"In order to understand absolute or universal truth, we must begin by defining truth. Truth, according to the dictionary, is "conformity to fact or actuality; a statement proven to be or accepted as true." Some people would say that there is no true reality, only perceptions and opinions. Others would argue that there must be some absolute reality or truth.
One view says that there are no absolutes that define reality. Those who hold this view believe everything is relative to something else, and thus there can be no actual reality. Because of that, there are ultimately no moral absolutes, no authority for deciding if an action is positive or negative, right or wrong. This view leads to "situational ethics," the belief that what is right or wrong is relative to the situation. There is no right or wrong; therefore, whatever feels or seems right at the time and in that situation is right. Of course, situational ethics leads to a subjective, "whatever feels good" mentality and lifestyIe which has a devastating effect on society and individuals. This is postmodernism, creating a society that regards all values, beliefs, lifestyIes, and truth claims as equally valid.
The other view holds that there are indeed absolute realities and standards that define what is true and what is not. Therefore, actions can be determined to be either right or wrong by how they measure up to those absolute standards. If there are no absolutes, no reality, chaos ensues. Take the law of gravity, for instance. If it were not an absolute, we could not be certain we could stand or sit in one place until we decided to move. Or if two plus two did not always equal four, the effects on civilization would be disastrous. Laws of science and physics would be irrelevant, and commerce would be impossible. What a mess that would be! Thankfully, two plus two does equal four. There is absolute truth, and it can be found and understood.
To make the statement that there is no absolute truth is illogical. Yet, today, many people are embracing a cultural relativism that denies any type of absolute truth. A good question to ask people who say, "There is no absolute truth" is this: "Are you absolutely sure of that?" If they say "yes," they have made an absolute statement—which itself implies the existence of absolutes. They are saying that the very fact there is no absolute truth is the one and only absolute truth.
Beside the problem of self-contradiction, there are several other logical problems one must overcome to believe that there are no absolute or universal truths. One is that all humans have limited knowledge and finite minds and, therefore, cannot logically make absolute negative statements. A person cannot logically say, "There is no God" (even though many do so), because, in order to make such a statement, he would need to have absolute knowledge of the entire universe from beginning to end. Since that is impossible, the most anyone can logically say is "With the limited knowledge I have, I do not believe there is a God."
Another problem with the denial of absolute truth/universal truth is that it fails to live up to what we know to be true in our own consciences, our own experiences, and what we see in the real world. If there is no such thing as absolute truth, then there is nothing ultimately right or wrong about anything. What might be "right" for you does not mean it is "right" for me. While on the surface this type of relativism seems to be appealing, what it means is that everybody sets his own rules to live by and does what he thinks is right. Inevitably, one person's sense of right will soon clash with another's. What happens if it is "right" for me to ignore traffic lights, even when they are red? I put many lives at risk. Or I might think it is right to steal from you, and you might think it is not right. Clearly, our standards of right and wrong are in conflict. If there is no absolute truth, no standard of right and wrong that we are all accountable to, then we can never be sure of anything. People would be free to do whatever they want—murder, rape, steal, lie, cheat, etc., and no one could say those things would be wrong. There could be no government, no laws, and no justice, because one could not even say that the majority of the people have the right to make and enforce standards upon the minority. A world without absolutes would be the most horrible world imaginable.
From a spiritual standpoint, this type of relativism results in religious confusion, with no one true religion and no way of having a right relationship with God. All religions would therefore be false because they all make absolute claims regarding the afterlife. It is not uncommon today for people to believe that two diametrically opposed religions could both be equally "true," even though both religions claim to have the only way to heaven or teach two totally opposite "truths." People who do not believe in absolute truth ignore these claims and embrace a more tolerant universalism that teaches all religions are equal and all roads lead to heaven. People who embrace this worldview vehemently oppose evangelical Christians who believe the Bible when it says that Jesus is "the way, and the truth, and the life" and that He is the ultimate manifestation of truth and the only way one can get to heaven (John 14:6).
Tolerance has become the one cardinal virtue of the postmodern society, the one absolute, and, therefore, intolerance is the only evil. Any dogmatic belief—especially a belief in absolute truth—is viewed as intolerance, the ultimate sin. Those who deny absolute truth will often say that it is alright to believe what you want, as long as you do not try to impose your beliefs on others. But this view itself is a belief about what is right and wrong, and those who hold this view most definitely do try to impose it on others. They set up a standard of behavior which they insist others follow, thereby violating the very thing they claim to uphold—another self-contradicting position. Those who hold such a belief simply do not want to be accountable for their actions. If there is absolute truth, then there are absolute standards of right and wrong, and we are accountable to those standards. This accountability is what people are really rejecting when they reject absolute truth.
The denial of absolute truth/universal truth and the cultural relativism that comes with it are the logical result of a society that has embraced the theory of evolution as the explanation for life. If naturalistic evolution is true, then life has no meaning, we have no purpose, and there cannot be any absolute right or wrong. Man is then free to live as he pleases and is accountable to no one for his actions. Yet no matter how much sinful men deny the existence of God and absolute truth, they still will someday stand before Him in judgment. The Bible declares that "…what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse. For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools" (Romans 1:19-22).
Is there any evidence for the existence of absolute truth? Yes. First, there is the human conscience, that certain "something" within us that tells us the world should be a certain way, that some things are right and some are wrong. Our conscience convinces us there is something wrong with suffering, starvation, rape, pain, and evil, and it makes us aware that love, generosity, compassion, and peace are positive things for which we should strive. This is universally true in all cultures in all times. The Bible describes the role of the human conscience in Romans 2:14-16: "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them. This will take place on the day when God will judge men's secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel declares."
The second evidence for the existence of absolute truth is science. Science is simply the pursuit of knowledge, the study of what we know and the quest to know more. Therefore, all scientific study must by necessity be founded upon the belief that there are objective realities existing in the world and these realities can be discovered and proven. Without absolutes, what would there be to study? How could one know that the findings of science are real? In fact, the very laws of science are founded on the existence of absolute truth.
The third evidence for the existence of absolute truth/universal truth is religion. All the religions of the world attempt to give meaning and definition to life. They are born out of mankind's desire for something more than simple existence. Through religion, humans seek God, hope for the future, forgiveness of sins, peace in the midst of struggle, and answers to our deepest questions. Religion is really evidence that mankind is more than just a highly evolved animal. It is evidence of a higher purpose and of the existence of a personal and purposeful Creator who implanted in man the desire to know Him. And if there is indeed a Creator, then He becomes the standard for absolute truth, and it is His authority that establishes that truth.
Fortunately, there is such a Creator, and He has revealed His truth to us through His Word, the Bible. Knowing absolute truth/universal truth is only possible through a personal relationship with the One who claims to be the Truth—Jesus Christ. Jesus claimed to be the only way, the only truth, the only life and the only path to God (John 14:6). The fact that absolute truth does exist points us to the truth that there is a sovereign God who created the heavens and the earth and who has revealed Himself to us in order that we might know Him personally through His Son Jesus Christ. That is the absolute truth."
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.
"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..."Anonymous
While I completely agree that postmodernism can be a very dangerous thing, I do not think it should be thrown out completely. Before I become labeled as a heretic, let me explain. Right now the church in America thinks with a modern mindset which has affected the way we go about thinking and functioning. Postmodernism can be of benefit because there may very well be a small amount of truth to it.
I am in no way saying truth is relative, but the modernist mindset alone is not sufficient. Within modernism we have entered into the mindset that all truth can be found if we search for it. Whether we admit it or not, we believe that simply knowing this truth will set us free/lead us into enlightenment/etc. The result of this mindset within the church is that we believe God can be figured out completely and simply knowing the right things is enough.
The modernist church has thus assumed all truth can be found out, understood, and dissected. We have become a slave to the Scientific Method and even believe it can be used to figure God out. Do not get me wrong, these things are beneficial. That is why I do not think we should do away with modernism but take a balanced approach between the two thoughts. Both are insufficient but both hold some element of truth.
Let me give examples. Within apologetics, modernists assume we are capable of coming up with "proofs" to anything, including the existence of God. Christianity thus becomes appealing because it is true, or at least you can make a good argument. With the culture gaining a postmodern mindset, they might say "I want to be true to myself." As a result, what they are truly searching for is genuineness. Both sides have their dangers when taken too far but I think we should seek after a balance of both.
Another example is theology. Modernists take the approach that systematic theology can completely figure out God. There is thus very little, if anything, that is left up to mystery as it can be understood and found out. Apparently passages in Scripture like Romans 11:33-36 are forgotten. Postmodernists, on the other hand, love Romans 11:33-36, they just forget that the 11 chapters beforehand Paul is talking about God. They take this mystery about God and assume nothing can be known about him. I think a balance is best, viewing God as both knowable and mysterious.
Evangelism is also effected. Modernists typically take the approach that we are to tell others about Jesus, and that should be enough. They love proclamation evangelism. Postmodernists, on the other hand, take the approach that we should be genuine in our faith which is at the heart of their evangelism. Both modernists and postmodernists have components of each, but an emphasis in one over the other. One of the great thing about postmodernists, however, is that when they are a Christian they become extremely mission-minded, wanting the whole world to know about Christ. Postmodernists love evangelism like modernists love theology.
There are many other examples I could come up with, but you get the idea. Views on ecclesiology, tradition, the early church, institutions, authority, etc. are all affected greatly by these differences. However, just because their view is different than your own, they can be completely biblical and morally conservative in their views. Postmodernism does not in any way equal evil, at least no more than the modernist mindset of many evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are strengths and weaknesses to both.
When a person with a postmodern mindset is transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the way they carry out their faith is radically different than a modernist Christian. However, their basic theology should not be different though their methodologies might be radically opposing.
Also keep in mind that the typical postmodern person will never say something as contradictory as "there is no absolute truth." In reality, postmodernism has slowly come into the mindset of much of the population but is nothing as radical as many Christians fear.
While I completely agree that postmodernism can be a very dangerous thing, I do not think it should be thrown out completely. Before I become labeled as a heretic, let me explain. Right now the church in America thinks with a modern mindset which has affected the way we go about thinking and functioning. Postmodernism can be of benefit because there may very well be a small amount of truth to it.
I don't accept that premise. Here's why. As I read your post, I got the impression that terms were being "redefined", in a modernistic fashion. Modernism, though having very fluid definitions, is generally the framework of thought that "human reason, based primary on the scientific method, is the only reliable means of attaining knowledge about the universe. Most modernists believe that "reason" is the final authority, not God's Word as revealed in the Bible.
"Modernism, in religion, was a general movement in the late 19th and 20th century that tried to reconcile historical Christianity with the findings of modern science and philosophy. Modernism arose mainly from the application of modern critical methods to the study of the Bible and the history of dogma and resulted in less emphasis on historic dogma and creeds and in greater stress on the humanistic aspects of religion." http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0833541.html.
When applied to spiritually and morally thinking, this led to the notion that truth is relative.
Post modernism is the framework of thought which proclaims that not only is truth relative, but also that absolute truth is unknowable. I don't accept either premise.
mindstorm wrote:
I am in no way saying truth is relative, but the modernist mindset alone is not sufficient. Within modernism we have entered into the mindset that all truth can be found if we search for it.
Again, generally modernistic thought led to the notion that truth is relative. Absolute truth can be found. It is found in the revealed Word of God as guided to that truth by the Holy Spirit.
mindstorm wrote:
Whether we admit it or not, we believe that simply knowing this truth will set us free/lead us into enlightenment/etc.
The truth of God's Word, in Jesus Christ will set us free.
Joh 8:31Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, Ifyecontinueinmyword,thenareyemydisciplesindeed;
Joh 8:32Andyeshallknowthetruth,andthetruthshallmake you free.
mindstorm wrote:
The result of this mindset within the church is that we believe God can be figured out completely and simply knowing the right things is enough.
While there are those that think that, God's Word tells us that is not the case. He has revealed what He feels we need to know but until the Lord returns, we will never fully understand many things. God has revealed, in His Word what we need to know about Him and about salvation in Christ. Christians get into trouble when they put their trust in the word of man rather than in the Word of God.
Pro 3:5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.
Pro 3:6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.
Isa 55:8For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.
Isa 55:9For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
Rom 11:33O the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!
Rom 11:34For who hath known the mind of the Lord? or who hath been his counselor?
God's Word is sufficient.
2Ti 3:15And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
mindstorm wrote:
The modernist church has thus assumed all truth can be found out, understood, and dissected. We have become a slave to the Scientific Method and even believe it can be used to figure God out. Do not get me wrong, these things are beneficial. That is why I do not think we should do away with modernism but take a balanced approach between the two thoughts. Both are insufficient but both hold some element of truth.
I think you are confusing secular scientific though with spiritual truth. While there is a great deal of error in the Church today, I haven't seen many cases of scientific labs set up in Church running experiments on God. Churches get in trouble when they get away from the whole counsel of God's Word and start listening and trusting in the words of man. Be they secular scientists or liberal textual critics.
Psa 118:8Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
mindstorm wrote:
Let me give examples. Within apologetics, modernists assume we are capable of coming up with "proofs" to anything, including the existence of God. Christianity thus becomes appealing because it is true, or at least you can make a good argument. With the culture gaining a postmodern mindset, they might say "I want to be true to myself." As a result, what they are truly searching for is genuineness. Both sides have their dangers when taken too far but I think we should seek after a balance of both.
The fingerprints of God are all over His creation and are evidence to a lost world that has bought into the myth of naturalistic origins and Darwinian evolution. To reach the lost today, we must convince many of God's existence which they reject. God reveals Himself and His glory in His creation and it is good and right to proclaim this to the world.
mindstorm wrote:
Another example is theology. Modernists take the approach that systematic theology can completely figure out God. There is thus very little, if anything, that is left up to mystery as it can be understood and found out. Apparently passages in Scripture like Romans 11:33-36 are forgotten. Postmodernists, on the other hand, love Romans 11:33-36, they just forget that the 11 chapters beforehand Paul is talking about God. They take this mystery about God and assume nothing can be known about him. I think a balance is best, viewing God as both knowable and mysterious.
Only those that fail to heed the following verses do that, cafeteria type Christians, and the textual critics that constantly try to reinvent what God has said.
Mat 4:4But he answered and said, Itiswritten,Manshallnotlivebybreadalone,butbyeverywordthatproceedethout ofthemouthofGod.
Mat 5:18ForverilyIsayuntoyou,Tillheavenandearthpass,onejotoronetittleshallin no wisepassfromthelaw,tillallbefulfilled.
Rev 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20He which testifieth these things saith, SurelyIcomequickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Questioning the Word of God has its roots in the original le told in the Garden of Eden.
Gen 3:1Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
mindstorm wrote:
Evangelism is also effected. Modernists typically take the approach that we are to tell others about Jesus, and that should be enough. They love proclamation evangelism. Postmodernists, on the other hand, take the approach that we should be genuine in our faith which is at the heart of their evangelism. Both modernists and postmodernists have components of each, but an emphasis in one over the other. One of the great thing about postmodernists, however, is that when they are a Christian they become extremely mission-minded, wanting the whole world to know about Christ. Postmodernists love evangelism like modernists love theology.
I don't accept that premise. I don't think you can "pigeon hole" Christians into those groups and make absolute statements and assumptions about individual Christians and how they serve the Lord based on your arbitrary assignment of them to a specific group.
mindstorm wrote:
There are many other examples I could come up with, but you get the idea. Views on ecclesiology, tradition, the early church, institutions, authority, etc. are all affected greatly by these differences. However, just because their view is different than your own, they can be completely biblical and morally conservative in their views. Postmodernism does not in any way equal evil, at least no more than the modernist mindset of many evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are strengths and weaknesses to both.
Now, I don't get the picture. What I see is a defense of modernism and post modernism, painting with a broad brush, a blurring of the lines to paint traditional, historical, Biblical Christianity in a modernist light, and a redefinition and many assumptions of what traditional, historical, Biblical Christians believe and do in their lives in an attempt to give credibility to modernism and post modernism, both of which I reject.
mindstorm wrote:
When a person with a postmodern mindset is transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the way they carry out their faith is radically different than a modernist Christian. However, their basic theology should not be different though their methodologies might be radically opposing.
You might wan to read up on what the post modernist leaders of the emergent movement are saying about doctrine, theology, and truth, before taking that position.
mindstorm wrote:
Also keep in mind that the typical postmodern person will never say something as contradictory as "there is no absolute truth." In reality, postmodernism has slowly come into the mindset of much of the population but is nothing as radical as many Christians fear.
See, my prior statement. Your last statement makes the intent of your post very clear to me. I do not agree that dressing up postmodern thought in the Church in sheep skins will render it neutered or harmless. Postmodernism has its roots in liberal textual criticism, and the thoughts and words of man. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose but as for me and my house,, we will trust in the revealed Word of God as guided by the Holy Spirit.
Psa 118:8Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
God bless
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.
"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..."Anonymous
I don't accept that premise. Here's why. As I read your post, I got the impression that terms were being "redefined", in a modernistic fashion. Modernism, though having very fluid definitions, is generally the framework of thought that "human reason, based primary on the scientific method, is the only reliable means of attaining knowledge about the universe. Most modernists believe that "reason" is the final authority, not God's Word as revealed in the Bible.
"Modernism, in religion, was a general movement in the late 19th and 20th century that tried to reconcile historical Christianity with the findings of modern science and philosophy. Modernism arose mainly from the application of modern critical methods to the study of the Bible and the history of dogma and resulted in less emphasis on historic dogma and creeds and in greater stress on the humanistic aspects of religion." http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0833541.html.
When applied to spiritually and morally thinking, this led to the notion that truth is relative.
Post modernism is the framework of thought which proclaims that not only is truth relative, but also that absolute truth is unknowable. I don't accept either premise.
That's not the type of modernism and postmodernism I'm talking about. I'm speaking about street level views, not what is thought within the small circle of educators.
I've been defining modernism as a view that believes all truth can be discovered through reason and logic. By postmodernism, I'm speaking of the idea that there may even be an ultimate truth, but due to an overwelming abundance of ideas, it's hard to really say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong and you are right. The result is that we must be tolerant of other people's beliefs in order to sustain civic order.
I don't care about the labels mentioned in textbooks few read, I care about what the general polulation thinks.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
I am in no way saying truth is relative, but the modernist mindset alone is not sufficient. Within modernism we have entered into the mindset that all truth can be found if we search for it.
Again, generally modernistic thought led to the notion that truth is relative. Absolute truth can be found. It is found in the revealed Word of God as guided to that truth by the Holy Spirit.
You are defining the terms differently than me. We must be on the same page for us to continue.
Yes, absolute truth can be found but not through logically looking through evidence in the fashion of the scientific method. It is a gift through the Holy Spirit.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
Whether we admit it or not, we believe that simply knowing this truth will set us free/lead us into enlightenment/etc.
The truth of God's Word, in Jesus Christ will set us free.
I was talking about the mindset of the modernist general population. This mindset states that if we systematise Scripture, discect it, learn the apologetic arguments, etc. then we will find the truth through Jesus Christ. The mystery of it and the Holy Spirit's role is taken out of it.
But do not get me wrong, I'm not saying we should do away with these things, I'm merely saying that those within the modernist mindset give no room for the Holy Spirit due to our usual way of organizing things. Gaining salvation has been put into a 3-step process, discipleship is based upon knowing things that are taught on Sunday night, eschatology is "figured out" and is shown through many charts and graphs, etc. There needs to be more fluidity within this and room given for the Holy Spirit to work.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
The result of this mindset within the church is that we believe God can be figured out completely and simply knowing the right things is enough.
While there are those that think that, God's Word tells us that is not the case. He has revealed what He feels we need to know but until the Lord returns, we will never fully understand many things. God has revealed, in His Word what we need to know about Him and about salvation in Christ. Christians get into trouble when they put their trust in the word of man rather than in the Word of God.
While I agree that the major truths can be figured out within Scripture, we must never forget Duet. 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."
Also Romans 11:33-36, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen."
There are things we can know about God but do you truly think you can and have figured him out perfectly. Do you really think that God is small enough that all of your views about him are perfectly right and you have had no outside influence affecting your view of him? Do you truly think you have followed Romans 12:2 perfectly? "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." If so, you are either a perfect or arrogant.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
The modernist church has thus assumed all truth can be found out, understood, and dissected. We have become a slave to the Scientific Method and even believe it can be used to figure God out. Do not get me wrong, these things are beneficial. That is why I do not think we should do away with modernism but take a balanced approach between the two thoughts. Both are insufficient but both hold some element of truth.
I think you are confusing secular scientific though with spiritual truth. While there is a great deal of error in the Church today, I haven't seen many cases of scientific labs set up in Church running experiments on God. Churches get in trouble when they get away from the whole counsel of God's Word and start listening and trusting in the words of man. Be they secular scientists or liberal textual critics.
Psa 118:8Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
Oh there is plenty of it from what I've seen especially in the realm of systematic theology. Systematic theology is great but if we believe that our extrabiblical views on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, etc. are completely true and give the entire story, then we have fallen into the modernist trap that God can be figured out. There are truth in those beliefs, but they are extrabiblical and do not always show the whole story or they add to the story.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
Let me give examples. Within apologetics, modernists assume we are capable of coming up with "proofs" to anything, including the existence of God. Christianity thus becomes appealing because it is true, or at least you can make a good argument. With the culture gaining a postmodern mindset, they might say "I want to be true to myself." As a result, what they are truly searching for is genuineness. Both sides have their dangers when taken too far but I think we should seek after a balance of both.
The fingerprints of God are all over His creation and are evidence to a lost world that has bought into the myth of naturalistic origins and Darwinian evolution. To reach the lost today, we must convince many of God's existence which they reject. God reveals Himself and His glory in His creation and it is good and right to proclaim this to the world.
Yes we should. I'm merely saying that I'm not so sure it's as simple to prove as we make it out to be.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
Another example is theology. Modernists take the approach that systematic theology can completely figure out God. There is thus very little, if anything, that is left up to mystery as it can be understood and found out. Apparently passages in Scripture like Romans 11:33-36 are forgotten. Postmodernists, on the other hand, love Romans 11:33-36, they just forget that the 11 chapters beforehand Paul is talking about God. They take this mystery about God and assume nothing can be known about him. I think a balance is best, viewing God as both knowable and mysterious.
Only those that fail to heed the following verses do that, cafeteria type Christians, and the textual critics that constantly try to reinvent what God has said.
Mat 4:4But he answered and said, Itiswritten,Manshallnotlivebybreadalone,butbyeverywordthatproceedethout ofthemouthofGod.
Mat 5:18ForverilyIsayuntoyou,Tillheavenandearthpass,onejotoronetittleshallin no wisepassfromthelaw,tillallbefulfilled.
Rev 22:18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20He which testifieth these things saith, SurelyIcomequickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Questioning the Word of God has its roots in the original le told in the Garden of Eden.
Gen 3:1Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
I'm not talking about questioning God, I'm talking about figuring out God. If you ascribe yourself to any theological label, whether that be Calvinist or Armenian, then you do this to some extent. Our theologies are often made up of presuppositions not found in Scripture.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
Evangelism is also effected. Modernists typically take the approach that we are to tell others about Jesus, and that should be enough. They love proclamation evangelism. Postmodernists, on the other hand, take the approach that we should be genuine in our faith which is at the heart of their evangelism. Both modernists and postmodernists have components of each, but an emphasis in one over the other. One of the great thing about postmodernists, however, is that when they are a Christian they become extremely mission-minded, wanting the whole world to know about Christ. Postmodernists love evangelism like modernists love theology.
I don't accept that premise. I don't think you can "pigeon hole" Christians into those groups and make absolute statements and assumptions about individual Christians and how they serve the Lord based on your arbitrary assignment of them to a specific group.
If you refer to evangelism as "outreach" then you yourself have a modernist mindset. You should already be among them living your daily life. If you do not, then those within the emerging church do a better job evangelising than you.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
There are many other examples I could come up with, but you get the idea. Views on ecclesiology, tradition, the early church, institutions, authority, etc. are all affected greatly by these differences. However, just because their view is different than your own, they can be completely biblical and morally conservative in their views. Postmodernism does not in any way equal evil, at least no more than the modernist mindset of many evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are strengths and weaknesses to both.
Now, I don't get the picture. What I see is a defense of modernism and post modernism, painting with a broad brush, a blurring of the lines to paint traditional, historical, Biblical Christianity in a modernist light, and a redefinition and many assumptions of what traditional, historical, Biblical Christians believe and do in their lives in an attempt to give credibility to modernism and post modernism, both of which I reject.
We really do need to get on the same page when it comes to definitions or we will obviously continue to disagree.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
When a person with a postmodern mindset is transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the way they carry out their faith is radically different than a modernist Christian. However, their basic theology should not be different though their methodologies might be radically opposing.
You might wan to read up on what the post modernist leaders of the emergent movement are saying about doctrine, theology, and truth, before taking that position.
But they do not have a street-level view of postmodernism which is what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of doctrinally and morally conservative people influenced by postmodernism.
blackregiment wrote:
mindstorm wrote:
Also keep in mind that the typical postmodern person will never say something as contradictory as "there is no absolute truth." In reality, postmodernism has slowly come into the mindset of much of the population but is nothing as radical as many Christians fear.
See, my prior statement. Your last statement makes the intent of your post very clear to me. I do not agree that dressing up postmodern thought in the Church in sheep skins will render it neutered or harmless. Postmodernism has its roots in liberal textual criticism, and the thoughts and words of man. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose but as for me and my house,, we will trust in the revealed Word of God as guided by the Holy Spirit.
Psa 118:8Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
God bless
Then I do not trust in the Lord? Since when have I said truth was not found within the Word of God, that sin was tolerable, that doctrine was insignificant?
I don't accept that premise. Here's why. As I read your post, I got the impression that terms were being "redefined", in a modernistic fashion. Modernism, though having very fluid definitions, is generally the framework of thought that "human reason, based primary on the scientific method, is the only reliable means of attaining knowledge about the universe. Most modernists believe that "reason" is the final authority, not God's Word as revealed in the Bible.
"Modernism, in religion, was a general movement in the late 19th and 20th century that tried to reconcile historical Christianity with the findings of modern science and philosophy. Modernism arose mainly from the application of modern critical methods to the study of the Bible and the history of dogma and resulted in less emphasis on historic dogma and creeds and in greater stress on the humanistic aspects of religion." http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/society/A0833541.html.
When applied to spiritually and morally thinking, this led to the notion that truth is relative.
Post modernism is the framework of thought which proclaims that not only is truth relative, but also that absolute truth is unknowable. I don't accept either premise.
mindstorm wrote:
That's not the type of modernism and postmodernism I'm talking about. I'm speaking about street level views, not what is thought within the small circle of educators.
I've been defining modernism as a view that believes all truth can be discovered through reason and logic. By postmodernism, I'm speaking of the idea that there may even be an ultimate truth, but due to an overwelming abundance of ideas, it's hard to really say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they are wrong and you are right. The result is that we must be tolerant of other people's beliefs in order to sustain civic order.
I don't care about the labels mentioned in textbooks few read, I care about what the general polulation thinks.
Any what are the studies, statistics, and other sources you are relying on to demonstrate that the majority of the general populace holds to your redefinition of the terms?
mindstorm wrote:
I am in no way saying truth is relative, but the modernist mindset alone is not sufficient. Within modernism we have entered into the mindset that all truth can be found if we search for it.
blackregiment wrote:
Again, generally modernistic thought led to the notion that truth is relative. Absolute truth can be found. It is found in the revealed Word of God as guided to that truth by the Holy Spirit.
mindstorm wrote:
You are defining the terms differently than me. We must be on the same page for us to continue.
Yes, absolute truth can be found but not through logically looking through evidence in the fashion of the scientific method. It is a gift through the Holy Spirit.
I don't accept your redefinition of the terms. That creates a straw men and I am not going to argue against straw men.
As I have said before, absolute truth is found in God's Word as revealed by the Holy Spirit as our guide. The "scientific method" is inappropriate for determining spiritual truth.
mindstorm wrote:
Whether we admit it or not, we believe that simply knowing this truth will set us free/lead us into enlightenment/etc.
blackregiment wrote:
The truth of God's Word, in Jesus Christ will set us free.
mindstorm wrote:
I was talking about the mindset of the modernist general population. This mindset states that if we systematise Scripture, discect it, learn the apologetic arguments, etc. then we will find the truth through Jesus Christ. The mystery of it and the Holy Spirit's role is taken out of it.
That is what the liberal textual critics do, not historical, traditional, born again Biblical Biblical Christians.
mindstorm wrote:
But do not get me wrong, I'm not saying we should do away with these things, I'm merely saying that those within the modernist mindset give no room for the Holy Spirit due to our usual way of organizing things. Gaining salvation has been put into a 3-step process, discipleship is based upon knowing things that are taught on Sunday night, eschatology is "figured out" and is shown through many charts and graphs, etc. There needs to be more fluidity within this and room given for the Holy Spirit to work.
Then speak to the people you define as "modernists". This is a union of born again, Biblical Christians. You won't find many modernists or postmodernists here.
mindstorm wrote:
The result of this mindset within the church is that we believe God can be figured out completely and simply knowing the right things is enough.
blackregiment wrote:
While there are those that think that, God's Word tells us that is not the case. He has revealed what He feels we need to know but until the Lord returns, we will never fully understand many things. God has revealed, in His Word what we need to know about Him and about salvation in Christ. Christians get into trouble when they put their trust in the word of man rather than in the Word of God.
mindstorm wrote:
While I agree that the major truths can be figured out within Scripture, we must never forget Duet. 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may follow all the words of this law."
Also Romans 11:33-36, "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! "Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?" Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory forever! Amen."
There are things we can know about God but do you truly think you can and have figured him out perfectly. Do you really think that God is small enough that all of your views about him are perfectly right and you have had no outside influence affecting your view of him?
Read my post and the Scripture I posted. I said the opposite of what you are asserting I said.
mindstorm wrote:
Do you truly think you have followed Romans 12:2 perfectly? "Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will." If so, you are either a perfect or arrogant.
Have I ever said that I have, have I ever said that I am perfect? NO! I am a fallen sinner, saved by the grace of God. How about you? BTW, I advocate conformity to the Word of God not to the words of man.
mindstorm wrote:
The modernist church has thus assumed all truth can be found out, understood, and dissected. We have become a slave to the Scientific Method and even believe it can be used to figure God out. Do not get me wrong, these things are beneficial. That is why I do not think we should do away with modernism but take a balanced approach between the two thoughts. Both are insufficient but both hold some element of truth.
As I said, this is a union of tradition, historical, Biblical Christians. There are are other unions, that are more ecumenical and emergent where you might bring that up. I have yet to find a traditional Biblical Christian that advocates using the "scientific method" to "figure God out".
blackregiment wrote:
I think you are confusing secular scientific though with spiritual truth. While there is a great deal of error in the Church today, I haven't seen many cases of scientific labs set up in Church running experiments on God. Churches get in trouble when they get away from the whole counsel of God's Word and start listening and trusting in the words of man. Be they secular scientists or liberal textual critics.
Psa 118:8 Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
mindstorm wrote:
Oh there is plenty of it from what I've seen especially in the realm of systematic theology. Systematic theology is great but if we believe that our extrabiblical views on Calvinism, Dispensationalism, etc. are completely true and give the entire story, then we have fallen into the modernist trap that God can be figured out. There are truth in those beliefs, but they are extrabiblical and do not always show the whole story or they add to the story.
More straw men.
mindstorm wrote:
Let me give examples. Within apologetics, modernists assume we are capable of coming up with "proofs" to anything, including the existence of God. Christianity thus becomes appealing because it is true, or at least you can make a good argument. With the culture gaining a postmodern mindset, they might say "I want to be true to myself." As a result, what they are truly searching for is genuineness. Both sides have their dangers when taken too far but I think we should seek after a balance of both.
The fingerprints of God are all over His creation and are evidence to a lost world that has bought into the myth of naturalistic origins and Darwinian evolution. To reach the lost today, we must convince many of God's existence which they reject. God reveals Himself and His glory in His creation and it is good and right to proclaim this to the world.[/QUOTE]
blackregiment wrote:
Yes we should. I'm merely saying that I'm not so sure it's as simple to prove as we make it out to be.
I disagree but it takes much study. I believe that there is a tremendous amount of evidence for the existence of God revealed in His creation. Actually, it is overwhelming.
mindstorm wrote:
Another example is theology. Modernists take the approach that systematic theology can completely figure out God. There is thus very little, if anything, that is left up to mystery as it can be understood and found out. Apparently passages in Scripture like Romans 11:33-36 are forgotten. Postmodernists, on the other hand, love Romans 11:33-36, they just forget that the 11 chapters beforehand Paul is talking about God. They take this mystery about God and assume nothing can be known about him. I think a balance is best, viewing God as both knowable and mysterious.
blackregiment wrote:
Only those that fail to heed the following verses do that, cafeteria type Christians, and the textual critics that constantly try to reinvent what God has said.
Mat 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.
Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Rev 22:18 For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
Rev 22:19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
Rev 22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.
Questioning the Word of God has its roots in the original le told in the Garden of Eden.
Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtle than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
mindstorm wrote:
I'm not talking about questioning God, I'm talking about figuring out God. If you ascribe yourself to any theological label, whether that be Calvinist or Armenian, then you do this to some extent. Our theologies are often made up of presuppositions not found in Scripture.
The only label I accept is a follower of Christ. I trust in the Word o f God, not the words of man.
mindstorm wrote:
Evangelism is also effected. Modernists typically take the approach that we are to tell others about Jesus, and that should be enough. They love proclamation evangelism. Postmodernists, on the other hand, take the approach that we should be genuine in our faith which is at the heart of their evangelism. Both modernists and postmodernists have components of each, but an emphasis in one over the other. One of the great thing about postmodernists, however, is that when they are a Christian they become extremely mission-minded, wanting the whole world to know about Christ. Postmodernists love evangelism like modernists love theology.
blackregiment wrote:
I don't accept that premise. I don't think you can "pigeon hole" Christians into those groups and make absolute statements and assumptions about individual Christians and how they serve the Lord based on your arbitrary assignment of them to a specific group.
mindstorm wrote:
If you refer to evangelism as "outreach" then you yourself have a modernist mindset. You should already be among them living your daily life. If you do not, then those within the emerging church do a better job evangelising than you.
You don't even know me or my efforts in service to the Lord. I don't accept your attempts at "pigeon holing" me. I'll leave it at that, for now. By the way, spreading the Gospel is not a competition with any branch of Christianity. My standards come from the Word of God, not the word of the emergent Church.
mindstorm wrote:
There are many other examples I could come up with, but you get the idea. Views on ecclesiology, tradition, the early church, institutions, authority, etc. are all affected greatly by these differences. However, just because their view is different than your own, they can be completely biblical and morally conservative in their views. Postmodernism does not in any way equal evil, at least no more than the modernist mindset of many evangelicals and fundamentalists. There are strengths and weaknesses to both.
blackregiment wrote:
Now, I don't get the picture. What I see is a defense of modernism and post modernism, painting with a broad brush, a blurring of the lines to paint traditional, historical, Biblical Christianity in a modernist light, and a redefinition and many assumptions of what traditional, historical, Biblical Christians believe and do in their lives in an attempt to give credibility to modernism and post modernism, both of which I reject.
mindstorm wrote:
We really do need to get on the same page when it comes to definitions or we will obviously continue to disagree.
There appears to be a lot more than just definitions that we disagree on.
mindstorm wrote:
When a person with a postmodern mindset is transformed by the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the way they carry out their faith is radically different than a modernist Christian. However, their basic theology should not be different though their methodologies might be radically opposing.
blackregiment wrote:
You might want to read up on what the post modernist leaders of the emergent movement are saying about doctrine, theology, and truth, before taking that position.
mindstorm wrote:
But they do not have a street-level view of postmodernism which is what I'm talking about. I'm speaking of doctrinally and morally conservative people influenced by postmodernism.
Well ok, show me the numbers that support your "street level" definitions.
mindstorm wrote:
Also keep in mind that the typical postmodern person will never say something as contradictory as "there is no absolute truth." In reality, postmodernism has slowly come into the mindset of much of the population but is nothing as radical as many Christians fear.
blackregiment wrote:
See, my prior statement. Your last statement makes the intent of your post very clear to me. I do not agree that dressing up postmodern thought in the Church in sheep skins will render it neutered or harmless. Postmodernism has its roots in liberal textual criticism, and the thoughts and words of man. I respect your right to believe whatever you choose but as for me and my house,, we will trust in the revealed Word of God as guided by the Holy Spirit.
Psa 118:8 Itis better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man.
God bless
mindstorm wrote:
Then I do not trust in the Lord? Since when have I said truth was not found within the Word of God, that sin was tolerable, that doctrine was insignificant?
Your words, not mine. I never said those things in reference to you.. You are connecting dots that are non-existent.
These long posts are getting very time consuming. Remember, the primary goal of this union is for fellowship among traditional, historical, Biblical Christians. Our goals are to conform our lives to the Word of God, gain in our knowledge of God's Word, and develop apologetics skills that will better equip us to defend the faith against error and spread the Gospel to a lost world.
That is where I want to spend my time and focus. No offense but long debates on topics like "how post modern thought can benefit the Church" or "how the Church must become relevant to the culture", greaty impact the time I have to spend on things that, in my opinion, are things that will further the goals and purpose of this union and the CWU.
God bless
Edited on Oct 26, 2009 10:29 pm GMT
Edited 3 total times.
"If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God." Lord Kelvin, a British scientist, a pioneer in the study of thermodynamics.
"Throughout history, the only option available for those that cannot refute the truth, is to suppress it and silence anyone that dares to share it. As it was and as it remains..."Anonymous
OoOooo, I found a quote I like by none other than Mark Driscoll while reading Breaking the Missional Code: Your Church Can Become a Missionary in Your Community by Ed Stetzer and David Putman which is "relevant" to the conversation.
"Turth is not a set of rules to be obeyed, mysteries to be known or evidences to be mastered, but Christ, by whom we know and are known. Truth is not discovered, it is revealed in relationship to both the head and the heart. Therefore, Truth is not something merely known or proclaimed but Someone experienced, tasted, and seen as the Psalmist says, by grace, faith, and presence that not merely knows the Truth but loves Him."
