ALL TRUTH IS GOD’S TRUTH

“All truth is God’s truth.” This phrase has often been applied wheneverChristian writers seek to justify an idea that cannot be founded squarely onthe Scriptures. ‘Christian’ psychologists appeal to it to justify theirapplication or adaptation of secular psychology into Christian counselling.‘Christian’ scientists appeal to it when propounding theistic evolution.

But is all truth really God’s truth? In other words, is all truth sanctionedand approved by God? Objectively, the answer would be “yes.” God is a “God oftruth” (Deut 32:4; Ps 31:5; Isa 65:16). And truth cannot contradict truth orone is a falsehood. However, it is a known fact that not everyone understandsthe meaning of “truth” in the same way. Pilate’s question: “What is truth?” (Jn18:38) well illustrates this point. So before we agree with anyone who says,“All truth is God’s truth.” we must find out what exactly he means by “truth.”

Scripture andInterpretations

If what is meant by “truth” is what is revealed in the Word of God, then wehave no quarrels with the assertion that all truth is God’s truth. The LordJesus says: “Thy word is truth” (Jn 17:17). Without a shadow of doubt,everything in the Word of God, and all logical and necessary consequences are true.Now, the same cannot be said for the interpretation of the Scripture. Twocontradictory interpretations of the same passage in Scripture cannot be bothright. One or both of them must be wrong and therefore false. But I believethat if the Scripture is interpreted faithfully according to the Analogy of theFaith and the illumination of the Holy Spirit, the interpretation will beaccording to the truth.

Scientific andMathematical Facts

What about empirical scientific facts involving nature, mathematics andphysical sciences? 1 + 1 = 2; Force = Mass x Acceleration; and H2O is water aremathematical and scientific truths. That normally a bullfrog tadpole willdevelop into a bullfrog, and a monarch caterpillar will develop into a monarchbutterfly (if they do not die before time) are biological truths. These areundeniable laws of nature that in fact form the basis of the cosmologicalargument for the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Yes, we can accept these astruths; and can study and apply these knowledge with a clear conscience,knowing that we have the approval of God.

Scientific Theories

What about the theories of the origin of the universe and of the species, suchas the Big Bang Theory, or Evolutionism? Are these not established and provenscientific facts and so are God’s truths? Most assuredly no! Howeverfascinating these theories may be, they remain theories that can neither beundeniably proven nor verified. No matter how certain a scientist may be of theveracity of his theory of the origin of the universe, he should bear in mindthe LORD’s admonition to Job:

Who is this thatdarkeneth counsel by words without knowledge? Gird up now thy loins like a man;for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me. Where wast thou when I laid thefoundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding (Job 38:2–4).

When a crime is discovered, a team of investigators, forensic scientists orpathologists might be able to reconstruct the events surrounding the crime.However, the accuracy of their theory or theories will depend very much onwhether there are witnesses available and how long ago the crime had happened.If there are no witnesses, and the crime happened a long time ago, thepossibility of solving the crime becomes practically impossible. Sometimesthere are apparent evidences to support a particular reconstruction, and theseevidences can seem very compelling in supporting the proposed theory. However,should an eye-witness appear eventually and relate what actually happened, itmay be found that the theory is way off what actually happened. In a simplisticway, we may say the same for all theories of the origin of the universe and ofthe species.

It has been said that “When the evidence contradicts the theory, the scientistrejects the theory, while the theologian rejects the evidence.” I do not thinkthis should be the case. I do not think any objective, verifiable evidence thatinvolves no speculation at all will contradict the Bible.

It would be foolish to conclude from Psalm 113:3 that the sun revolves aroundthe earth; or from Revelation 7:1 that the earth is a rectangular flat piece ofland; or from Genesis 1:14–16 that the moon produces its own light. There areconcrete, irrefutable, empirical evidence to prove those assertions to be wrong.This does not mean that the Scripture is wrong. What it means is that ourinterpretation is wrong. All those passages make use of a genre of expressionsknown as phenomenological language which should not have been interpretedliterally.

However, I cannot say that the evidences in support of evolutionism are beyondany doubt. Neither do I see any compelling reason why the creation accountshould not be interpreted literally.

There is a world of a difference between the hypotheses in this category ofideas and the empirical facts in the realms of mathematics and science. One isverifiable and provable beyond doubt, the other is not. We therefore cannotaccept any idea in this category and label them as truth, not to mention thefact that they contradict the Scripture which declares that the world wascreated by God in six days. Now, in saying this, we are not saying that thereare no apparent evidences which appear to point to evolution as there are alsoevidences that appear to point to creationism (see for example, John C.Whitcomb, The Early Earth: An Introduction to Biblical Creationism [Baker,1992]). We are saying that none of these evidences are verifiable beyond doubt.This being the case, we should rather believe only in the Word of God. The Wordis true regardless of whether the evidences found by creation scientist areaccurate. We rejoice that there is concurrence with the Word, but we must notthink that the Word is true only because there are evidences. This isespecially so when the interpretation of the evidences does involve a certainamount of speculation. Having said this, we must reassert that: No true sciencewill contradict the Bible and conversely, the Bible does not contradict truescience.

Human Psychology

And what about the theories of psychology? Have not Freud’s pronouncements ofobsessive neurosis; or Jung’s structure of arch-types; or Roger’s ideas ofhuman love and B.F. Skinner’s behaviourism been proven and verified? Should wenot apply all these truths to understand the human nature? Should not Christiancounsellors apply these truths? Should not the church apply the tools that havebeen developed out of these and related studies—tools such as personalityprofile tests—so that members can learn to relate to one another better?

It must be admitted that most, who insist that we should answer in theaffirmative to these questions, are careful to select only those ideas that arenot directly contradicted, or at least not obviously contradicted by God’sWord. In fact, many also attempt to prove that the ideas are consistent withthe Scriptures. Lawrence Crabb, for example, applies Abraham Maslow’s hierarchyof needs to his counselling model, and uses Matthew 6:33–34 to prove that it isbiblical. According to him, the Christian cannot have a genuine interest inexpressing himself for the good of others until his egocentric needs are met(Lawrence Crabb, Effective Biblical Counselling, [Zondervan, 1977],80).

What do we say to these claims?

Firstly, it is true that psychological statements, which describe humanbehaviour or which report results of research, can be scientific. However, whenpsychology moves from describing human behaviour to explaining it, it movesfrom science to opinion (See Martin & Deidre Bobgan, Psycho Heresy,[East Gate Publishers, 1987], 29). Certainly, we cannot take as fact Crabb’sexplanation of a certain Mrs B’s adulterous tendencies as arising because herneed for security is not met (Biblical Counselling, 62). Sin and lustare reduced to needs. Certainly then, we cannot treat psychology as “truth” aswe did the basic sciences.

Secondly, and more importantly, psychology attempts to study human behaviourwith the aim of changing it when necessary. Therefore ‘Christian’ psychologistsuse the models they developed to try to make better Christians. However, wemust realise that God has already claimed as His exclusive domain all truthrelating to the soul and nature of man, and how he should live and how he canchange:

According as his divine power hathgiven unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness,through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue (2 Pet1:3; italics mine).

And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which areable to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in ChristJesus. Allscripture is given by inspiration of God, and isprofitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction inrighteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnishedunto all good works (2 Tim 3:15–17;italics mine).

In so far as the human soul is concern, there can be no other truths exceptthat which can be derived from the Scripture. The Bible declares itself and hasproven itself sufficient. How dare we take the opinions of unbelieving men andplace them alongside the Word of God as truth?

Psychiatry and BrainResearch

What about advances in neurological research? Has it not already been provenscientifically that homosexuality and alcoholism are due to geneticpredisposition, and therefore the church should not condemn them as sin?Homosexuality had been called sin until the beginning of the 20th century when,largely due to the writings of Sigmund Freud, it has been reclassified asabnormal behaviour; and then within the last twenty years, due to socialpressures as well as research works, such as by Simon LeVay and Dean H. Hamer,the classification of homosexuality has been changed to that of naturalbrain-based or genetic variation of sexual expression. Similarly alcoholism wasregarded as sin or at least as a moral weakness leading to sin, but today, itis regarded as a disease not only by the public, but by the American MedicalAssociation.

Are these “truths” also God’s truth? How can they be, seeing they contradictGod’s Word blatantly. The Scripture is unambiguous that homosexuality is indeeda sin (cf. Lev 18:22, 20:13; Rom 1:26–27; 1 Cor 6:9–10; Jude 7), and so isdrunkenness (cf. Prov 23:29–35; Rom 13:13; Gal 5:21).

But moral definition aside, should not we at least take heed to theseresearches so that when we counsel a homosexual and alcoholic, we may say tohim: “I know you can’t help it, you will always think about it and want it.Your desire will always be there because this is the way you are, but you cancertainly control yourself just as any other persons can and must control theirlusts”? The problem with such a counselling approach is that it contradicts theScripture which teaches us that sin begins with desire:

Let no man say when he is tempted, Iam tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he anyman: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, andenticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when itis finished, bringeth forth death (Jas 1:13–15).

What is a sin in act is already sin when there is a desire (cf. Mt 5:28). It isno sin to be tempted, but when temptation bears fruit in the form of desire,sin is already present. Thus, if an act is prohibited in the Scriptures, thedesire is also prohibited, and must be repented of.

Therefore any approach that attempts to justify desire or orientation, whilecondemning sinful behaviour falls short of what the Scripture teaches. And weagree with Edward T. Welch, that

The victim of such counsel willnever have the privilege of battling and rooting out sin at the level of theimagination. And eventually they will feel justified in being angry at God forgiving them an orientation that they may not live out (Blame it on the Brain [P&R,1998], 158).

Conclusion

Our final section on neurological research well illustrates how ready manyChristians are to take all purported ‘truths’ to be God’s truth, or truthswhich are on par with the Word of God. The fact is that none of the researcheson homosexuality and alcoholism or any other so-called disorders have beenconclusive, verifiable, and undeniable (see ibid., 165–71; 196–7).All truths are indeed God’s truth, but not all purported truthsare God’s truth.

In view of the current explosion of information,—most of which claiming to betrue,—through the media and internet, the Christian would do well to be verywell acquainted with the Word of God so that he may have a yard stick tomeasure all other purported truths. Is there something presented as truth whichcontradicts the Scriptures? Let us be very suspicious of it even if it issupposedly supported by evidence and research. I believe that no objective,verifiable, empirical data that involve no speculation or human bias cancontradict the Bible. The history of scientific and pseudo-scientificdiscoveries has, to my knowledge, yet to yield any such data as wouldirrefutably contradict the Scripture. I do not believe there will ever surfacesuch data, for the Word of God is true and all truth is God’s truth.

—JJ Lim