy Spirit is called "the Spirit of truth" (John 14:17; 16:13). Truth is ultimately not just a set of propositions or doctrines or creeds, but a Person! Since Truth is ultimately a Person, the knowledge of the truth in biblical understanding is ultimately a personal relationship with Him who is Truth. "And this is life eternal, that they might know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent" (John 17:3). This is in stark contrast to other world religions and the pluralist view.
Neo-orthodox and existential theologians such as Karl Barth, Emil Brunner, and Rudolf Bultmann have rightly emphasized this personal encounter aspect of truth. For Barth, Christ as the revelation of God is the "Word of God." But the Bible is only derivatively the Word of God as it witnesses to Christ. Thus Scripture is emptied of its divine cognitive propositional revelation as the written Word of God. Scripture is not the Word of God in an on-going sense, but only becomes the Word of God through repeated divine encounters. Neo-Orthodox advocates are left with a Bible that is a mere record of pluralistic human responses to encounters with Jesus Christ as the Word of God. They have failed to recognize that such encounters do not eliminate the need for communication of verbal, propositional truth.(17)
According to Scripture, truth is both personal encounter and objective propositional communication.(18) Truth is both Christ Himself (John 14:4) and the written Scripture (John 17:17). Both Christ Himself and the written Scriptures are called the "Word of God" (Rev 19:13; 1:2; Heb 4:12). In any intimate human relationship, there is not only "encounter" but actual communication with words that provides substance to that encounter. So God is portrayed throughout Scripture as communicating propositional truth by means of words. He speaks propositionally to Adam and Eve, to Noah, to Abraham and the other patriarchs, to Moses, to David, and to the prophets. Over 1600 times in the Old Testament we find the expression "God said" or its equivalent. The Old Testament as a whole is referred to by Paul as "the oracles of God" (Rom 3:2). Heb 1:1 summarizes: "God, who at various times and in different ways spoke in times past to the fathers by the prophets, has in these last days spoken to us by His Son. . ." Paul indicates that his own inspired message is "in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit" (1 Thess 2:13).
Because Truth is embodied in a personal God, who is the absolute ultimate Reality, truth is therefore also absolute. God, who is absolute truth, communicates His truth in objective propositional revelation. This inscripturated truth is also absolute. Contrary to the claims of postmodern pluralists, Scripture reveals that language can accurately and unambiguously communicate absolute objective truth. God is presented in Scripture as the Creator of language (Gen 2; Exod 4:11) and One who uses language to communicate His truth. The resultant Scripture that He revealed to the prophets is called "the word of truth" (Ps 119:43), "the Scripture of Truth" (Dan 10:21), "the law of truth" (Mal 2:6). David writes, "The entirety of Your word is truth; all your righteous laws are eternal" (Ps 119:160). Jesus echoes this in His High Priestly prayer to His Father: "Sanctify them by Your truth, Your word is truth."
Biblical truth is permanent and universal, and not bound by culture, applicable only for a certain people at a certain time, as claimed by the pluralists. The psalmist writes: "the truth of the Lord endures forever" (Ps 117:2). Peter, citing Isa 40:6-8, forcefully emphasizes the trans-cultural and trans-temporal nature of the word of truth: "having been born again, not of corruptible seed but incorruptible, through the word of God which lives and abides forever, because 'all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of the grass. The grass withers, and its flower falls away, but the word of the Lord endures forever.' Now this is the word which by the gospel was preached to you (1 Pet 1:23-25). Jesus succinctly states: "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Ellen White re-iterates this point: "When the power of God testifies as to what is truth, that truth is to stand forever as the truth" (1 SM 161). God speaks through the prophets to specific cultural situations, yet the message transcends cultural backgrounds as timeless truth.
The Bible is also clear that the absolute, universal, eternal, and transcultural truth of God is knowable by human beings. Jesus states unequivocally: "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (John 8:32). He promised His disciples to the end of time: "when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13). Paul assures us that God "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Tim 2:4). William Larkin has rightly pointed out that "Our apprehension or expression of absolute truth is of course incomplete and partial, but that does not make such apprehension or expression relative. Sin is the main barrier to knowing God's absolute truth. When that impediment is decisively broken by regeneration, we may confidently affirm that though our knowledge is not absolute, we do know God's absolute and divinely revealed truth, a truth that liberates."(19) A conviction that such knowledge is true comes as we listen to the Word: "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God" (Rom 10:17).
2. Truth corresponds with reality.
In the biblical view, truth is not simply a human construct, a subjective interpretation, a sincere intention, but consists of objective conformity to reality. As Roger Nicole summarizes, biblical "truth is that firm conformity to reality that proves to be wholly reliable, so that those who accept a statement may depend on it that it will not turn out to be false or deceitful."(20) Many Old and New Testament references indicate how the measure of truth is faithful correspondence to reality, whether it is experience, events, or facts.(21) This correspondence with reality involves reliability, validity, and veracity. Thus God's laws are true because they correspond in content to His righteous character (Ps 33:4; Ps 119:150-152; Rom 2:20). The gospel message is true because its witness corresponds to what actually took place (Gal 1:11-12; Col 1:5-6; 2 Tim 2:18; 1 John 1:1-4). Over 100 times Jesus introduces His sayings with the words "Amen, amen-truly, truly"-indicating that what He was about to say was fully reliable and trustworthy and presented the real state of affairs. Paul states that the Thessalonians received the word of God "not as the word of men, but as it is in truth -corresponding to reality-- the word of God" (1 Thess 2:13).
Because it corresponds to reality, biblical truth is objective and not subjective. The angel emphasized to John concerning God's revelation to him: "These words are faithful and true" (Rev 22:6; cf. 21:5)-regardless of the subjective response to them. They are true in themselves, not just as they become "true for me." The Bible is not true just in the sense that the Bible writers had a true or sincere intention not to deceive. John in his first epistle gives examples of how it is possible to sincerely intend to have the truth, but actually "deceive ourselves" when in actuality "the truth is not is us." (1 John 1:8; cf. 2:4).
The Bible is true in itself and so can be trusted to be reliable and true to reality in all its revelations and teachings. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God , and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works." (2 Tim 3:16,17)
E. G. White writes:
There are some that may think they are fully capable with their finite judgement to take the Word of God, and to state what are the words of inspiration and what are not the words of inspiration. I want to warn you off that ground, my brethren in the ministry....there is no finite man that lives.... that God has authorized to pick and choose in His Word . . . .What man is there that dares to take that Bible and say this part is inspired and that part is not inspired? I would have both my arms taken off at my shoulders before I would ever make the statement or set my judgment upon the Word of God as to what is inspired and what is not inspired. . . . Do not let any living man come to you and begin to dissect God's word, telling what is revelation, what is inspiration, and what is not, without a rebuke. . . We want no one to say, "This I will reject, and this I will receive," but we want to have implicit faith in the Bible as a whole and as it is. . . . Not a jot or tittle is to be taken from that Word. Hands off, brethren! Do not touch the ark. . . When men begin to meddle with God's Word, I want to tell them to take their hands off, for they do not know what they are doing. (7BC 919-920).
Just as Jesus, the incarnate Word of God was fully God and fully man (John 1:1-3,14), so the written Word is an inseparable union of the human and divine. The Bible thus does not just contain the Word of God; it is the Word of God. Peter writes: "We have the word of the prophets made more certain. . . . Above all you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophets's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God spoke as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet 1:19, 21 NIV). The Holy Spirit imbued human instruments with divine truth in thoughts and so assisted them in writing that they faithfully committed to apt words the things divinely revealed to them (1 Cor 2:10-13). The result was the utterly reliable word of God, the prophetic word made more certain.
In the Introduction to the Great Controversy, Mrs. White explains:
But the Bible, with its God-given truths expressed in the language of men, presents a union of the divine and the human....
In His word, God has committed to men the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are to be accepted as an authoritative, infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the revealer of doctrines, and the test of experience (GC v, vi).
The Bible provides the framework, the divine perspective, the foundational principles, for every branch of knowledge and experience. All additional knowledge and experience, or revelation, must build upon and remain faithful to, the all-sufficient foundation of Scripture.(22)
The Bible can be trusted in all that it affirms. Even the supposed "difficulties" in Scripture, should not lead us to conjecture as to what may be uninspired or unrevealed "human" portions of the Bible which we may then reject. Ellen White underscores this point repeatedly:
Those who think to make the supposed difficulties of Scripture plain, in measuring by their finite rule that which is inspired and that which is not inspired, had better cover their faces, as Elijah when the still small voice spoke to him.... He, (God) has not, while presenting the perils clustering about the last days, qualified any finite man to unravel hidden mysteries, or inspired one man or any class of men to pronounce judgment as to that which is inspired or is not.
When men, in their finite judgement, find it necessary to go into an examination of Scriptures to define that which is inspired and that which is not they have stepped before Jesus to show Him a better way then He has led us. ...I take the Bible just as it is, as the Inspired Word. I believe its utterances in an entire Bible (7 BC 944).
The reference to an "entire Bible" leads us to our final point regarding the nature of truth.
3. Truth is wholistic.
In the biblical view, truth is not compartmentalized, as pluralism claims, but is related to a coherent whole. We have in Scripture "the truth as it is in Jesus" (Eph 4:2). Jesus is the Great Center around which all truth clusters. Contrary to the denials of postmodern pluralism, there is an overarching worldview revealed by God which presents wholistic universal truth. This biblical worldview integrates the great fundamental doctrines of Scripture, including the literal six-day creation, the Sabbath, the literal Fall in Eden, a real cosmic controversy between Christ and a personal devil, the plan of salvation centering in the substitutionary atonement of Christ, His ministry in the heavenly sanctuary, the investigative judgment, the literal Second Coming of Christ and the wind-up of the Great Controversy. The sanctuary message in particular, provides a biblical perspective opening to view this Christ-centered "complete system of truth, connected and harmonious" (GC 423): it spotlights the location in the heavenly Most Holy Place where Lucifer originated the Great Controversy in jealousy over Jesus; it makes central Jesus' work on the "altar of Calvary;" it highlights His heavenly mediatorial ministry, and it climaxes once again in the Most Holy Place where Jesus' work of final atonement will soon be completed.(23)
All aspects of truth must be viewed as part of this wholistic, Christ-centered, biblical worldview. Religious pluralists are in error when they point out some superficial similarities between Christianity and the other world religions, and then claim that all religions essentially say the same thing. There may be ethical principles, and even theological points here and there in which the world religions agree, but they present radically different worldviews.
The religious pluralist insists that all the world religions are equally salvific paths to the one God, and Christianity's claim to be the only way must be rejected. But this is not the biblical position. Jesus was unambiguous: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me." Peter concurs: "Nor is there salvation in any other; for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved" (Acts 4:12). While it is true that Jesus is the Light "who gives light to every man who comes into the world" (John 1:9), and thus the saving grace of God must not be limited to members of the Christian church, at the same time the Bible rejects the non-Christian religions as vehicles of salvation. The truth about salvation is only the "truth as it is in Jesus."
The Biblical Response to Pluralism
What then should be our response to the myth of pluralism? The Bible provides an answer to this question as well. For pluralism is not just a characteristic of postmodernism, or even of the modern period since the Enlightenment. The Bible itself-both Old and New Testaments-was written in times of pluralism. Almost the entire history of Israel witnesses the life-and-death struggles against the seductive power of pluralism represented in the fertility religions of the Baals and the Ashteroth. Israel not only combated false deities in the nations that surrounded her, but the religions of these deities stealthily made their way within her ranks. Witness the pluralistic apostasy of Israel at Mt. Sinai (Exod 32) and at Baalpeor on the borders of Canaan(Num 25; cf. Rev 2:14). Recall the pluralistic decline of morality during the period of Joshua and the Judges, (Josh 24:23; Judges 2), and the wholesale imbibing of pluralism by Solomon during his apostasy (1 Ki 11) and during the whole period of the Divided Monarchy (2 Chron 36:14-16). Remember the showdown over pluralism on Mt. Carmel in the time of Elijah (1 Ki 18), and the temptation to pluralism after returning from Babylonian Captivity (Ezra 9-10; Nehemiah 13).
The responses of God's faithful remnant during these critical junctures in Old Testament history are models for us. Joshua unflinchingly challenges, "choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." (Josh 24:15) Joshua continued with the call, "Now, therefore, put away the foreign gods which are among you, and incline your heart to the Lord God of Israel" (vs. 23). In a similar way, Elijah asked the Israelites who were caught up in a pluralism of religions: "How long will you falter between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, then follow Him." (1 Ki 18:21) Jeremiah directly addresses the problem of pluralism when he urges his people: "Thus says the Lord: Do not learn the ways of the Gentiles. . . . But the Lord is the true God; He is the living God and the everlasting King. . . The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens" (Jer 10:2, 10-11).
The New Testament likewise testifies to the titanic struggle of the early church against the multifaceted pressures of pluralism--represented, for example, in the mystery religions, gnosticism, and the imperial cult. As in Old Testament times, syncretistic and pluralistic religions not only threatened fledgling Christianity from without but insidiously made their way within the church. The apostles in their letters repeatedly dare to take a firm non-pluralistic stand for absolute truth against the many false and pluralistic teachings infiltrating the church. They unabashedly warn against false teachers and others in the church who "did not believe the truth" (2 Thess 2:12), who "have strayed concerning the truth" (2 Tim 2:18; cf. James 5:19), "resist the truth" (2 Tim 3:8), "turn from the truth" (Titus 1:14), "suppress the truth" (Rom 1:18), who "exchange the truth of God for the lie" (Rom 1:25). In these same passages the baleful results of accepting false or pluralistic ideas into the church are set forth-there is" strong delusion" (2 Thess 2:11); the teachings "spread like cancer,"and the faith of other church members is overthrown (2 Tim 2:17, 18); those affected by these teachings are "always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth" (2 Tim 3:7); "destructive heresies" will be introduced, and "the way of truth will be blasphemed" (2 Pet 2:2,3).
Will the Remnant church of Bible prophecy at the close of time dare to take a decided stand against pluralism as did God's faithful witnesses in biblical times?
One final question remains regarding pluralism, and this is a very personal one. With the many winds of pluralistic ideology blowing all around, how can we as individual Seventh-day Adventist Christians be sure that we will not be deceived?
Again, Scripture gives the keys. First, we must hold fast to the truths of Scripture without compromise. Paul says, "So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the teachings we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter" (2 Thess 2:15). Peter echoes this counsel when he urges his readers to remain"established in the present truth" (2 Pet 1:12). Ellen White writes, "None but those who have fortified the minds with the truths of Scripture will stand through the last great conflict" (GC 593).
But it's not enough to have the theory of the truth; we must fall in love with the Truth. Paul writes, "The coming of the lawless one is according to the working of Satan, with all power, signs, and lying wonders, and will all unrighteous deception among those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth that they might be saved" (2 Thess 2:10). Those who are deceived and perish are those "who did not receive the love of the truth." Those, then, who will not be deceived and will be saved are those who receive the love of the truth.
Jesus said of the Scriptures, "Search the Scriptures; for in them ye think you have eternal life: and they are they which testify of Me" (John 5:39).
The whole Bible is a presentation of the great truths that reveal Jesus and what He is doing in our world. If we want to become acquainted with the Savior, and fall in love with Him Who is the Truth, we must study and know the great doctrines that reveal Christ and His work. Each doctrine is like another window into Christ's character, so that we may appreciate and love Him more.
A relationship with Jesus and cooperation with Him in His work must be the primary focus of our many and varied ministries. The preaching and teaching of the great Truths revealed in the Word of God must be the focus of efforts individually and collectively as a church.
Conclusion
A prominent Roman Catholic journal, First Things, recently carried an article that underscores the importance of this subject. The article was entitled "Join the Catholic Revolution." I will quote the first paragraph.
There is a revolution going on that's changing the face of the [Roman Catholic] church in America. Ordinary Catholics are learning and living the faith like never before; they're renewing Catholic culture and making converts. Their secret? They fill their minds and hearts with Catholic truth.(24)
If Catholics seeking renewal [in a counterfeit system] feel the need of filling the mind and heart with what they think to be truth, how much more should the Remnant church recognize the biblical principle of filling our minds and hearts with Bible truth? Jesus enunciated this powerful principle after feeding the 5000 in John 6 (see vss. 48, 51, 53, 57, 63). Ellen White underscored it again in an article entitled "The Source of the Church's Power." She writes: . . . .
We need to study the Bible more, that our minds may dwell upon the infinite sacrifice of Christ, and his mediation in our behalf. . . . Fill the whole heart with the words of God. They are the living water, quenching your burning thirst. They are the living bread from heaven. Of this bread you must eat, and you will gain in spirituality and power, ever growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ. (The Home Missionary, 11-01-1890, p. 13)(25)
Isn't our reason for existence to present to the world the great and eternal truths of the Word of God? Shouldn't we be filling our minds and hearts with Bible truth -- the beliefs we hold so dear -- and living our faith as never before?
ENDNOTES
1. Leslie Newbigin, The Gospel in a Pluralist Society (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1989), 14.
2. Katherine Ching, "The Practice of Theological Pluralism," Adventist Perspectives 5/1 (1991): 6; cf. Mark Horst, "The Problem with Theological Pluralism," The Christian Century 103 (1986): 971-974.
3. Taken from Gustav Mensching, Tolerance and Truth in Religion, trans. H.-J. Klimkeit (University of Alabama Press, 1971), 19, cited in Winfried Vogel, "Man and Knowledge: The Search for Truth," JATS 7/2 (1996): 187.
4. See Alister McGrath, "The Challenge of Pluralism for the Contemporary Christian Church," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 35 (1992): 361.
5. Ibid, 369.
6. See the insightful article by Peter Donovan, "The Intolerance of Religious Pluralism," Religious Studies 29 (1993): 217-229.
7. Allan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987). Note especially the following quotation from pp. 25-26: "The danger. . . is not error but intolerance. Relativism is necessary to openness; and this is the virtue, the only virtue, which all primary education for more than fifty years has dedicated itself to inculcating. Openness-and the relativism that makes it the only plausible stance in the face of various claims to truth and the various ways of life and kinds of human beings-is the great insight of our times. The true believer is the real danger. The study of history and of culture teaches that all the world was mad in the past; men always thought they were right, and that led to wars, persecutions, slavery, xenophobia, racism, and chauvinism. The point is not to correct the mistakes and really be right; rather it is not to think that you are right at all."
8. Gerhard Hasel, "Theological Implications of Pluralism," oral presentation at the General Conference and Division Officers Meeting, Sept 25, 1987, Washington D.C.
9. For a self-portrait of the experience of one of the most outspoken religious pluralists, see John Hick, "A Pluralist View," in Four Views on Salvation in a Pluralistic World, ed. Dennis L. Okholm and Timothy R. Phillips (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, 1996), 29-59.
10. See Edgar Krentz, The Historical-Critical Method, Guides to Biblical Scholarship (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1976), 57.
11. "Methods of Bible Study Committee (GCC-A)-Report," Adventist Review, Jan 22, 1987, p. 5.
12. In the book by Gene Veith, Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture (Wheaton, IL: Crossroad, 1994).
13. "What We Believe," The Interpreter, March/April 1992, p. 8.
14. Jerry L. Walls, The Problem of Pluralism: Recovering United Methodist Identity (Wilmore, KY: Good News Books, 1986), 9.
15. Ching, 11.
16. McGrath, 362.
17. See, e.g., Emil Brunner, Truth as Encounter (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1964).
18. One of the best textual illustrations of this is Jer 9:3-6. The prophet speaks of those who "are not valiant for the truth on the earth"-and he clarifies that this refers to both the lack of personal relationship ("they do not know Me, says the Lord," vs. 3) and not speaking the truth (vs. 5, "Everyone will deceive his neighbor, and will not speak the truth; they have taught their tongue to speak lies").
19. William J. Larkin, Culture and Biblical Hermeneutics: Interpreting and Applying the Authoritative Word in a Relativistic Age (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1988), 241.
20. Roger Nicole, "The Biblical Concept of Truth," in Scripture and Truth, ed. D. A. Carson and John D. Woodbridge (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1992), 288.
21. Some of the potent Scriptural references that unequivocally show the correspondence-to-reality nature of biblical truth include: Gen 42:16; Deut 13:14; Judg 9:15; 1 Ki 17:24; Isa 16:5; 43:9; 59:4; Jer 9:5; Jn 8:45. For further biblical substantiation that the correspondence concept of truth provides the best framework for the Scriptural understanding of truth, see Nicole, 233-237; Norman L. Geisler, "The Concept of Truth in the Contemporary Inerrancy Debate," in The Living and Active Word of God, ed. Morris Inch and Ronald Youngblood (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 225-236; A. C. Thistleton, "Truth," New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol. 3 (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1978), esp. 894-901
22. See 2 Tim 3:16-17; Ps 119:105; Prov 30:5,6; Isa 8:20; John 17:17; 2 Thess 3:14; Heb 4:12. See also the following representative Ellen White references to the all-encompassing authority of the Word: GC 593-5; FE 414-5, 432, 450, 490; ML 23, 27, 176; Ed 134, 173, 180, 231, 304; ST 1/28/1897, p. 4.
23. For more elaboration on how the sanctuary message is uniquely suited to be a framework for wholistic Biblical truth, see Vogel, 203-207.
24. First Things, May, 1998, #83, back cover.
25. Similarly, she writes:
"God bids us fill the mind with great thoughts, pure thoughts. He desires us to meditate upon His love and mercy, to study His wonderful work in the great plan of redemption. Then clearer and still clearer will be our perception of truth, higher, holier, our desire for purity of heart and clearness of thought. The soul dwelling in the pure atmosphere of holy thought will be transformed by communion with God through the study of Scriptures." (COL 60)
Note also the following quotation:
"Train your mind to search the Scriptures. In this way you can gain a knowledge of God, and work out your own salvation. Fill it with divine truth. It will then be in perfect harmony with the heart, which, cleansed from all selfishness and moral defilement, rejoices to render homage to the law of God." (ST 4-01-97)
Copyright © 1997 by R S Folkenberg