[Pim Pendergast]

Read any guide on Christian apologetics and you’ll find arguments for refuting relativism. Relativism is a philosophy that denies the existence of objective, or absolute, truth and morality. It is the belief that truth and morality are relative to culture, society or the individual. You’ve probably heard people say, “That may be true for you, but it’s not true for me.” That’s relativism, and it’s widely held in Western society today.

Relativism is easy to refute because you don’t have to refute it; it’s self-refuting. That makes things easy for us Christians. For if no statement can be absolutely true, then the statement that there is no absolute truth cannot be absolutely true. Absolute truth would have to exist in some places for some people; therefore absolute truth exists. But here’s what most people fail to grasp even if they get this: absolute truth can’t exist without God (Jn 14:6) and absolute morality can’t exist without a Law-giver (Rom 2:15); therefore God exists. Jesus wins again!

If, however, you are debating an atheist, he will probably try to trick you into thinking there are different branches of relativism. He may try to tell you there is cognitive relativism, the belief that truth and knowledge are relative, and moral relativism, the belief that morality is relative. He may further try to tell you that moral relativism can be broken down into descriptive moral relativism – the observation that throughout history there has been no single universally-accepted moral code but that moral standards have been and are relative to culture (this view is a flagrant denial of the fact that throughout history there have always been some who have followed God’s moral law) – and prescriptive moral relativism – the belief that moral standards ought to be relative to culture or the individual. He creates this crafty false dichotomy so that he can deny being a cognitive relativist and claim to believe in absolute, objective truth – which he might call evidence or facts or logic – while still holding to a form of moral relativism.

This is where you need to trick the atheist into thinking that he is a cognitive relativist. You see, the Bible makes it clear that truth is a moral issue.

Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

This verse is saying that the denial of the truth of God’s existence is unrighteous – that is, immoral. So if truth is a moral issue and an atheist is a moral relativist, then he is also a cognitive relativist. And if he is a cognitive relativist, then the argument above in paragraph two demolishes his position. He will no doubt be frustrated that you keep conflating truth and morality, but a win for Jesus is a win for Jesus whether he acknowledges it or not.

We stated earlier that God is the source of all truth. The Bible is the embodiment of God’s truth (Jn 17:17). If we want to know absolute, objective, unchangeable, universal truth, we turn to the pages of God’s Word.

Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

Ps 100:5For the Lord is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations.

1 Pet 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.

Ps 12:6-7 The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.

Jn 10:35-36 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Now while it might be immoral for man to bear false witness (Ex 20:16), it’s okay for God to deceive people.

Jer 4:10 Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

Jer 20:7 O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

Ezek 14:9 And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

1 Ki 22:23 Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

2 Chron 18:22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

Rev 20:7-8 And when the thousand years are expired, Satan shall be loosed out of his prison, and shall go out to deceive the nations which are in the four quarters of the earth, Gog, and Magog, to gather them together to battle: the number of whom is as the sand of the sea.

2 Thes 2:11-12 For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

God has a few other special privileges. For example, it’s absolutely wrong for Christians to be jealous, but it’s okay for Him.

Rom 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.

Ex 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:

If we want to know absolute, objective, unchangeable, universal morality, we look to God’s law. There are some commandments relating to sacrifices, diet and circumcision which don’t apply anymore, and sometimes your conscience may permit you to do something that it’s not okay for somebody else to do (Rom 14; 1 Cor 8). But apart from that God’s law is an absolute standard of morality.

I came across this article the other day in which Ken Ham is accused of espousing relativist philosophy for the following statement:

“[U]ltimately, the [evolution versus creation] argument is about how you interpret the facts—and this depends upon your belief about history. The real difference is that we have different ‘histories’…, which we use to interpret the science and facts of the present.”

“Creationists and evolutionists… all have the same evidence—the same facts,” he insists in another article on evidentiary proof, emphasizing that our presuppositions frame how we interpret those facts. “Christians,” he writes, have the Bible and the stories therein provide “a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables [Christians] to interpret the evidence.” Evolutionists, on the other hand, “have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God… so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.”

I don’t see any relativism in this. It seems like good Christian logic to me.

It is the Christian’s duty to “[cast] down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ” (1 Cor 10:5). I think we have successfully taken captive the postmodern philosophy of relativism. Jesus wins again. Jesus always wins.

[Johny Joe Hold]

Thanks for that information. When I go out of Freehold, like to Des Moines for meetings, I often get questions from smart-assed atheists.

I need to develop a bag of tricks to beat them back. This will help.