The indivisibility of truth
This Saturday's classic Briefing extract is about the indivisibility of truth. It's from Briefing #8, August 1, 1988:
If we were to picture all the different things we know to be true as building blocks, what would they look like? Perhaps they would be like Lego: little interchangeable bits that we could fit together in many ways, sometimes using some pieces, and sometimes others. We certainly wouldn't need to use all the bits to make a successful building. Some Christians suggest that God's truth is like this: there are many different aspects to it, and we needn't accept it all to erect a successful building.
However, there are other kinds of blocks. My children have a jigsaw puzzle consisting of three wooden blocks. By themselves, each of the blocks has a strange almost bizarre shape, with no particular meaning, and no stability. When joined together, they form a stable and attractive kiwi. Only when properly joined do these blocks have any meaning and function; even two of the blocks joined together won't stand up.
Christian truth is like these kiwi blocks, not like Lego. The pieces are not interchangeable or irrelevant. Only when the total puzzle is assembled do each of the pieces assume their proper place, function and purpose. And only with all the pieces in place can the total picture be seen in all its truth.
Each of the truths of the gospel depend on each other. Consider, for instance, the following series of statements:
- Jesus is fully human
- Jesus is fully divine
- Jesus was our representative on the cross
- Jesus was able to make a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for sins on the cross
- God's word is true
Far from being distinct or separate (and dispensable), these truths are interrelated. We cannot dismiss one and still retain the others. If Jesus was not fully human, how could he stand in our place as a representative? If he was not fully divine, how could his death be sufficient payment for sins? If God's word is not true, how can we put our trust in the Jesus that it reveals? To trust God is to trust his word, is to trust his Son, is to trust his Son's word ... and on it goes. These are not interchangeable, independent Lego blocks of truth. They stand, or fall, together. They are indivisible.
The indivisibility of truth has many implications. How does it affect, for example, our fellowship with those who agree on many things but deny or omit some of the truths of the gospel?
Hello, Tony,
Thanks for this post, I think it’s true that we cannot pick out some things from the gospel truth and still expect it to hold together and stand.
After reading it, however, I wanted to ask a question, which could sound way too obvious for some, but please bear with a slow one like myself.
What did you mean by the phrase, “God’s word?”
The Bible as we know it?
Or, God’s revelation to “each of”/“all of” us?
My reasons behind asking it are as following.
First, I want to know how I can be confident about the 66 books we have in the Bible we use today. The Bible itself isn’t clear about what books are to be included when it refers to itself as Scriptures. Or, if it is, please let me know.
Secondly, because I want to know how to deal with the differences among manuscripts, eg. John chapter 8, or the last part of the Mark, etc.
Third, when there are so many people drawing different conclusions about various topics from reading the same Bible, and each declaring that he’s got it right, how can I be confident in my understanding of a particular topic, or a passage in the Bible? To say “we’re all correct” doesn’t seem right in view of the nature of truth (although post-modernists will be happy with it), and is self-negating in certain situations. To say “We all got it wrong” feels like I do not have enough faith in the work of the Holy Spirit who illuminats truth to His people, and also, too depressing to accept. But if that’s the case, let that be. But really, if “one is right and the other is wrong”, how can I be confident in saying it, especially I am not confident which one is right and why? (Should I go to a Bible college?)
Well Timothy! Big questions those, but I’m told that blog comments are supposed to be short and snappy. So here are some very brief answers:
1. In the quote, “God’s word” was being used synonymously with the Bible, which is a true and valid usage of the phrase. The Bible is God’s word.
2. If you want to know more about how the canon was settled, start with the New Bible Dictionary articles on Canon (OT and NT). And if you don’t have a New Bible Dictionary, go get one! (Every Christian should have one.) If you want to go further, try FF Bruce’s “The Canon of Scripture”.
3. If you really want the knowledge and skills to be able to sift through textual variants in the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts, brace yourself for several years of tertiary level study. Sorry. The good news is that the modern editions of the Gk NT and the Heb OT are very solid, and nothing of substance hangs on the variants. You can read a good English translation (like the ESV) with a high degree of trust.
4. On the matter of different interpretations, there are (as you point out) three possibilities: everyone is right (illogical), everyone is wrong (impossible), or some are right and some wrong (the only option really). What do we do with the fact that there are different interpretations? The Bible itself tells us the answer: read 2 Peter 3:15-16 carefully and see what it tells you.
Warm regards
TP
Thank you for the response, Tony.
I agree that the blog comments are meant to be kept concise, and I expected that my question would not be answered in details here on a blog. However, I will take your advice, and will pursue further to learn about these issues on my own time. And, perhaps I will ask again someday, once I’ve given more thoughts and study into them.
Thanks.
A couple of comments re the logic behind the proposition…
Saying that Christian doctrine is like a certain set of blocks is an argument from analogy…and inevitably such arguments fall down (as most block towers do eventually
.
The second half of the post gives us better reasoning, but it seems to me that the ‘proof’ for the indivisibility of truth is reliant on us being able to see the connections. What about those aspects of Biblical doctrine which seem to be in tension with each other? What if we can’t immediately see a pattern? We need different criteria here.
Commenting rules
If you would like your comment to be considered for publication, please observe the following rules:
Failure to adhere to these rules will result in your comment being quietly deleted.
If you want to give us feedback but don't want your comments to appear on the blog, DON'T use the form below. Instead, please send us an email or click on the button below.
Your Comment
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.