The Sanctity of Truth: by Allen L. Monroe

THE SANCTITY OF
TRUTH
by
Allen L. Monroe
The Sanctity of Truth
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Nancy Pearcey’s excellent book,
Total Truth, and the more recent
book, The Truth Wars, by John
MacArthur, has renewed my interest
on the subject of truth and the whole
area of epistemology.
1. Francis Schaeffer wrote in several of

his books on the essential nature of
epistemology.
a. He said, “Epistemology is the
central problem of our generation;
indeed, the so-called ‘generation
gap’ is really an epistemological
gap.”
b. He continued by stating,
“simply because the modern
generation looks at knowledge in
a radically different way from the
previous ones.”
2. Epistemology is concerned with:
a. What is knowledge?
b. What can we know?
c. How do we come to know what
we know?
d. How do we know we really
know?
e. What are the limits of
knowledge?
3. All these questions are part of the
branch of philosophy know as
epistemology.
a. The term comes from the Greek
episteme (knowledge)
b. And logos (theory or study of)
c. It is the study or theory of

knowledge,
d. Particularly, the how and
what of the knowing process.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. At the outset, let us investigate the

question, Can we know Truth?
1. Pilate’s question, when
examining our Lord prior to
his crucifixion, is relevant.
2. In John 18: 37, Christ claimed to

“. . . bear witness to the truth.”
3. In the next verse (v. 38a), “Pilate

said to Him, ‘What is truth?”
4. Many have pondered why Pilate
asked the question
a. Some have suggested his

question was serious because
he knew the man in front of him
was like no other man he had
ever seen.
b. Still others claim that Pilate was

expressing his cynicism or
impatience with the religious
and political disagreements of
Jesus’ accusers.
c. No doubt, Pilate was speaking
out of a confused and divided
philosophical understanding – as
have many men since Pilate
d. The attitude about truth in
Pilate’s day is still with us in the
21st century
B. If we assume the battle for truth

is only in academic circles, we are
wrong.
1. In much of the Christian
community, the whole notion of
truth is under attack.
2. It started in Europe and has
spread to the United States.
3. In many places the battle for truth is

raging.
4. It is not widespread in Africa.
5. I pray that it will not affect the church
in China.
I. INTRODUCTION
C. It might be helpful in our understanding
of epistemology to paint with a very
broad brush and give an historical
perspective.
1. Throughout history (leaving out ancient
history), we can divide our thinking into
three eras.
2. First, the Premodern Period -
(The period that began before the

Protestant Reformation of the 16th
century and lasted until a brief time
after that)
2. The Premodern Period
a. In this period, the criteria of
knowledge, truth, and authority
were based on revelation and
faith in God.
b. Whether one was a Christian or
not, God was at the center in the
premodern model.
c. Faith and believing were the
beginning points of the knowing
process.
d. This was a time of much
superstition and belief in magic.
e. Nevertheless, there was the idea
of universal truth, which
emanated from God through
revelation.
f. There was a clear distinction
between God the creator and
man the creature.
g. Man was in God’s image and
likeness.
h. God was over and above the
creation, yet personally related to
it.
3. Secondly, we have the Modern
Period
(This period started in the early

18th century until a little past the
mid-twentieth century. Time is
sometimes referred to as the
Enlightenment Period or the Age of
Reason)
3. The Modern Period
a. We witnessed a shift in the
epistemological paradigm (i.e.,
pattern or model)
b. Though this period still allowed
for the existence of God,
c. We saw a shift away from
revelation to reason.
d. Man became the final reference
point for his thinking.
d. This was the time of the scientific
and industrial revolutions.
e. Reason, logic, and empirical
evidence becomes king in the
marketplace of ideas and
thinking.
f. Instead of faith in God, we see
faith in man’s ability to use
reason.
g. The methodology focused on
objectivity.
h. In a sense, we saw a cleavage
between God and knowledge,
i. Hence, between man and
knowledge.
j. All so-called truth had to fit within
the rational laws of logic.
k. The main focus was on objective
knowledge discovered by man.
l. And so, man became the final
determiner what could and could
not be known.
(You will see these ideas
revisited again several times as
we look further at the Sanctity of
Truth)
PLEASE STAY WITH ME
4. Thirdly, is the Post-Modernity Period
(This is the period beginning

approximately in the mid-twentieth
century up to the present time).
4. The Post-Modernity Period
a. It should be obvious that we have
another paradigm shift.
b. Hints of this coming shift were
aided by existentialism (we may
cover this in another PowerPoint
presentation
c. The focus shifted away from
objective knowledge outside of
man.
d. To where man looked inward to
his being and his experience as a
standard for truth and
knowledge.
e. The factual, logical, rational,
scientific empiricism of the
Modern Period was rejected.
f. Perhaps oversimplified, truth
and knowledge have become
whatever the post-modern man
wants them to be.
g. As Charles H. Dunahoo said,
postmodern epistemology
is like Jell-O
h. Dunahoo stated in his book,
Making Kingdom Disciples,
“Revelation, if it is entertained
at all, is so subjectively deter-
mined that God can be what-
ever we want him to be, even
nothing is we so choose.”
I. INTRODUCTION - continuation
D. Allow me to express these complex
attitudes concerning knowledge and
truth in three categories.
(PLEASE NOTICE THAT WE ARE
USING SIMILAR IDEAS SHOWN
EARLIER IN THE HISTORICAL
SECTION TO HELP US FIRMLY
FIX THEM IN OUR MINDS)
1. First, we have the RATIONALIST’S
demand for objective knowledge that
can be objectively demonstrated.
a. This knowledge can be obtained
by someone with a disciplined,
logical mind with submission
to a higher authority than himself
(not necessarily or usually God).
b. My objection to this type of

knowledge is that it does not
take into consideration the FALL.
c. Because of the FALL, human

reason is insufficient to lead us
to truth
2. Secondly, we have a kind of
PRAGMATIC RELATIVISM
a. A pragmatist is satisfied with
whatever is immediately relevant
or works in a given situation
b. In a sense, he says “Something
is true because it works.”
c. Lying may “work” for a thief or
robber, but is his lying truth?
3. Thirdly, a more recent philosophical
system has emerged called the
POSTMODERN MOVEMENT OR
POST MODERNISM.
a. Sad to say, this attitude

permeates much of
contemporary thinking.
b. Such a view boldly suggests that

truth is dead; that is, there is no
truth in any objective or absolute
sense.
c. Truth that is independent of the

mind of the knower no longer
exists.
d. Some, even in the evangelical
community, argue that we can’t
know the certainty of truth.
e. Many post moderns say truth

is relative – it is all a matter of
interpretation and depends on
the perspective of each
individual.
STUDENTS, Are you still with ME?

In terms of knowledge, we looked at three
historical periods:
PRE-MODERN PERIOD
MODERN PERIOD
POST-MODERN PERIOD – Where we are today
I thought this was a good quote: "Jesus did not
come to make bad people good. He came to make
dead people live.“ Dr. Ravi Zacharias
I. INTRODUCTION - continuation
E. Perhaps I can illustrate these three
thinking systems (i. e., epistemological
systems) by describing three baseball
umpires.
F. Assume there are three baseball
umpires debating their different
philosophies of calling a baseball
game.
1. The first umpire says, “There are
balls and there are strikes and
I call them the way they are.”
2. “No” exclaims the second referee,

a. “That’s arrogant.”
b. “There are balls and there
are strikes and I call them
the way I see them.”
3. The third referee says, “That’s no

better. Why not be realistic about
what we do. There are balls and
there are strikes and they ain’t
nothing till we call them.”
4. Notice the first referee represents
what we might call the ___________
position.
5. The second referee speaks for the
_______ and the workability model.
6. The third referee bluntly expresses the
____________ position; truth is not
there to be discovered, it is for each of
us to create truth for ourselves.
II. WE MUST FIRST UNDERSTAND GOD
A. A Christian Theory of Knowing
1. Any understanding of truth and
epistemology will be determined by
our concept of God.
2. First, the world and life itself can
only be adequately known
through the Revelation of God.
3. Because of the Fall, man’s under-
standing and evaluation of life are not
only incomplete, but distorted.
a. The Fall of man was a total fall.
b. This is a foundational truth.
c. Unfortunately, we have a
tendency to look at the Fall
solely in terms of the “soul”
being lost rather than the
mind being affected.
4. To put it simply, the unsaved
man not only loves to do wrong,
not only chooses wrongly, but
thinks wrongly.
5. The non-Christian constructs a
world-and-life view that stands
in opposition to God and hence
his thinking about truth must be
incorrect.
6. If there is going to be a correct
interpretation of truth, then it can
only be done by Christians.
7. We must be willing to accept
truth by seeking Scripture, which
is our final authority for all of life
and practice.
8. The Word of God is not only
authoritative in the area of
redemption and morality, but in
every area.
9. Our knowledge of who the
Creator is and who we are must
come from this authoritative
Word.
The Psalmist says, “The earth is the

Lord’s and the fullness thereof; the world,
and they that dwell therein.”
Because this is God’s world, His word must

grant us insight into His plan and purpose
for this world.
1. Again, any understanding of truth and

epistemology will be determined by our
concept of God.
2. Since all truth begins with God and His
Word, it follows that revelation must be
self-authenticating and self-attesting.
3. This means that the Word carries within
itself its own validation since God is the only
adequate witness to Himself.
4. If we attempt to validate Scripture by any

principle outside of God and His Word, then
we have a higher validation principle than
Scripture.
REMEMBER THE MODELS WE SHOWED
EARLIER
5. The charge will invariably be made that we
(i. e., Christians) are engaged in circular
reasoning – on this point I would agree.
a. Non-Christians argue that Christans
believe Scripture because it is true.
b. And, we believe something is true
because it is in Scripture.
c. As many fine Christian philosophers

have pointed out, circular reasoning
is the only reasoning possible for
finite man.
d. Because we either reason from God
to God-interpreted facts, or from
man to man-interpreted facts.
e. We either start with a self-contained

God who is dependent upon no one
but Himself, or with an autonomous
man who is able to attain knowledge
independent of God’s direction and
standards.
B. There are two levels of knowing just

as there are two levels of being.
JERUSALEM AND ATHENS
METAPHYSICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN

NON-CONTINGENT REALITY AND
CONTINGENT REALITY
INFINITE, HOLY,
ETERNAL, JUST,
RIGHTEOUS,
DEPENDENT
LOVING, etc.
NON-CONTINGENT &
CONTINGENT REALITY
UNCREATED
C. We have an Independent Creator
(Uncreated & Eternal) and a
Dependent Creation (Temporal) in
the realm of being.
1. In the realm of knowledge we must
recognize that God’s knowledge is
ultimate and absolute.
2. God’s knowledge of Himself and all
other things is original and absolutely
comprehensive.
3. Christian philosophers use the
expression that God is eternally self-
conscious.
a. This means there is no point of
predication (or a thinking
departure point) outside of God
whereby God knows Himself
or anything else.
b. In more basic terms, God has

never learned anything because
He has always known
everything there is to know.
c. Therefore, the existence of a
fact in the universe that is not
known by God is an impossibility.
4. Because God created all things, He
must have known all things in all
possible and actual relationships prior
to their creation.
a. Nothing in the created universe
can fall outside of His plan.
b. And, it is because of His plan
that all things are actually what
they are.
c. In Eph. 1: 11, we read, “In Him

also we have obtained an
inheritance, being predestined
according to the purpose of
Him who works all things
according to the counsel of His
will.”
5. Therefore, since God has created all
things for Himself and directs them for
His own sovereign ends,
a. All things, including knowledge
that any being has or could
possibly have, must come from
God.
b. In addition, the very idea of any
fact that man has, must of
necessity be derivative.
6. A fact (or let us use the word truth)
cannot come into existence by itself or,
by chance.
a. But, by God who is the source of
all possibility, and therefore, of all
actuality.
b. We have often heard someone
say, “Let the facts speak for
themselves.”
c. However, facts do not speak for
themselves. They are not self-
interpretive.
d. To many, both inside and outside
of Christianity, we have imbibed
in non-Christian thinking so long.
e. We think facts are like apples to
be plucked one by one from a
tree.
f. All thinking is based on pre-
theoretical assumptions or
presuppositions.
g. In other words, we put facts into
our intellectual “system” and
that system largely determines
what the facts say.
h. And there is only one way in
which a “system” may be
constructed which will enable the
facts of life to speak the truth.
i. That is when the “system” is

constructed by Christians who
have not only experienced new-
birth conversion, but epistemic
conversion as well.
j. This is the kind of conversion and

knowledge Paul was referring to
in Col. 1: 9, “. . . That you
might be filled with the
knowledge of His will in all
wisdom and spiritual
understanding.”
k. Cornelius Van Til’s words are

instructive for us, “Education (or
learning) is implication into God’s
interpretation.”
7. If God were not self-sufficient, self-
explanatory, and the final point of
reference for all of truth,
a. Then man could find truth
independently of God,
b. Or, man could become partners
with God to explain our universe.
c. Facts or truth then, would not be

what they are in the last analysis
by virtue of the plan of God,
d. They would be partly that, but
facts or truth could exist
independently of God
e. As a result of such a stance, the
human mind could conclude that
.
it need not subject itself to the

revelation of God as absolutely
authoritative.
f. Man could defer, when he so
chose, to God as he would to
any expert who might have
greater experience than himself.
g. But he need not make all
thoughts captive to the
obedience of Christ.
h. Richard Pratt, Jr. has written a
wonderful little book entitled,
Every Thought Captive, in
which he gives a kind of study
manual on apologetics with a
particular stress on
epistemology.
i. The title for the book is obviously
chosen from Paul’s letter to the
church at Corinth,
“For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal,
but mighty in God for pulling down
strongholds, casting down arguments and
every high thing that exalts itself against the
knowledge of God, bringing every thought into
captivity to the obedience of Christ.” (2 Cor. 10:
4 & 5)
8. Perhaps a summary statement that

might best explain God’s knowledge
of Himself, His plan, and His purpose
is – WITH GOD THERE IS NO
POTENTIALITY - epistemologically
or ontologically.
a. The point is that God has no

potential to grow in knowledge,
to grow in His being, or to grow
in His character.
b. Therefore, the concept of God

being self-sufficient, both in His
being or knowing, precludes any
aspect of potentiality.
E. Now let us turn our attention to

man’s knowledge or the truth
man can have.
1. Let me reiterate an important point –
Man’s knowledge is derivative
and dependent.
2. It might be helpful if we differentiated
between man in his pre-fall and post-
fall state.
3. Even better, let me delineate
“knowing” man into three states of
epistemological consciousness.
a. Adamic Consciousness
b. Unregenerate Consciousness
c. Regenerate Consciousness
4. The first state would be called –

ADAMIC CONSCIOUSNESS
a. Some of you may be thinking that
this state doesn’t exist in the
present.
b. YOU ARE CORRECT:
This is the state that Adam and
Eve experienced prior to the Fall.
4. ADAMIC CONSCIOUSNESS
c. I find evangelicals (particularly
non-reformed Christians) very
willing to accept the Fall in terms
of the moral rebellion of Adam.
d. But, reluctant to come to grips
with the epistemological
significance of the Fall
(or how the mind was affected)
e. Adam, as a finite being, was
created with an innate knowledge
of God (this seems clear from the
Genesis record).
1) Adam, although finite, had the
capacity to comprehend a
propositional revelation from an
Infinite God.
2) Originally, his finitude was no
burden to him.
STUDENTS/PASTORS
I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THIS IN

YOUR GLOSSARY
YOU CAN DEFINE FINITUDE AS

FOLLOWS: The state of having limits or
bounds (i.e., being limited or human)
3) He freely and willingly accepted
his creaturehood and gladly
acknowledged his Creator
f. According to the Genesis
account, when God created man
He gave him dominion over the
rest of the created order.
(IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO REVIEW A
DIAGRAM OF A BIBLICAL MODEL)
BIBLICAL MODEL
GOD
CREATED SERVE
MAN
HAS DOMINION SERVE
REST OF THE CREATED ORDER

g. Specifically, God gave Adam
two tasks which required the
development of knowledge.
1) First, Adam was required to
“work and keep” the garden.
(Genesis 2: 15)
2) At the beginning man had to
develop knowledge of
horticulture and agronomy.
3) Secondly, Adam was required
to name or classify the animals.
4) Certainly a scientific task
5) So again we see the develop-
ment of knowledge was
required (Genesis 2: 19 & 20)
h. Because Adam was not yet a
fallen creature, it did not occur to
him to doubt the validity of his
sense impressions.
i. Or, to distrust what God said.
j. Satan approached Eve and
raised an epistemological
question.
(ALLOW ME TO VERBALLY GIVE THE

ACCOUNT OF THE FALL)
Rusdoony asserted, “If man makes himself his

own ultimate and final reference point, then the
world and knowledge are dependent upon
man. Nothing exists beyond autonomous man
as a reference point above and beyond him,
because man is now his own God.”
We can concur with Rushdoony when he stated,

“What the unbeliever calls his epistemic point
of view, the Bible declares to be man’s original
sin.”
5. Man has now moved from ADAMIC
CONSCIOUSNESS to the second
state – UNREGENERATE
CONSCIOUSNESS
a. In the previous state, man’s
reason, will, and affections had
been in total submission and
inherently receptive to the
Creator.
5. UNREGENERATE CONSCIOUSNESS
b. This represented the norm for
his thinking and acting.
c. But when Adam broke the law
of God
1) A profound change took
place in Adam and
subsequently in all men.
2) Instead of being inherently
receptive to the revelation
and law of God,
3) Adam’s reason, will, and
affections sought to
suppress the same law &
revelation (Roms: 1: 18)
d. Man in the state of UNREGEN-
ENERATE CONSCIOUSNESS,
as heir to Adam’s sin, is char-
acterized by Van Til as follows:
 Man is ultimate judge of what can or
cannot happen.
 Man denies (either implicitly or explicitly)
that God can control any and all
phenomena.
5. UNREGERATE CONSCIOUSNESS
 Man thoughts are absolutely original. His

interpretation will be true for him.
 The facts which confront man are not
created by God. They are brute facts –
uninterrupted and ultimately irrational.
The universe is therefore controlled by
chance.
6. The third state of consciousness is
known as REGENERATE
CONSCIOUSNESS
(IT IS WONDERFUL THAT ALL OF US IN IN THIS ROOM
ARE IN THIS CATEGORY BECAUSE OF GRACE )
a. After regeneration the intellect,

will, and the affections are
renewed in principle.
6. REGENERATE CONSCIOUSNESS
b. Paul in Col. 3: 9 & 10 states,
“Do not lie to one another,
seeing that you have put off
the old self (unregenerate
consciousness) with its
practices and have put on the
new self, which is being
renewed in knowledge after the
image of its creator.”
c. In other words, by the renewing
work of the Holy Spirit, man’s
mind is in principle returned to
its pre-fall Adamic condition.
d. I think we would all agree that the
“new self” should be
characterized as having a new
Lord with:
1) A renewed mind,
2) New commitments,
3) A new direction,
4) And, new presuppositions

in the world of thought.
e. Without question, the believer’s
thinking ought to be rooted in
Christ, “In whom are hidden all
the treasurers of wisdom and
knowledge.” (Col. 2: 3)
DEAR PASTORS & STUDENTS,
I trust you can see the significance of this PowerPoint

presentation (Sanctity of Truth) to any discussion of
Worldview.
To me, epistemology if the key to thinking Christianly

and acting Christianly.
In His Grace, Uncle Allen

The Sanctity of Truth: by Allen L. Monroe

Transféré par

Informations du document

Description originale:

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

The Sanctity of Truth: by Allen L. Monroe

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

THE SANCTITY OF

1. Francis Schaeffer wrote in several of

c. It is the study or theory of

A. At the outset, let us investigate the

2. In John 18: 37, Christ claimed to

3. In the next verse (v. 38a), “Pilate

a. Some have suggested his

b. Still others claim that Pilate was

B. If we assume the battle for truth

3. In many places the battle for truth is

2. First, the Premodern Period -

(The period that began before the

(This period started in the early

(This is the period beginning

b. My objection to this type of

c. Because of the FALL, human

a. Sad to say, this attitude

b. Such a view boldly suggests that

c. Truth that is independent of the

e. Many post moderns say truth

STUDENTS, Are you still with ME?

2. “No” exclaims the second referee,

3. The third referee says, “That’s no

The Psalmist says, “The earth is the

Because this is God’s world, His word must

1. Again, any understanding of truth and

4. If we attempt to validate Scripture by any

c. As many fine Christian philosophers

e. We either start with a self-contained

B. There are two levels of knowing just

METAPHYSICAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN

b. In more basic terms, God has

c. In Eph. 1: 11, we read, “In Him

i. That is when the “system” is

j. This is the kind of conversion and

k. Cornelius Van Til’s words are

c. Facts or truth then, would not be

it need not subject itself to the

8. Perhaps a summary statement that

a. The point is that God has no

b. Therefore, the concept of God

E. Now let us turn our attention to

4. The first state would be called –

I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THIS IN

YOU CAN DEFINE FINITUDE AS

HAS DOMINION SERVE

REST OF THE CREATED ORDER

(ALLOW ME TO VERBALLY GIVE THE

Rusdoony asserted, “If man makes himself his

We can concur with Rushdoony when he stated,

 Man thoughts are absolutely original. His

a. After regeneration the intellect,

4) And, new presuppositions

DEAR PASTORS & STUDENTS,

I trust you can see the significance of this PowerPoint

To me, epistemology if the key to thinking Christianly

In His Grace, Uncle Allen

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi