Does Absolute Truth Exist?

According to postmodernism, there is no such thing as “absolute truth." This directly contradicts the Christian belief that Jesus Christ is "the truth" (John 14:6) and that the holy Scriptures are infallible. Considering this, how can Christians effectively share their faith with those who adhere to postmodernist thinking?

Dr. David K. Bernard explains the Christian basis for belief in absolute truth and how believers can engage with those who have been influenced by postmodernist thought.

For more information on this topic, see Dr. Bernard's books Anchor Points and God's Infallible Word. Both titles are available at PentecostalPublishing.com.

If you enjoy this podcast, leave a five-star rating and a review on Apple Podcasts or your preferred podcast platform. We also appreciate it when you share Apostolic Life in the 21st Century with family and friends.

Transcript

Copy Transcript Copied

SPEAKER_00 0:00

To the postmodernist thinker, there is no such thing as absolute truth. In other words, there is no supreme universal standard of right and wrong. How should Christians respond to this philosophy? Does absolute truth exist, and how can we know it? Dr. David K. Bernard responds on this episode of Apostolic Life in the Twenty First Century. Welcome to Apostolic Life in the Twenty First Century, a podcast dedicated to helping modern-day believers live out the teachings of the first century church. This podcast is part of the teaching ministry of Dr. David K. Bernard. Dr. Bernard has dedicated his life to studying the Bible and helping believers apply its message to their daily lives. In Apostolic Life in the 21st century, Dr. Bernard answers your questions about what the Bible teaches and how those teachings apply to everyday life. Thank you for joining us for this episode. If you enjoy this podcast, we encourage you to check out Dr. David K. Bernard's books. Dr. Bernard has written more than 30 books on biblical theology and Christian living and leadership. Visit Pentecostal Publishing.com and search David Bernard for a list of available titles. Enter promo code DKB10 at checkout to save 10% on your order. That's PentecostalPublishing.com, promo code DKB10 to save 10% at checkout. In your newest book, Anchor Points, you discuss the rise of something known as postmodernism. And you note that postmodernism emphasizes that all human understanding is subjective, contingent, and culturally relative. To the postmodernist thinker, of course, there's no such thing as absolute truth. And so consequently, if a believer who believes in absolute truth is engaging somebody else in a conversation about the Bible, they might say something like, Well, that's just your truth. People have probably heard that us statement. So how do you feel like that Christians should respond to this philosophy? Is there such a thing as absolute truth? And if there is, how can we know it?

SPEAKER_01 2:13

Let me first of all give you a reference. My uh latest book called Anchor Points. It's um an apologetic book, so it helps explain biblical truth to unbelievers and helps establish truth for believers who are asking these questions. How do we know there is a God? How do we know anything? How do we know what's true, what's real? That's the subject of epistemology or theory of knowledge. Uh, and then is there absolute truth? How do we know it? So my book, Anchor Points, tries to answer these questions. And then after each chapter, I have uh resources so that if you wanted a whole book on one topic, I will give you what I think that I personally read. And it uh it it comes from a Christian perspective, or at least uh I do use some secular resources, but it provides psychological or philosophical support for what we believe. So I highly recommend that if you have uh deep questions about this subject. But just to answer it briefly, let's consider two alternatives. First of all, if someone believes in God, then you can make a strong, straightforward case. Well, God is real, God is absolute, and so, yes, there is absolute truth. It's found in God, and God has given us his word, and that's found in the Bible. So the Bible is absolutely true. Now, it has a lot of culturally relative things in that it was embedded in various cultural settings. And of course, the human authors themselves had various personalities and backgrounds. But what we're saying is while God used those people in their cultural context, the message he gave is absolutely true. So what the Bible teaches is inspired from God. It's infallible, it's completely true. And if you have questions on what, well, how do we know for sure the Bible really is God's word and it's really true, and there are no errors, and I've heard there are errors, and what about errors in transmission over the centuries? What about errors in translation? Well, I have a book on that as well called God's Infallible Word. So if we start by we believe in God, there's a basis for absolute truth. And then if we believe God wanted to communicate to us, to have a relationship with us, to fulfill his purpose of creation, we find where is that word found? That's the Bible. And so once we identify the Bible as God's word, then the Bible becomes the source and basis of truth by which we judge all other truth claims. So that will lead to a straightforward understanding. There is truth, we can find it in the Bible, which comes from God who is true. And ultimately, it's found in our personal relation with Jesus Christ, because he says, I am the way, the truth, and the life. John 14. So ultimately, truth is not an abstract notion, it's not an intellectual reasoning, it's found in our relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, the other case is what if you're talking to a skeptic, an atheist, an agnostic, an unbeliever? Where do you start? Well, again, you can ask if they believe in God, and you could start using the proofs for the existence of God, which I discuss at length in my book, Anchor Points, and then give other resources that go in more depth. So once you establish the existence of God, then you're back on the track I gave before. But if they're having a hard time there, you can have another point and say, Do you believe there is an absolute morality? Well, they're going to probably say no. Then you say, All right, do you believe that racism is evil? Do you believe slavery is evil? Do you believe that molesting small children is evil? Do you believe torturing and murdering small children is evil? If they say no, then you say, wait a minute, you're morally bankrupt. You can't live that way. We couldn't have a society that way. We could not exist that way. So that's an intellectually dishonest answer. I can't, I don't believe you really believe that. But if they say these things are wrong, why are these things wrong? What basis? If there's no absolute truth, if there's no God, then there is no absolute morality. So either they're going to be forced to say there must be a God who's given us moral teaching, or there must be an absolute truth somewhere, because that's where we get this basis. But if they say no, it's all relative, then you say, well, then the only way you can um support these moral teachings is by cultural opinion or personal opinion. So you think slavery is wrong just because that's your opinion, or because our society has concluded it's wrong. But objectively speaking, who's to say it's wrong? Now they may argue, um, well, it's the best way to organize society, or it's the best way to help the most people, or this is the only way you could live. That's kind of like a utilitarian argument. It's useful, it works, it's good. Well, then you say, good for whom? So for the Nazis, they thought murdering Jews was good for them. The majority of the country supported that. So if you're going to go by culture or personal opinion or majority opinion, or what's perceived to benefit the most people, well, throughout history, slave owners felt like owning slaves was the right thing to do. In the culture of Bible days, the Greco-Roman culture, Mediterranean Empire, 30% of the population were slaves. Well, 70% weren't. So for 70% of the population, it was a good deal. They thought it was morally right and justifiable. It benefited the most people. So no system benefits everybody equally. So if a system benefits 70% at the expense of 30% under a utilitarian argument, society works. It works for the majority of the people. Who are you to say it's wrong? So, uh, or go back to the ancient uh Canaanites. They sacrificed children to Molech, they burned them in the fire. But they sincerely thought that was the way to ensure fertility for them to have more children, for them to have uh flocks and herds to multiply, for them to have their crops to grow. And so, in all sincerity, probably some of those parents agonized and suffered by casting their children into the fire to be burnt by that in front of that idol. But they sincerely felt this is what's best for our family. This is what's best for society, and the Canaanite society as a whole said that was best. So any utilitarian or relative argument, any argument based on majority opinion, culture, personal opinion, what's best for the most people, what's best for society, cannot eliminate child sacrifice in ancient Canaan. Although God judged the Canaanites for that very sin, the Bible says that was one of the main reasons he had Israel come in and conquer the land, because it was God's divine judgment, or their sin was so evil, so beyond the pale, so contrary to God's will, so contrary to human nature that even pagans should have known that was wrong and they were worthy of judgment. But yet, by any relative argument, you can make a case. They did what they thought was right, and who are we to judge? So by those standards, any relative or subjective or cultural or personal standard, you cannot judge the ancient Canaanites for murdering little babies. You cannot judge the Nazis for murdering Jews. Uh take a look at uh Stalin, the ruler of communist Soviet Union, Russia, or Mao, the ruler of communist China. It is estimated that between those two nations as well as several other nations, uh, in the 20th century, 100 million civilians died as a direct result of communism, either through executions, torture, deprivation, or famines induced directly by the policies of communism, sometimes deliberate, maybe sometimes not understanding the consequences, but nevertheless, as a direct cause of communism, 100 million people were killed in the 21st century. Nevertheless, both Stalin and Mao died in bed at the height of power. They never faced the consequences of their actions, they never face judgment. If there is no judgment, if there is no life beyond this life, if there's no absolute truth, they will never suffer any consequences. And by their standards, they chose what was right. They enjoyed life, they accomplished, they succeeded, they implemented their vision, they did what they wanted to do, what they thought was right and what they thought was best for their society. They followed their atheistic philosophy to the end and fulfilled it. So if everything is subjective and relative, we have no basis for saying that Stalin and Mao were evil or should be judged, and moreover, we have no basis for saying their choice was wrong because their choice worked. It was good for them. Now, if you say, well, one person versus 100 million, but even that question, why should a hundred million people who lived in poverty, why should they matter more than one person? You know, that's just your your relative opinion, but it has no objective basis in reality. So my point is if someone is going to stick by relativism, that there is no absolute truth, they cannot end up condemning any kind of evil that exists in the world. They cannot make a valid case for any form of judgment or justice or consequences, they cannot make any case for why suffering exists and how it can be overcome and how there can be redemption. And so if you really want to live a moral life and you really want to have a moral society, at some point you have to say there's an objective basis outside human thinking. And that objective basis is in absolute moral law, natural law, which in turn comes from God who created us and who is a moral being who created us in his image. And so ultimately, if we're just highly evolved, intelligent animals, then there should there really be no morality to speak of because when we see an animal killing another animal or even eating another animal, we don't think that's morally wrong. We don't try to punish that animal because they're just animals. But we humans have a moral nature. We know inside of us that we're different from the animals. Where does that come from? That doesn't just come from us, that comes from God, and that comes from the concept of absolute truth and absolute moral law.

SPEAKER_00 13:15

Thank you for listening to this episode of Apostolic Life in the Twenty First Century. If you enjoy this podcast, please take a moment to give us a review on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or your favorite podcast app. We also appreciate it when you share apostolic life in the 21st century with a friend or family member. And make plans to join us again next time as we look at how the Bible applies to everyday life.