One common argument arose from the In-Betweenist responses:

1. Morality is absolute, but that’s true for me and not necessarily for everyone else.

This argument was supported by the following statements.

“That’s a very interesting question! I believe that God decides what is good and evil, right and wrong, etc, so yes I think it is absolute. But at the same time, I know not everyone in the world is a Christian and therefore I don’t expect them to have the same view of morality.”

“Depends on your worldview. I see the world through my faith, so my ‘truths’ are God’s absolute truths. Other people will have differing opinions based upon their faith or their culture.”

“I think for me personally morality is absolute. For people as a whole no. It’s not. I believe in God and the Bible and my truth is objective truth written in the Bible. Do I believe everyone was created by God and {should} have the same moral code? Yes. Some reject God though. I realize we all live our lives based on our personal worldview. Mine centers around God. Others may not. So our morality will be defined differently.”

“I believe everyone has and is entitled to their own beliefs, one may think somethings wrong and another may not think so. That being said there IS right and there IS wrong no matter what you believe. We are all accountable for our actions and beliefs.”

My Response:

The In-Between-ists believe that there is absolute truth, but they believe it’s only specific to them and their worldview. The faultiness of this argument lies in their misconception of the term worldview.

Typically, we use the term worldview to describe a sum of one’s views about the nature of reality. Usually, this view affects how one conducts their life. To say you have a biblical worldview means that you have a collection of beliefs that arise implicitly or explicitly from the teaching of the Bible. However, this is self-refuting and a bad world view. The reason being is that it becomes a type of relativism where everyone has their perspective like a biblical perspective, Hindu perspective, atheist perspective, etc. Instead, when one says that they have a biblical worldview, what they mean to say is that they are looking at the world truthfully.

It is mistaken to believe that we can’t have ideas and truths that come to us from outside the Bible. The Bible alone is not our sole guide to our understanding of reality. It is not the starting point. To do so would be to ignore the distinction between general and special revelation. General revelation is truths about God, invisible attributes that can be clearly seen (Romans 1). General revelation is like the effect to cause argument, where you’re seeing the effect of God in creation and reason back to God as the cause, the Creator. So, truths can be known about God apart from special revelation (which is God revealing things we couldn’t have otherwise known through his prophets and apostles which we call our Bible).

Therefore, a healthy understanding of how both of these fit into the Christian worldview is essential. After all, you couldn’t understand your Bible without the principles of hermeneutics. But you can’t get these principles from the Bible, that wouldn’t make any sense. Because if you were able to understand your Bible to get your principles of hermeneutics then that means that you already understood your Bible before you had your principles, which is self-refuting. Somehow, you must get those principles from something outside the Bible. You don’t get them from philosophy, you get them from reality. To be sure, reality is what it is because God is who He is and He has made things the way they are. So, we’re not doing an end-run around God.

So, it is important to avoid using the term “worldview” because it walks right into the trap of relativism. The absorbed philosophy of our day is that we can’t know reality in itself, we only know reality as it appears to us individually. However, as Christians, we have the best tool in our toolbelt, general revelation! We see reality for how it really is and truthfully, not perspectival versions of it.