There is objective truth.
It can be known.
It is exclusive.
I will say that again:
Truth is exclusive.
Truth is exclusive.
Truth is exclusive.
This means that there are things that are right, and, necessarily, things that are wrong. If we don't have a truth that can withstand attack and be the ONLY when everyone else's "truth" is one of the many, then we don't have anything worth sharing.
Jesus said that He is the way, the truth, and the life. We also know that His Word is truth. And we also know that He has sent the Holy Spirit to remind us of the things He said and to accomplish His work in the hearts of those who listen.
Because of the help of the Spirit, we are not alone when we study or share the Word of God. And we can be assured that the truth we find there is the real thing, not one of a million equally viable options for what we can choose to accept as our own personal "truth."
This is hard to live out in a classroom where you may be the only person who [knowingly] acknowledges the existence of objective truth in the first place.
Let's pray for each other that we would be bold to share God's truth with the people in the house or desk or cubicle next to ours.
Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might.Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God; praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, being watchful to this end with all perseverance and supplication for all the saints—and for me, that utterance may be given to me, that I may open my mouth boldly to make known the mystery of the gospel, for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.-Ephesians 6:10-20
5 comments:
Good topic and good reminder!
Awhile back I had discussions with some people regarding the extent to which postmodernism is effecting our culture and how it should be viewed. Since this is a college ministry blog, I would appreciate any anecdotal input I can get.
1. Do you encounter relativism often?
2. This is maybe slightly more difficult to answer. As best as you can discern do you think the relativists you encouter are saying:
a. There is no exclusive truth.
b. There is no way for us to know exclusive truth.
c. There is no way for us to be sure we know exclusive truth.
d. They don't have a clue and are just going along with what they hear.
e. They are being lazy or apathetic and are relativists because they don't want to actually think about things that matter and work their brain so it is just easier to spout opinions and acknowledge everything.
3. How often do you encounter this amongst peers and how often amongst professors or from textbooks? If professors or textbooks, then what subjects?
Here is one for the thinkers out there. What is postmodernism?
1. A rejection of modernism.
2. Modernism taken to its logical conclusion (extreme/ultra modernism).
3. Both 1 and 2.
Now here are questions that count.
What should Christians do about this? Do they need to do anything different in light of this challenge? Do you think this should impact how we do evangelism?
I am interested in any response at any level. I would particularly appreciate responses about college experiences.
Anonymous, to delve more deeply into your "questions that count," Above All Earthly Pow'rs by David Wells is a great read.
Thanks, I hear that is a good read, but haven't had a chance to look at it yet. I have come across so many different ways of looking at it. I don't know what I think. Being a blog, I thought it might make for an interesting discussion if anybody was up for it.
Some ways of looking at it that I have come across are:
1. Between premodern and postmodern there has been a shift from metaphyics as first philosophy to epistemology as first philosophy. Premoderns start with God and then moved to the question of epistemology from there. Postmoderns start with epistemology, but without the metaphyics in place skepticism can be the only result. This seems related to Plantinga's argument that evolutionary naturalism is epistemically self-defeating because the likelihood that our cognitive faculties are aimed at truth on an evolutionary naturalism view is low or inscrutable. Meaning questions of epistemology and metaphysics are intertwined.
2. Postmodernism can be seen as a rejection of foundationalism for some other alternative like coherentism or something.
3. The Cartesian search for certainty ends in despair and skepticism. So that postmodernism is just the logical result of modernism.
4. In science so many interpet quantum mechanics as meaning that we don't just observe reality, but in that some mysterious sense reality is indeterminite until somebody is there to observe it. Particles can be in "superposition". Instead of "yes or no" or "one or zero" it is "yes and no" or "one and zero" until it is observed. Schrodinger's cat is both dead and alive until a human observer comes.
Another common idea from science is a pragmatic view of science. Science doesn't get us in touch with reality, but it is just useful. I have even heard Christians pressing for this to some degree. The reasoning seems to be that there is no way to bridge the gap between how things appear to us and what is really there. So all science does is work from how the world appears to us without really being able to say if we are actually getting in touch with reality. Yet to me this seems to come down to 1 anyway since apart from metaphysical considerations what reason do we have to think that our faculties do get in touch with reality.
5. The foundationalism of the modern period provided for a defense of atheism. Then once there is no God, there is no meaning or value or knowledge. This undermines foundationalism and results in the rejection of foundationalism. But this seems to be problematic to me.
Foundationalism --- atheism --- rejection of foundationalism.
If the atheism, which depended on foundationalism, leads to the rejection of foundationalism it seems that the whole chain is incoherent to me.
Anyhow I got to run... time to go brave the snow and ice all to pick up two missing ingredients for dinner!
What is Wells' main idea in the book?
Really I don't know much in this area or any area for that matter, but I thought it could be an interesting discussion.
My head hurts! I'll leave these kinds of discussions to you college age thinkers.
Please do me a favor though and read Acts the 26th chapter. Ask the Holy Spirit to make this passage come alive as you read it.
Two comments on the passage:
1. It's interesting that Festus describes Paul's testimony to the Gospel as "much learning" and then calls Paul 'mad'.
2. Paul says in verse 25: "I am not mad, most noble Festus, but speak the words of truth and reason."
Paul declares that the Gospel message is 'truth and reason'.
I agree. No matter what 'age' we live in, 'truth and reason' are synonymous with the Gospel message of Jesus Christ.
Thanks for the response and for pointing to a good passage!
First a couple of comments on the passage and then a couple thoughts/questions.
I could be totally wrong here, but to me it doesn't seem like Festus is saying that Paul's testimony to the gospel is great learning. The word "learning" there is actually the plural of gramma (or letter). So it is referring to "higher learning" or book knowledge or formal education. I guess it might be similar to "a man of letters." From his youth Paul had all the right degrees from all the best places so to speak. Now with this "insane" story of the gospel Festus seems to be saying that something has finally snapped in Paul like the mathematician who just goes around in a daze mumbling nonsense. So it seems like Festus isn't calling the gospel great learning but that Festus is saying that Paul's testimony to the gospel indicates that he has finally snapped from all his book knowledge/formal training.
The other comment on the passage is that in 25 the word there for "reason" isn't the normal word for reason, logos. It is a word that can be translated, rationality, self-controlled, decency and modesty. So one translation says "sober truth" rather than reason and truth. So it seems to me that Paul is saying, "No, I am not out of mind I speak truth and sane words." The gospel is the opposite of being insane it is actually being sane. OK, perhaps I am milking that too far, but in any case the idea seems to be that his choice of words there is in response to the charge of being insane.
I wholeheartedly agree that no matter what the age the message of truth of the gospel never changes! It is sad that people think we need to change it through doing things like forgetting talk about the wrath of God and the atonement. Or trying to take the gospel and put it into the business language. The other day I saw a study Bible just for policemen. There is a huge over emphasis on context. The gospel, the word of God needs to have study notes specific for a policeman? I think that subtly undermines belief in the degree to which the Bible is relevant to all people in all times as a universal message of sin and salvation.
As the passage in Acts clearly demonstrates, the gospel is the truth and people will always say we are insane. In 1 Cor 1-2 the gospel is foolishness to those who are preishing. I tend to think that how one evaluates Christ crucified and risen is how one will evaluate anything else about God and Scripture. If Christ crucified and risen makes sense to us then the problem of evil isn't solved in a nice and tidy manner, but we see it differently and with hope. If Christ crucified and risen makes sense then all else makes sense, but if it is foolishness then every other answer Christians give looks like foolishness.
I believe this wholeheartedly and yet then what does this mean about Christian philosophers and apologists? Should Johnson/Dembski/Meyer even being trying to make ground in the scientific community with intellegent design? Apologists try to rationally persuade people of the truth of the gospel and yet it is always foolishness to those who are perishing who don't see the glory of God revealed in Christ crucified and risen.
Yet the reality is that many people have testimonies involving the impact of apologetics and the church has always given some place to apologetics from the fathers until today. I guess maybe apologetics is just one form that being a fool for Christ takes. After all, these days what is more crazy in the eyes of the world than standing up in a college class and saying, "I don't think we evolved from slime, but instead we have a Creator"?
Post a Comment