Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, the German author of Faust: "Tell me your certainties, I have enough doubts of my own."
Albert Einstein, who got the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, was noted for his special theory of relativity, in which he claimed there was a time-space continuum: They are not absolute then but depend upon the motion of the person measuring it or the observer. He also formulated the general theory of relativity claiming gravity can bend and influence both time and space, which is like a continuous fabric.
In Postmodern thought, in which they despise Truth with a capital T, they say all truth is relative: One prof said, "You can know nothing for certain!" A student quipped, "Are you sure?" "Yes," he replied, "I am certain." Dr. Allan Bloom of the University of Chicago, in his book The Closing of the American Mind, said that saying all truth is relative is a nonsense statement and has no truth value. This is ultimately irrational; however, it is the governing epistemology of academia. Wouldn't this statement also be relative? The dual problem of believing truth is relative is that of absolutism in which you are claiming this as an absolute and thus contradicting yourself, and of relativism, in which you must admit this statement is only relative, too. Without God, all truth is indeed relative but knowing truth would be impossible to determine or ascertain. We would live in a world of "I don't know!" George Lucas has concluded that all religions are "true." To say everyone is right is equal to saying no one is right--logically, they can all be wrong, but not all right without violating the law of noncontradiction. Religious Pluralism is the belief that no faith is completely true, thus they should all; be regarded equally. Postmodernism likes to say: "That may be true for you." But there is an objective truth that is true, whether one believes it or not!
In Postmodernism and other contemporary worldviews, they really only believe the truths relating to the Christian worldview are relative and their metanarrative or grand narrative (or outlook) is absolutely correct. They have made many presuppositions, including that there is no God or Higher Mind and that matter precedes mind and has the power to create it and has some life-force within inherent to it like a cosmic energy. In their methodology of reasoning, they call "inference to the best explanation," they formulate all possibilities of solutions or hypotheses to their problem or question. And it should be noted that they have a preconceived notion that there is no God or supernatural and have ruled out Him of the equation. In one extreme they say in New Age thinking: "If it feels right to you, it is." They have no place for God in their worldview--He isn't even considered a possibility because they do not want to let a divine foot in the door, so to speak.
A Greek sage of antiquity said, "To begin learning you must admit your ignorance." In science, we have to be willing to admit we could be wrong to be able to arrive at the truth. There are only four kinds of minds according to Jesus: There is the shallow mind that doesn't think things through and is apathetic; there is the distracted mind that has too much on its mind, and the closed mind that has its mind made up and doesn't want to be confused with the facts, and finally an open and receptive mind.
There is an element of truth in every religion; it is that margin of error that makes it evil because evil is not the opposite of truth but its distortion. People today like to say, "That may be true for you, but it isn't for me!" Or they say, "It works for me!" If something is true it is true and not relative. Someone has called this phenomenon true truth. Truth is not relative or it wouldn't be truth it would be a subjective opinion and not objective fact. Objective truth doesn't exist from our point of view--we are all biased. But God is objective and has revealed truth to us: Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and claimed to be the personification or embodiment of it. If one says truth is relative, then he has to admit he could be wrong: Then he must admit the possibility of God's existence and ergo the existence of absolute truth based on His divine nature.
Opinions are relative to a person's worldview--one sees reality not as it is, but as he is. And some things are workable for some and not for others, but this doesn't lead to the erroneous conclusion that truth is relative. If they insist truth is relative, then ask them, "Relative to what?" That statement must only be relatively true!" "In the absence of God everything becomes relative [there is nothing to measure it by as a standard]," according to William Lane Craig; however, there is absolute truth and morality, ergo a God! Without God, we cannot even account for truth or knowledge, but all truth "claims" become mere nonsense and relative to the thinker in a subjective manner.
John Dewey, along with Jonathan Edwards (Christian influence) and Horace Mann (Unitarian influence) was one of the fathers of American education and was a founder of the Secular Humanist movement co-writing the so-called Humanist Manifesto, and A Common Faith, said that the test of an idea is not whether it's true, but whether it works--just consider the consequences--results matter! Today students are taught an ethic that just considers giving well-thought-out and valid reasons for one's behavior (responsible decision making), without regard to an absolute value system of right and wrong (be true to yourself)--for without God there is no such system and all is permissible. In the New Morality, also referred to as "situational ethics," the only thing that matters is motive which should be love, or in the utilitarian view the one that does the least harm and/or most good. Without absolute truth (this implies there is no God and without God, all is permissible accordingly, as a corollary) our society loses its mores and standards and will disintegrate and self-destruct socially.
We must posit that there is truth because it has been revealed in Christ and we can know it if we have an open mind, willing spirit, needy heart, be teachable, receptive and ready for the truth, and willing to obey it if known or obedient in spirit. Jesus said in John 7:17 (ESV) that "If if anyone's will is to do God's will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." The problem mentioned in John 12:37 is that although they saw miracles they would not (not could not) believe.
Note this: Only the Bible is called "truth" and only Jesus claimed to be the incarnation or personification of truth ("I am the ... truth," says John 14:6). There is a difference between being true and truth. Truth alone changes your life and transforms your soul. You can read science manuals that are true, but they won't change your life. Truth is that which is unchanging or immutable, while something considered true may change over time, and is in a state of flux--the opinions of science, for example, have changed throughout history.
Being accepted as true, then, doesn't make something true. One witness in court said, "If I knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I'd be God!" And so no one has all the truth or a monopoly on it and in that sense all of our revelations and illuminations or intuitions are relative--we can only be sure of what God has revealed to us supernaturally and propositionally in Scripture. Thus the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff, or truth from fiction is the canon, measuring rod, and standard of Scripture as absolute revealed and divine truth--you have to start somewhere.
We can rely on the Word of truth and Jesus even said, "And you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (cf. John 8:32). The Bible is the only source that tells it like it is and gives us the truth about ourselves. Our natural response is to worship Him in spirit and in truth (cf. John 4:24). In His priestly prayer in John 17 Jesus called His Father "the only true God"--other gods have elements of truth but just enough error to be deceptive and evil (evil is not the opposite of truth, but the perversion, distortion, and twisting of truth). Paul says unbelievers have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (cf. Romans 1:25).
In summation: Thomas Aquinas was right that all truth is God's truth and all truth meets at the top." All truth is only truth if it corresponds with God and His nature who is the measure and standard of reality, and is relevant to Scripture as that which is revealed to us from the Almighty (not per the correspondence theory of truth that something is true when conforming with reality--whose reality then, because this is highly subjective?). Ipso facto, the Bible is the standard by which we judge all truth claims then. Man's problem is not knowing the truth, but not obeying the truth he does know.
Soli Deo Gloria!
Albert Einstein, who got the Nobel Prize in physics in 1921, was noted for his special theory of relativity, in which he claimed there was a time-space continuum: They are not absolute then but depend upon the motion of the person measuring it or the observer. He also formulated the general theory of relativity claiming gravity can bend and influence both time and space, which is like a continuous fabric.
In Postmodern thought, in which they despise Truth with a capital T, they say all truth is relative: One prof said, "You can know nothing for certain!" A student quipped, "Are you sure?" "Yes," he replied, "I am certain." Dr. Allan Bloom of the University of Chicago, in his book The Closing of the American Mind, said that saying all truth is relative is a nonsense statement and has no truth value. This is ultimately irrational; however, it is the governing epistemology of academia. Wouldn't this statement also be relative? The dual problem of believing truth is relative is that of absolutism in which you are claiming this as an absolute and thus contradicting yourself, and of relativism, in which you must admit this statement is only relative, too. Without God, all truth is indeed relative but knowing truth would be impossible to determine or ascertain. We would live in a world of "I don't know!" George Lucas has concluded that all religions are "true." To say everyone is right is equal to saying no one is right--logically, they can all be wrong, but not all right without violating the law of noncontradiction. Religious Pluralism is the belief that no faith is completely true, thus they should all; be regarded equally. Postmodernism likes to say: "That may be true for you." But there is an objective truth that is true, whether one believes it or not!
In Postmodernism and other contemporary worldviews, they really only believe the truths relating to the Christian worldview are relative and their metanarrative or grand narrative (or outlook) is absolutely correct. They have made many presuppositions, including that there is no God or Higher Mind and that matter precedes mind and has the power to create it and has some life-force within inherent to it like a cosmic energy. In their methodology of reasoning, they call "inference to the best explanation," they formulate all possibilities of solutions or hypotheses to their problem or question. And it should be noted that they have a preconceived notion that there is no God or supernatural and have ruled out Him of the equation. In one extreme they say in New Age thinking: "If it feels right to you, it is." They have no place for God in their worldview--He isn't even considered a possibility because they do not want to let a divine foot in the door, so to speak.
A Greek sage of antiquity said, "To begin learning you must admit your ignorance." In science, we have to be willing to admit we could be wrong to be able to arrive at the truth. There are only four kinds of minds according to Jesus: There is the shallow mind that doesn't think things through and is apathetic; there is the distracted mind that has too much on its mind, and the closed mind that has its mind made up and doesn't want to be confused with the facts, and finally an open and receptive mind.
There is an element of truth in every religion; it is that margin of error that makes it evil because evil is not the opposite of truth but its distortion. People today like to say, "That may be true for you, but it isn't for me!" Or they say, "It works for me!" If something is true it is true and not relative. Someone has called this phenomenon true truth. Truth is not relative or it wouldn't be truth it would be a subjective opinion and not objective fact. Objective truth doesn't exist from our point of view--we are all biased. But God is objective and has revealed truth to us: Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and claimed to be the personification or embodiment of it. If one says truth is relative, then he has to admit he could be wrong: Then he must admit the possibility of God's existence and ergo the existence of absolute truth based on His divine nature.
Opinions are relative to a person's worldview--one sees reality not as it is, but as he is. And some things are workable for some and not for others, but this doesn't lead to the erroneous conclusion that truth is relative. If they insist truth is relative, then ask them, "Relative to what?" That statement must only be relatively true!" "In the absence of God everything becomes relative [there is nothing to measure it by as a standard]," according to William Lane Craig; however, there is absolute truth and morality, ergo a God! Without God, we cannot even account for truth or knowledge, but all truth "claims" become mere nonsense and relative to the thinker in a subjective manner.
John Dewey, along with Jonathan Edwards (Christian influence) and Horace Mann (Unitarian influence) was one of the fathers of American education and was a founder of the Secular Humanist movement co-writing the so-called Humanist Manifesto, and A Common Faith, said that the test of an idea is not whether it's true, but whether it works--just consider the consequences--results matter! Today students are taught an ethic that just considers giving well-thought-out and valid reasons for one's behavior (responsible decision making), without regard to an absolute value system of right and wrong (be true to yourself)--for without God there is no such system and all is permissible. In the New Morality, also referred to as "situational ethics," the only thing that matters is motive which should be love, or in the utilitarian view the one that does the least harm and/or most good. Without absolute truth (this implies there is no God and without God, all is permissible accordingly, as a corollary) our society loses its mores and standards and will disintegrate and self-destruct socially.
We must posit that there is truth because it has been revealed in Christ and we can know it if we have an open mind, willing spirit, needy heart, be teachable, receptive and ready for the truth, and willing to obey it if known or obedient in spirit. Jesus said in John 7:17 (ESV) that "If if anyone's will is to do God's will, he shall know whether the teaching is from God or whether I am speaking on my own authority." The problem mentioned in John 12:37 is that although they saw miracles they would not (not could not) believe.
Note this: Only the Bible is called "truth" and only Jesus claimed to be the incarnation or personification of truth ("I am the ... truth," says John 14:6). There is a difference between being true and truth. Truth alone changes your life and transforms your soul. You can read science manuals that are true, but they won't change your life. Truth is that which is unchanging or immutable, while something considered true may change over time, and is in a state of flux--the opinions of science, for example, have changed throughout history.
Being accepted as true, then, doesn't make something true. One witness in court said, "If I knew the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, I'd be God!" And so no one has all the truth or a monopoly on it and in that sense all of our revelations and illuminations or intuitions are relative--we can only be sure of what God has revealed to us supernaturally and propositionally in Scripture. Thus the only way to separate the wheat from the chaff, or truth from fiction is the canon, measuring rod, and standard of Scripture as absolute revealed and divine truth--you have to start somewhere.
We can rely on the Word of truth and Jesus even said, "And you will know the truth, and the truth shall set you free" (cf. John 8:32). The Bible is the only source that tells it like it is and gives us the truth about ourselves. Our natural response is to worship Him in spirit and in truth (cf. John 4:24). In His priestly prayer in John 17 Jesus called His Father "the only true God"--other gods have elements of truth but just enough error to be deceptive and evil (evil is not the opposite of truth, but the perversion, distortion, and twisting of truth). Paul says unbelievers have "exchanged the truth of God for a lie" (cf. Romans 1:25).
In summation: Thomas Aquinas was right that all truth is God's truth and all truth meets at the top." All truth is only truth if it corresponds with God and His nature who is the measure and standard of reality, and is relevant to Scripture as that which is revealed to us from the Almighty (not per the correspondence theory of truth that something is true when conforming with reality--whose reality then, because this is highly subjective?). Ipso facto, the Bible is the standard by which we judge all truth claims then. Man's problem is not knowing the truth, but not obeying the truth he does know.
Soli Deo Gloria!
No comments:
Post a Comment