1. When they affirm, “with the postmoderns we are skeptical that finite, fallible humans are the agents of truth” (p. 12), they deny what is essential to the integrity and evidentiary weight of the apostolic witnesses God has appointed to confirm the truth that Jesus of Nazareth was raised from the dead and is both Lord and Christ (e.g., 1 John 1:1-3). The logic goes like this:
(1) Humans are not agents of truth.
(2) The apostles are humans.
(3) Therefore, the apostles are not agents of truth.
2. When they affirm that there is no “objective epistemological common ground” between a believer and unbeliever (p. 8), they deny what is consistently assumed by the apostles in the way they preached and reasoned with unbelievers in The Acts of the Apostles (e.g., Acts 2:14-36). For instance, the apostles spoke to the unbelievers in Jerusalem, as if those unbelievers did know certain things (such as the miracles of Jesus). The apostles built on that knowledge certain things these unbelievers did not know but would know after hearing the apostles preach. If there were no “objective epistemological common ground” between believers and unbelievers, would this not be evident in (1) how the apostles communicated with unbelievers and (2) what the apostles actually said to them? If the apostles had believed (consistent with The Gospel Coalition’s statement on truth) that all facts are relative to the perspective from which they are viewed — that is, that there are no neutral facts — then why did they consistently present the facts of the gospel (1 Corinthians 15:1-8) as if they were neutral?
3. When they affirm, “our theory of knowing presupposes certain truths” (p. 8), they deny what Scripture everywhere assumes, namely, that the truth of the gospel is absolute, objective, and knowable for everyone. (That is, it may produce but does not require Christian presuppositions.) The Gospel Coalition maintains, on the other hand, that unbelievers need, first of all, a Christian perspective, worldview, or way of knowing before they can believe in Jesus as the Messiah. In adopting this approach, they alter the task of evangelism as presented in The Acts of the Apostles from what is absolutely and objectively known and knowable for all to what is relatively and subjectively a way of knowing for some.
4. When they affirm that because of human finitude truth is subjective (p. 14), they cite no Scripture—indeed, they provide no argument, authority, evidence, or reason for such a conclusion. They simply declare it as if it were a self-evident truth. It is not, however. Truth as the Bible presents it (and as it is commonly understood) is “conformity to fact” or “what corresponds to reality.” This means that truth is (or may be) objective.
5. When they affirm that because of the effects of sin on the mind humans cannot know truth truly at all (p. 14), they cite as support for this claim two verses which do not actually serve their purpose: (1) Romans 1:18, which is about unbelievers who because of sin suppress the reality that God exists; and (2) 1 Corinthians 2:14, which is addressed to Christians (not unbelievers) in an unspiritual state who are unable to understand or receive spiritual things. The Bible nowhere states that the effect of sin on the mind is that the mind cannot know truth, generally speaking. To be sure, sin does darken the mind such that it, for instance, resists the truth of the gospel. However, to resist that truth is different from not understanding it at all. In brief, the effects of sin on the mind are not so much a question of whether the mind can know truth as it is a matter of what the mind does with that truth which it knows. Much of Western philosophy itself is, for instance, a good example of the effects of sin on the mind. One could even say that philosophy’s skepticism about truth (its belief that truth is subjective and relative) is an effect of sin on the mind. What better strategy could our Adversary employ than the notion that all people are shut up to their various perspectives or rationalities on reality and locked out of a common acquaintance or universal and rational capacity for truth? God is a God of truth. God’s Word (the Bible) is the Word of truth. Jesus Christ is the truth. The Gospel is the truth and involves facts about Jesus Christ. Again, what better strategy is there to block the nature of this truth than by denying its objectivity or know-ability or by claiming that facts are entirely conditioned in their possible meaning by the perspective from which they are seen—as if a direct acquaintance with facts can never break through a perspective hostile to them?