Essay 95 (10-29-05)

MORE ON FACTS AND TRUTHS — AND THE GOSPEL

(There were some questions about the distinction between facts and truths made in the series on Alexander Campbell's Biblical Distinctions. The following is a summary of my response, which might be of interest to our readers.)

I cannot claim originality for the distinction drawn between facts and truths. Nor was it original with Alexander Campbell. He was influenced by the so-called Scottish school of "Common Sense" -- led by Dugald Stuart whom Campbell called "the greatest of the metaphysicians." This school flourished and influenced European and American thought in late 18^th century and on into the 19^th. There was the earlier influence of British philosopher John Locke, whom Campbell referred to as "the Christian philosopher."

I think it was Locke who defined a fact as "something said or done," while a truth states what is. "God is love" is a truth, a precious one; but if God had never acted out of that love, we would still be lost. God acted in giving his own son – a fact. Facts, of course, are also truths, but truths are not facts, according to this view. Modern lexicographers seem to recognize this distinction. Webster defines a fact as an act or a deed.

This epistemology (theory of knowledge) appealed to Campbell because he could more clearly identify the gospel from the rest of Scripture. The gospel is made up of facts – what God has done through Christ. Facts – unlike truths – are propositions of what God has done, which the hearer either accepts or rejects, believes or disbelieves. They call for no discussion or debate. They are a proclamation of what God has done in history – Christ died for our sins, was buried, and raised again the third day – FACTS.

Truths on the other hand, however significant, are subject to theorizing and debate. They do not call for response in the same way facts do. That God loves us is a great truth, and it should touch the heart. But that "God gave Christ to die for us" illustrates how facts grow out of truths and call for a response of faith.

An interesting example of this, as Campbell observed, are the several references in Revelation to "the one who sits upon the throne" -- 4:2; 4:9; 4:10; 5:1: 5:7; 7:10; 20:11. In all of these God is passively on his throne. He nevr speaks, never acts. Truths. But note Rev. 21:5: "But he who sat upon the throne SAID . . . " That gets our attention, for there is a big difference between the truth that God sits on his throne and that he speaks and declares what he is doing, "Behold, I make all things new."

It may be true that most people will not see this distinction, and they will see facts and truths as virtual synonyms. That may be one reason why many Christians do not recognize the difference between the gospel and the rest of the New Testament. The gospel was a reality and was preached long before there was a New Testament. The New Testament is made up of many truths beside those that set forth the gospel. That is why Campbell thought it helpful to identify those gospel truths as facts.

Even when one does not make this distinction in terms of truths/facts, he is forced to make a similar distinction when he thinks critically about truths. Take the proposition All truths are equally true, but all truths are not equally important. The truth that "The man has a rich uncle" is as true as "The man's rich uncle died and left him a million dollars," but one is far more important than the other. The first is a simple truth, the second is good news. The Bible makes such vital distinctions,

When the Bible says "Jesus was a carpenter" it is as true as when it says, "Jesus died for the sins of the world," but one is far more important than the other. One is the gospel, the other is not. So, the distinction is there, whether it is made in terms of facts/truths or simply the distinction in truths themselves.

Words are but symbols of ideas and concepts. I am not as concerned about the words one might use as I am that a vital biblical distinction be recognized. And yet there is virtue in "calling Bible things by Bible names," as our pioneers put it. They made these distinctions in the way they told the Story, such as:

There are three facts to be believed – the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ.

There are three promises to be enjoyed – remission of sins, gift of the Holy Spirit, and eternal life.

Facts, commands, promises! The distinctions are liberating. The people understood and they responded. By making it clear we grew to be a great movement for the unity of all believers.

By contrast one can see how confusing it was -- and is -- when every conceivable doctrine of both God and man is made part of the gospel. The five points of Calvinism were made part of the gospel, as were the pronouncements of the ecumenical councils. If one did not believe in "once saved always saved" he didn't believe the gospel. Each sect had its own litmus test which was made equal to the gospel.

It has not been all that different among us. I have often been taken to task for referring to Billy Graham as "a gospel preacher," for he doesn't preach baptism the way we do. But baptism is not part of the gospel. It is a command given as a response to the gospel. Peter had preached the gospel -- the full gospel -- on the day of Pentecost, and we may presume he would never have told the audience to "Repent and be baptized" had he not been asked what they were to do -- in response to the gospel he had already preached. Anyone, including Billy Graham, who preaches Jesus as the risen Christ is preaching the gospel, even if he errs in failing to tell believers how to obey the gospel.

That isn't all. Since everything in the New Testament -- including our deductions there from -- is made part of the gospel, we have had biblical grounds for our sectarianism. If a church uses instrumental music, takes Communion at the wrong time, interprets prophecy in premillennial terms, it is unfaithful to the gospel. If it has the wrong name on its building, if it uses multiple cups, has a Sunday school, or supports Herald of Truth, it is untrue to the gospel. If the Calvinists have made their "five points" part of the gospel, we have done the same with our "five acts of worship."

The gospel is the good news -- a proclamation of facts about what God has done through Christ to redeem humanity. One may be right about Christ -- right about the gospel -- and be wrong -- or completely ignorant -- about all these other things, mostly our own opinions and preferences, that we presumptuously make part of the gospel.

This emphasis on the gospel does not minimize the significance of the apostolic teaching. It is a matter of giving each its proper place. It is the gospel -- the kerugma -- once believed and obeyed that brings us into Christ, and into fellowship with all other Christians. It is the apostles' teaching -- the didache -- that instructs us and strengthens our faith. Or to use a biblical metaphor, it is the gospel that makes us disciples or followers of Christ, and that matriculates us in the school of Christ. It is "the teaching" that is the curriculum once we are in the school. The gospel makes us equal in Christ, but in the school of Christ we will be in different grades -- and we will differ in abilities -- and so there will be diversity in our unity in Christ.

This is why Paul could call himself both a preacher and a teacher (2 Tim. 1:11). He preached the gospel and brought sinners to Christ. He was a teacher in that he instructed those who were brought to Christ by the gospel. And it is why he could emphasize this distinction with such clarity: "You might have ten thousand instructors in Christ, but you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel" ( Cor. 4:15).