Thursday, June 15, 2006

"New Truth" is not God's Truth: Part One


As we reported here yesterday, there is a debate that is raging within some denominational circles about homosexuality. The basis of the argument has degenerated to the axiom that "all truth is God's Truth" therefore newer and more enlightened discoveries should have precedence over older and more “outdated” forms of understanding (e.g. the Bible).

The argument goes something like this (which can be seen in Bishop Griswold’s quote from the previous post): Since we are more enlightened being armed with more education and research concerning the inner workings of man’s psyche and physical well-being then we should eschew old ideas of biblical anthropology in exchange for a more biological understanding. The result being that God made a person such and such a way therefore any attempts to change such is a lack of love and an affront to the imago dei. Even N.T. Wright has reasoned that a decision concerning sexuality in the church should be left up to a “consensus”.

This argument while largely taking place outside of evangelical circles nevertheless reveals a fundamental weakness in many evangelicals’ notions of truth and the sufficiency of Scripture. I know many evangelical who look at passages like Psalm 19 and walk away thinking that God has revealed Himself in creation in such a way that general revelation provides us with something that the Bible does not. If you find it hard to believe that evangelicals would embrace such a perspective then I would invite you to visit the “counseling” department of most evangelical seminaries. When you’re done there visit the biology lectures of evangelical colleges. After you’ve listened to their lectures, visit the psychology, sociology, anthropology or physical science departments. Better yet let some of the leading evangelical scholars in this area speak for themselves:

“All truth is certainly God’s truth. The doctrine of general revelation provides warrant for going beyond the propositional revelation of Scripture into the secular world of scientific study expecting to find true and useable concepts” (Crabb, Effective Biblical Counseling, 36).

“The evangelical church has a great opportunity to combine the special revelation of God's Word with the general revelation studied by the psychological sciences and professions. The end result of this integration can be a broader (and deeper) view of human life” (Narramore, “Perspectives on Integration,” 17).
“My knowledge of special revelation—the Bible—would have been combined with my knowledge of general revelation—what God has taught me about his world through my study of psychology, physiology, counseling, rehabilitation, and other fields” (Collins, “An Integration View,” 117).
“Just as the rain falls on the just and the unjust, so too does truth, by the process that theologians call God’s common grace. Romans 1 speaks of God even revealing central truths about his nature to unbelievers (v. 19). … If we understand God’s counsel to be truth, we will be committed to pursuing truth wherever we find it. And we sometimes find it in the careful and insightful writings of unbelievers” (Jones and Butman, Modern Psychotherapies, 27-28).

13 Comments:

Blogger Sharad Yadav said...

Just a quick note on the Wright comment - it's pretty clear that he thinks the lifestyle of homosexuality is sinful and that attempts to make the Bible seem as though it could approve of modern manifestations are doomed to failure. The statement about "consensus" has something to do wtih how the Anglican ecclesiastical machine works and the desire to keep the Anglican communion from disintegrating.

11:27 PM  
Blogger Sharad Yadav said...

With that said, it's easy to remember why I'm not an Anglican . . .

;)

11:27 PM  
Blogger Paul Lamey said...

Blueraja,

I too have read Wright's statements that you referenced here. What I find problematic is that the issue has been in study at various levels for almost two years. On similar points the issue for Anglicans might even be traced back to the 1960's. So what is not pretty clear is why they continue to allow such foolishness in their communion instead opting for more "study". Wright may be clear more or less on his own personal beliefs but his influence as Bishop of Durham has been unusally silent compared to fellow Bishops from Africa and Austrailia. His language of "consensus" is vague at best and only seems to play down the issue further. Note of caution: Please don't interpret this as some rant of a "TR" as your new assosiations constantly do at your new place of residence. I'm simply pointing out a trend that has been evident among Anglicans for some time yet I see some of the same mistakes among evangelicals in our own backyard...which was the point of my post.

11:11 AM  
Blogger Sharad Yadav said...

Have a beer and settle down there, tiger (you're not a southern baptist, are you?); I agree. The lack of prophetic passion in addressing the issue. At least his recent letter/ultimatum to the ECUSA has a bit more backbone, though.

12:17 PM  
Blogger Paul Lamey said...

I have forsaken my SBC ways which has caused some of my brothers to question my usefullness.

12:26 PM  
Blogger Paul Lamey said...

Matt,

You, most of my family, my fellow elders, my mailman, and all the dogs I had as a child would join you.

12:46 PM  
Blogger Jonathan Moorhead said...

Devil's advocate: has the study of nature/science ever proved popular biblical interpretation to be wrong?

2:18 PM  
Blogger Paul Lamey said...

JDM,

I was unaware that the Devil needed an advocate. The answer is no unless you're playing some kind of devilish word game with the phrase "popular biblical interpretation."

2:51 PM  
Blogger Sharad Yadav said...

Check it: "Gay activist Colin Coward of Changing Attitude in Salisbury, England, dismissed Wright's paper, saying, "Tom Wright has gay priests in his diocese, and he has done nothing to stop them."

4:58 PM  
Blogger Sharad Yadav said...

Holy cow - are you serious, Paul? You don't think that popular beliefs about medicine, physics, astronomy etc. influenced the way people read the Bible for four millennia?

7:20 PM  
Blogger Paul Lamey said...

Raja, that wasn't the question NOR IS IT THE POINT OF THIS POST. If I somehow misunderstood JDM and he was asking what you have here then my answer is sure, no my answer would be like duh. I've already answered you more here than I promised myself I would so be careful b/c I'm far less tolerant of rabbit trails than other blogs.

9:35 PM  
Blogger Caleb Kolstad said...

Perhaps Sproul went to the same school as Jim Boice....

This is good stuff to chew on.

Thanks

7:35 AM  
Blogger Jonathan Moorhead said...

Paul, sorry for the diversion.

Note to self: skim through Abraham Kuyper's "Stone Lectures" before Paul's next post on this issue.

9:52 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home