There is an often quoted statement that says, "all truth is God's truth." Arthur Holmes wrote a book with this title in which he explained that there is no divide between sacred and secular knowledge. The quote is a paraphrase from one of Augustine of Hippo's writings. He said,
A person who is a good and true Christian should realize that truth belongs to his Lord, wherever it is found, gathering and acknowledging it even in pagan literature, but rejecting superstitious vanities and deploring and avoiding those who 'though they knew God did not glorify him as God' . . .*
Wherever truth is found, if it is indeed truth, it is known to God and is part of what we too can know if God allows us to know it. We can trust that truth is a good gift from his hand.
Of course truth must be separated from untruth, lies, and superstition. That is often the challenge. How do we know things? How do we know truth when we see it? Is what we think to be true, actually true or simply something we have always believed? These are difficult questions and we may always find some uncertainty in our answers. When it comes to understanding God's revelation in the Bible and God's revelation in the created world, we must read the two together and allow each to help interpret the other.# Science that reveals truth is God's truth as much as God's word in the Bible is truth. Augustine goes on to say that
In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand on one side that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines our position, we too fall with it. We should not battle for our own interpretation but for the teaching of Holy Scripture. We should not wish to conform the meaning of Holy Scripture to our interpretation, but our interpretation to the meaning of Holy Scripture.The science of our day, some of it being done by followers of Jesus, is revealing many things that we could not previously dream of knowing. Some of it is very challenging to our traditional interpretations of the Bible.^ Does this mean that the Bible is wrong? No, the Bible is still God's word and is true. Could it be that our interpretation of the Bible is wrong? Truth and truth will agree. In some places, we may need to reinterpret our understanding of the Bible, but the truth of the Bible will indeed fit with truth wherever it is found. The challenge will be for theologians to understand God's meaning in his word and find a way to understand the truth in light of truth found elsewhere. There is much work to do and some scholars such as Darrel Falk at the Biologos Forum are seeking to help with the conversations that need to happen. He has said
We have some re-thinking to do, but it can be done and will be done within the context of a Christian faith that is fully orthodox and thoroughly evangelical. Any time we draw closer to truth, to God’s truth, we have nothing to fear. There is still much to learn, but we can look back at what we have learned with awe—absolute awe.&Truth, wherever it is found, is truth; it is not hidden from God. All truth is God's truth.
*Augustine, On Christian Teaching II.75
#For further explanation of the two book metaphor see the article by Loren Wilkonson in Crux.
9 comments:
This weekend, I was the speaker at a College and Career Retreat, and we got into a fantastic conversation about a very similar topic: the value of unity over doctrinal constructs. I spoke a great deal from Romans 14, among other places, and I wish I had read this quote from Augustine beforehand; it's kind of perfect for what I was attempting to say! Great blog posting, Keith.
You quoted a more expanded version of what Augustine said than what is normally quoted, but then he went on to say (in the same book), that we should reject doctrines that are contrary to scripture. I contend that the ToE and and old earth are both contrary to scripture. Ex. 20:11, the 10 commandments written by the finger of God, says the earth was made in 6 days. Jesus also says that God made them male and female and that the days of Noah are like it will be at the coming of the son of Man. Heb. 11 lists a lot of the characters of Genesis 1-6 as real people with real faith. There is a problem in having death before sin and plants before the sun. The list of doctrinal errors goes on and on. So let's finish the Augustine doctrine.
"...a man is not in any difficulty in making a reply according to his faith ... to those who try to defame our Holy Scripture. ... when they produce from any of their books a theory contrary to Scripture ... either we shall have some ability to demonstrate that it is absolutely false, or at least we ourselves will hold it so without any shadow of a doubt. ...let us choose [the doctrine] which appears as certainly the meaning intended by the author. ... For it is one thing to fail to recognize the primary meaning of the writer, and another to depart from the norms of religious belief."
http://college.holycross.edu/faculty/alaffey/other_files/Augustine-Genesis1.pdf
Thank you for your comment. (People who blog are always happy to know that someone has read their work.) I understand your perspective and still wrestle with it myself. Elsewhere, I have written about the challenge of understanding biblical genealogies in light of contemporary science. I think there is a solution that allows for interpretation "without prejudice to the faith we have received." I could send you my larger explanation of this if you would like to read it. I agree that there is a real "problem in having death before sin and plants before the sun." I would suggest that the latter problem remains a problem for any interpretation of Genesis 1:11-19. I would also suggest that these are not insurmountable problems and are problems with our theology, not problems with the Bible.
Perhaps the most difficult aspect of this conversation is how it relates to our understanding of Adam in the context of Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15: 20-28. In these passages, Adam is
referred to as the one through whom came sin and death; while Jesus is the one through whom
came justice and life. These verses, perhaps more than any other, suggest an individual named
Adam. Yet, is that truly the only way to understand these passages? Theology since Augustine
has dealt with such questions under the twin banners of the Fall and original sin. Although these
are not biblical terms, they are a way of understanding humanity's need for redemption. This is
certainly not the place for a complete discussion of the theology of the Fall, original sin, and
redemption. What we must consider is can we find a way forward that allows us to accurately
understand the grace and life in Jesus, to which Romans and 1 Corinthians point, without the
necessity of an historical Adam? The fact is that several theologians and biblical scholars have
put forward solutions that do just that.
The prominent New Testament scholar James Dunn, in his commentary on Romans had this to
say about the historicity of Adam as it pertains to Romans 5.
"It would not be true to say that Paul’s theological point here depends on Adam’s
being a "historical" individual or on his disobedience being a historical event as
such. Such an implication does not necessarily follow from the fact that a parallel
is drawn with Christ’s single act: an act in mythic history can be paralleled to an
act in living history without the point of comparison being lost. So long as the
story of Adam as the initiator of a sad tale of human failure was well known…
such a comparison was meaningful . . . . [T]he effect of the comparison between
the two epochal figures, Adam and Christ, is not so much to historicize the
individual Adam as to bring out the more than individual significance of the
historic Christ."
Dunn is most certainly allowing for a non-historical Adam and maintains an orthodox understanding of sin and redemption. The key element of the evangelical gospel message is that humankind has rebelled against God and there must be a solution. Jesus is the full image of God and his death on the cross provides a way for redemption and restoration of humans and all creation. With regard to this essential element, with or without an historical Adam, Jesus is the solution that restores the
creatures to their proper function.
I have much more I could say and I wish we could sit down over a coffee and discuss this. I do have a paper that you might like to read. It deals with very specific genetic findings in science (supportable with good scientific research) that have caused me to rethink some of my previous understandings of Genesis 1 through 11. I hope that you hear, in my responses, a genuine interest in your concerns. I too have struggled with these same questions.
Keith
The problem with a platitude is that it is misleading, always. It implies universal application. Any words from man lack the wisdom found in scripture. God alone has the wisdom to speak truth without exception. St Augustine is not God. He was a devoted servant but his wisdom is not that of God.
The platitude that all truth is God's truth is wrong in its conception. It implies that mere mortal such as myself has the ability apart from God to determine truth. Using the sinful mind of man to determine truth, any truth, does not translate it into God's truth. No matter how popular or convenient the"truth". That is why th warning about truth contrary to God's Word is issued. St Augustine never would have conceived that truth's GOD's)
Malachi 2:7-9
Keith, I came across your blog when googling 'All truth is God's truth' and I'm blessed that I did. Having just finished reading my second Bart Ehrman book, I've been surprised at the number of books and YouTube videos made to 'refute' his research and theories. But then I was equally surprised at all the books and vids that 'refuted' the Dan Brown books even though those were plainly labelled novels.
With a Ph.D. in Psychology, I've internalized the scientist's perspective on observation and what to make of new or conflicting data. As I suggested in an online discussion of Ehrman's books, it is utterly possible to be both a devout believer and an appreciative reader of Professor Ehrman; in other words a believer-scientist. Some in the discussion seemed almost hysterical that it has to be one or the other: either Ehrman has manufactured lies out of whole cloth and come to evil conclusions - his having an 'agenda' was repeated a lot - or else we have to abandon Christianity. I was immediately reminded of similar black-and-white thinking: either the earth is at the center of the universe or we must abandon our faith.
In the case of Ehrman's research, throwing the baby out with the bathwater because of 'pseudepigrapha' and other easily confirmed (observable) discoveries seems a drastic choice in the still-mostly-hidden world we actually inhabit. I used your Augustine quotation and then quoted your 'Truth, wherever it is found, is truth; it's not hidden from God. All truth is God's truth.' I ended my post by saying, 'If I was mistaken in thinking Paul wrote Ephesians, now I know the truth and praise God that He has revealed it to me. Now I ask Him what's the next step and prepare to learn some more from the Fountain of truth."
Thanks again for your blog.
Thanks for the comment Alan.
Since the word "truth" has not been defined here, the statement "all truth is God's truth" (atGt) can be variously (mis)understood and confusing rather than enlightening. What do you mean by "truth"?
Truth will be defined in a number of ways. First, it is that which we can observe with our five senses. Second, it will be things that we learn from others and believe we can trust. There are some who would throw up their hands and say, "what is truth?" and abandon the search altogether. I would say that truth is still a worthy search. How would you define truth?
Post a Comment