It has been my observation while strolling through Proverbs there is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way to death (see Proverbs 14:12). I noted something similar in Isaiah 5:20 – Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! (NIV)

Clearly there is a right way and a wrong way to view things, a right path, and a wrong path, and let us not overlook the failure to properly gather facts that leads to rendering poor decisions. We all have troubles with this. My personal life history is an acute demonstration of what not to do.

Francis Schaeffer (a respected Christian apologist) wrote: If there is no absolute moral standard (compass), then one cannot say in a final sense that anything is right or wrong. By absolute we mean that which always applies, that which provides a final or ultimate standard. There must be an absolute if there are to be morals, and there must be an absolute if there are to be real values. If there is no absolute beyond man’s ideas, then there is no final appeal to judge between individuals and groups when moral judgments conflict. We are merely left with conflicting human opinions. And we all know the veracity of the human mind to change its opinion on any subject at any moment in time.

Here is the sad conclusion. When my atheist friends advocate, as part of their world view “there is no God”, “there is no truth”, they are submitting non-revocable, absolute truths to build their case. When they continue their logic with “there are no absolutes”; they create yet another non-revocable truth. Logically, the holder of these three ideas (no God, no truth, no absolutes) cannot escape absolutes. They must assert their core facts (no God, no truth, no absolutes) as an absolute statement of truth. Yet, their assertion is fundamentally flawed.

Why? The assertion of “No God” as an absolute truth cannot stand scrutiny when the same person says there is “no truth” and “no absolutes.”  There is nothing left for them to present but desperate lofty platitudes about love of self and the benefit gained by self-reliance to avoid dealing with the most important topics in the room – sin, repentance, forgiveness, grace, and redemption.

Edwin Lutzer tells us — You may have noted a new definition of tolerance — spoken of as a philosophy of “inclusion” and not “exclusion.” Absolute truth does not change to be inclusive; it is exclusive. Read this slowly and carefully: What is the sum of 3+3? There is only one correct response to that question, but an almost infinite number of wrong answers. Absolute Truth is stubborn, it cannot be stretched to include a variety of viewpoints. Yes, moral matters are different from mathematics, but if there are moral absolutes as the Bible teaches, those absolutes cannot be inclusive of other non-supportive viewpoints.

A.W. Tozer put it plainly in Of God and Men, “Truth is a glorious but hard mistress. She never consults, bargains, or compromises.”

Edwin Lutzer continued — I grant that we as Christians should be tolerant of other believers who differ with us on peripheral doctrinal matters, but we cannot compromise on the essentials. If on a talk show you said, “I believe in Jesus Christ,” that would be considered tolerant; you are just sharing your private beliefs. But if you added, “I also believe that Jesus Christ is the only way to God for all people,” you would offend many and be branded as “intolerant” and certainly not “inclusive.”

Our belief in an absolute moral compass sets us apart from most people. What are we to do?

I choose Jesus.