Objective truth is becoming an endangered species in much of our contemporary culture. Philosophical bias is causing many to deny reality in ways that would have been laughable only a few years ago. The harsh political polarization currently afflicting American life has helped create an environment in which “my” truth, fed by preferred information from sources selected for the slant they place on the news, becomes the ultimate definition of issues, challenges, and circumstances both past and present.
But this article isn’t written to lament the loss of truth in the secular political world, dangerous as that is. A far more perilous assault on objective truth exists in the religious world, including contemporary segments of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. Just this week, in a lengthy exchange with some folks on a friend’s Facebook page, I encountered this mindset in ways that can only be called alarming.
The Loss of Truth
Among the thoughts presented by the various persons on this particular Facebook thread were the following:
1. Neither the Bible nor the Spirit of Prophecy writings interpret themselves. We have to do the interpreting.
2. When parts of the Bible appear to deny the teachings and character of Jesus—such as the punishments meted out to Achan and the Amalekites—those parts can rightfully be seen as less authoritative than other parts.
3. Rejection of the written Word has now put on a new face. Instead of claiming to reject outright those inspired statements deemed “harsh,” “unpalatable,” or “self-righteous”—to give a sample of the language used on the Facebook thread—these inspired statements are instead acknowledged to be inspired, but nevertheless reflective of flawed humanity and not necessarily authoritative for us.
The above premises, quite obviously, give the human reader authority over the inspired text rather than the other way around. Human beings are presumably tasked with “processing” what the inspired pen has written, rather than permitting the inspired Word to process them. If the written Word doesn’t pass one’s emotional, experiential, or intellectual filters, it is granted respect (being allegedly the sincere perspective of its authors) but is not granted authority over the reader’s conscience and choices.
Had these persons lived before the Flood and encountered the preaching of Noah, it isn’t hard to imagine that rather than coming on board the ark, they would likely have found Noah’s portrait of God’s coming judgment emotionally and spiritually troubling, and his prediction of a global deluge scientifically untenable. And like the rest of the unbelieving antediluvians, they would have wound up gasping for air in the raging waters, their arms looped around the horns of the nearest triceratops!
An Old, Flawed Paradigm
This notion of truth being entirely subject to the perception of the individual is nothing new, either in certain Adventist circles or elsewhere. During the Desmond Ford controversy of the late 1970s and early ‘80s—a controversy which, under different names, continues to this day—this same argument was used as a means of justifying the continued presence in academic and other denominational circles of persons who denied such cardinal beliefs as the investigative judgment beginning in 1844 and the doctrinal authority of the Ellen G. White writings. Because truth was presumably a subjective, individually unique phenomenon, with no certainty allegedly available to fallible humans as to what in fact is truth and what is error, the answer to doctrinal controversy in the church was held to be unfettered pluralism—the uncurtailed interchange of ideas in pulpits and classrooms, with no interference from administrators or others seeking accountability from the church’s employees as regards their commitment in faith or practice to the written counsel of God (Isa. 8:20; Acts 17:11).
The biggest problem with this paradigm is its stark conflict with the narrative—not to mention the teachings—of Scripture. The Bible’s message to humanity regarding truth and error, righteousness and sin, is never presented in the Sacred Writings as something beyond the capacity of finite mortals to perceive and respond to. If the Bible’s call to reject sin and accept God’s salvation was subject to a galaxy of conflicting interpretations, the Biblical endorsement of what it calls righteousness and condemnation of what it calls sin would be grossly unfair, as fallible and fallen humans couldn’t be blamed for misperceiving what God has revealed. Moreover, if this paradigm were accurate, the Bible wouldn’t speak favorably as it does of those at different times who have held fellow believers accountable for departing from the Biblical message.
The Bible is crystal clear as to the reality and perceivability of divine truth in the human experience. When the ancient prophets, apostles, and Christ Himself presented this truth to the faith community and others, those listening were expected both to correctly understand what they heard and to respond correctly as a condition of their salvation. Jesus Himself stated this as clearly as anyone: “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned” (Mark 16:16).
Ellen White stands in full accord with the Biblical view of truth when she writes:
That which in the councils of heaven the Father and the Son deemed essential for the salvation of man, was defined from eternity by infinite truths which finite beings cannot fail to comprehend [1].
The Inspired Pen Its Own Interpreter
The self-explanatory nature of the inspired writings is clear beyond misunderstanding in those writings themselves. The Bible declares not only that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God (II Tim. 3:16), that those authoring this material spoke not from personal interpretation but as they were moved by the Holy Spirit (II Peter 1:20-21); it is equally clear that inspired statements are to be understood by comparison with themselves (Isa. 28:9-10; I Cor. 2:12-14). Thus we find the following Ellen White statements as to how the Bible is to be understood:
The Bible is its own expositor. One passage will prove to be a key that will unlock other passages, and in this way light will be shed upon the hidden meaning of the word. By comparing different texts treating on the same subject, viewing their bearing on every side, the true meaning of the Scriptures will be made evident.
Many think that they must consult commentaries on the Scriptures in order to understand the meaning of the word of God, and we would not take the position that commentaries should not be studied; but it will take much discernment to discover the truth of God under the mass of the words of men [2].
The Bible is its own expositor. Scripture is to be compared with scripture. The student should learn to view the word as a whole and to see the relation of its parts. He should gain a knowledge of its grand central theme—of God’s original purpose for the world, of the rise of the great controversy, and of the work of redemption. He should understand the nature of the two principles that are contending for the supremacy, and should learn to trace their working through the records of history and prophecy to the great consummation [3].
The Bible is its own interpreter. With beautiful simplicity one portion connects itself with the truth of another portion, until the whole Bible is blended in one harmonious whole. Light flashes forth from one text to illuminate some portion of the Word that has seemed more obscure [4].
Scripture is the key that unlocks scripture [5].
Let the Bible explain its own statements. Accept it just as it reads, without twisting the words to suit human ideas [6].
God requires more of His followers than many realize. If we would not build our hopes of heaven upon a false foundation, we must accept the Bible as it reads, and believe that the Lord means what He says. He requires nothing of us that He will not give us grace to perform [7].
When those who profess to believe present truth come to their senses, when they accept the Word of the living God just as it reads and do not try to wrest the Scriptures, then they will build their house upon the eternal Rock, even Christ Jesus [8].
According to Ellen White, her own writings are to be understood in the same self-explanatory way:
The testimonies themselves will be the key that will explain the messages given, as scripture is explained by scripture [9].
Self at the Center
Once the notion is accepted that divine truth must be viewed through the lenses of human interpretation—with all the experiential, emotional, and circumstantial baggage attending the interpretive process—the human self ascends to the seat of spiritual pre-eminence. The ultimate spiritual authority is no longer the transcendent, self-explanatory Word of the living God, but becomes instead the fallible human agent. Such an approach to faith and spirituality succeeds only in returning us to the days of Israel’s judges, when “every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Judges 21:25).
The struggle against the world, the flesh, and the devil is difficult enough when one embraces the Biblical paradigm of absolute, self-explanatory truth. When, by contrast, question marks are hung over the inspired text, with no one sure exactly what the text means due to cultural, linguistic, and interpretive variances, theoretical and moral chaos is the sure result. The young especially, when faced with the weakening of life’s ultimate anchor at this critical point in their lives, can only accept this “lens” theory of Biblical understanding at the greatest peril to their spiritual journey.
In contrast to the popular stereotype of the rabbis in Jesus’ day as being rigid and dogmatic, as distinct from Jesus supposedly being flexible and accommodating, Ellen White states as follows regarding our Lord’s manner of teaching:
But while His teaching was simple, He spoke as one having authority. This characteristic set His teaching in contrast with that of all others. The rabbis spoke with doubt and hesitancy, as if the Scriptures might be interpreted to mean one thing or exactly the opposite. The hearers were daily involved in greater uncertainty. But Jesus taught the Scriptures as of unquestionable authority. Whatever His subject, it was presented with power, as if His words could not be controverted [10].
Describing the broad road leading to eternal destruction, Ellen White observes:
On the road to death the whole race may go, with all their worldliness, all their selfishness, all their pride, dishonesty, and moral debasement. There is room for every man’s opinions and doctrines, space to follow his inclinations, to do whatever his self-love may dictate [11].
This is the way of ambiguity that results from the “lens” theory of Biblical interpretation. This is the babbling cacophony that emerges when truth is lost.
Conclusion
Contrary to another popular urban legend, doctrinal truth as presented in Scripture is very much a matter of salvation. God declared through Hosea: “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge; because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee” (Hosea 4:6). Jesus declared, “If ye continue in My word, then are ye My disciples indeed” (John 8:31). Paul wrote to the Thessalonians: “God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth” (II Thess. 2:13. And to young Timothy he wrote: “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine: continue in them; for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee” (I Tim. 4:16).
Earlier we spoke of certain people presuming to judge portions of the Bible by the teachings of Jesus, claiming the latter supposedly overrule the former. That would have been quite surprising to Jesus Himself, who declared in His conflict with Satan that man shall live “by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God” (Matt. 4:4).
If the inspired Word loses its objective self-articulation and transcendence of time and culture, the entire message of sin and salvation is destroyed. The idea of a law by which sin is defined (Rom. 3:20; I John 3:4) and our resulting need of a Savior who restores us to righteousness (Rom. 5:12-19; 8:3-4), loses all meaning, as none could be sure what sin and righteousness truly are, much less how to avoid the one and embrace the other.
CNN commentator Don Lemon recently observed, “We live in a post-truth, post-reality world.” Losing the truth in a secular context is devastating enough; losing it in the spiritual realm means the loss of eternity itself.
REFERENCES
1. Ellen G. White, Fundamentals of Christian Education, p. 408.
2. Ibid, pp. 187-188.
3. ----Counsels to Teachers, p. 462.
4. ----Our High Calling, p. 207.
5. ----Testimonies, vol. 8, p. 157.
6. ----Loma Linda Messages, p. 55.
7. ----Testimonies, vol. 5, p. 171.
8. ----Manuscript Releases, vol. 21, p. 346.
9. ----Selected Messages, vol. 1, p. 42.
10. ----The Desire of Ages, p. 253.
11. ----Thoughts from the Mount of Blessing, p. 138.
Pastor Kevin Paulson holds a Bachelor’s degree in theology from Pacific Union College, a Master of Arts in systematic theology from Loma Linda University, and a Master of Divinity from the SDA Theological Seminary at Andrews University. He served the Greater New York Conference of Seventh-day Adventists for ten years as a Bible instructor, evangelist, and local pastor. He writes regularly for Liberty magazine and does script writing for various evangelistic ministries within the denomination. He continues to hold evangelistic and revival meetings throughout the North American Division and beyond, and is a sought-after seminar speaker relative to current issues in the Seventh-day Adventist Church. He presently resides in Berrien Springs, Michigan