"Christians with faith have nothing to fear from the facts."--Paul Johnson, historian
"... [B]ecause they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess. 2:10, ESV).
"... Yea, hath God said, ..?" (Gen. 3:1, KJV).
"What is truth" (cf. Pontius Pilate, John 18:38).
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, ... correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26, ESV).
Postmodernism is the ultimate skeptical philosophy, saying that reality cannot be known absolutely and adhering to a "hermeneutic of suspicion" on all knowledge, especially any worldview that claims a "God's-eye" view of the world. To claim you cannot discern, find, or know truth is in itself a truth claim! Just like the typical prof that introduces his class to the so-called faith that you cannot know anything for certain, and is sure of it, so also every Postmodern precept can be shown to be gobbledygook. You can't know anything? How do they know? Allan Bloom, in his book The Closing of the American Mind, said that when they say all truth is relative, that statement is also relative and therefore the whole presupposition has no truth value and is inherently contradictory. When they say that there are no absolutes, are they saying that's absolute? When they say there is no truth, is that true? Denying that your claim has any power over them, are they claiming their claim should have power over you? When they say, as their favorite catchphrase says, "That may be true for you, but not for me!" Is that statement true for both of you?
When they say God is dead, how can they know He will not rise again and that there isn't a God who will not die despite their beliefs? They're admitting God was once alive! One couldn't postulate that without knowing God (no longer necessary to answer our questions or problems), really they're the ones who are dead. Nietzsche said that "we have killed him," referring to God, but what kind of God gets killed by mortals? Actually, Christianity is alive more than ever and Nietzsche, the patron saint of Postmodernism, is dead and Christianity's God will not die! How would they know He's dead? Can they disprove God's existence or relevance? Sometimes the avoidance of an issue or its denial only proves its reality.
There is a real "Death of God" movement going on: the suppression and repression of sound Bible doctrine, seeing orthodox teachings as unattainable and even inherently unknowable. In the latter days, many will depart from the faith or bail out theologically and give heed to seducing spirits according to 1 Timothy 4:1. This attack from within is far more lethal than from the secular world without.
When they challenge us: "Where's this God of yours?" Counter: "Where isn't He?" When they insist that all spiritual talk of God is meaningless, how meaningful is that? Of course, they deny the existence of the spiritual. Ask them: is any spiritual talk meaningful? Is there a spiritual? And in what way is or isn't God-talk meaningful? When they complain that it's just your interpretation, ask them if they like it when they're misunderstood, if only your view matters? When they say the Bible is nonsense, ask them what it's the main message is. When they say you can't find out spiritual truth, ask them how they found that out! When they insist we cannot know God, ask them how they know that! When they say that truth can only be known by experience, what experience led them to conclude that? Can they prove it? When they say we shouldn't take the preacher's advice on Bible matters, whose advice should we take? Should we take their advice?
My premise is that every "hermeneutic of suspicion" (i.e., "you can know nothing for certain") is inherently unintelligible and a contradiction in terms. To posit all truth as relative, one must stipulate: relative to what? Indeed, "All truth is God's truth" and "meets at the top," according to Augustine and Aquinas respectfully! We must start with God to know and explain anything (Prov. 1:7, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..."), and therefore God cannot be dead or irrelevant. Knowledge begins somewhere! Everyone starts with some presupposition they cannot prove, and Christians assume God, just like secularists assume God isn't. The simple fact is that they won't let a "Divine Foot in the door" and rule God out of the equation from the get-go and any evidence for God discredits their whole worldview, which is an anti-worldview because they say one cannot have a "God's-eye" view or knowledge of anything in the real world--reality is indiscernible and even an illusion.
There is a place for healthy skepticism, but to assume you can know nothing is counterproductive to learning. To learn about God, you must assume God is and there is something to learn! Can you use Postmodern techniques to validate Postmodernism? It seems the only truths they are adamantly against are Christian ones and have declared war on God, not that they just don't believe in Him. If there is no God, why be afraid of Him or His influence? Postmodernism goes back to at least the cynicism of Pontius Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?" (Cf. John 18:38). Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and any one of the truth hears His voice. Jesus also personified truth and claimed: "I am the truth" [incarnate or its avatar]."
When we undermine the very foundation of truth, we destroy the basis of all knowledge and learning. The Bible claims to be our Answer book and to give us all relevant knowledge for an abundant life as a believer in Christ. Not acknowledging the truth leads to despair and cynicism and to the abandonment of all meaningful research and educational endeavors. Unbelievers, according to Rom. 2:8, are those who "reject the truth." They refuse to love the truth and so be saved (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10).
The self-evident refutation of Postmodernism is to take them up on their play on words, by asking intriguing questions that challenge their soundness: is that your opinion? How do you know that's true? What if you are wrong? Where do you get your information? How did you reach that conclusion? If that's a judgment, or is that your judgment? Is it always true that there's no truth? These so-called comebacks are answers to self-refuting claims, which are false by definition if the question's premise is true.
Postmodernism denies any absolute, universal truth, or at least knowable such truth, and is the basis for modern Sophism or nonsense in a philosophical sense. They believe in one absolute: there are no absolutes! How do they know there are not two absolutes, and how do they posit this one absolute as the only valid one? When they say you cannot communicate truth, ask them how they communicated that. When they assert that your truth has no power over them, how can they know that for sure and is that true for you? Is their truth supposed to have power over you? If Postmodernism were true, how could we know it using their techniques? And we would never know it--this is the epitome of nonsensical hermeneutics and the honest pursuance of knowledge. Postmodernists are atheists by consequence of there being no worldview possible, not by conviction as Secular Humanists are, and when they say there's no God, tell them that their unbelief has no power or influence of reality or over you. When they insist you can know nothing for certain, counter how they know that. Belief has no relativity to truth!
DON'T RULE GOD OUT FROM THE GET-GO; HE'S MAKING A COMEBACK INTO RELEVANCY AND THE EQUATION OF LIFE! Current academia is more interested in what facts work for them or what truths they are willing to accept that the objective, universal, absolute truths that are valid whether accepted and believed or not. Caveat: Postmodernists deny facts as real, objective, absolute, or relevant, and when you admit you have them or want the facts, they just say you're trying to exert power over them--what are they doing? Notice that you can reverse the tone and spirit of the question, neutralizing it's relevance, with an appropriate follow-up question! The problem with believers is that they are giving up on their worldview--it hasn't failed--they are just conceding by default, having not been prepared to fight in the devil's battlefield and turf and thus not inoculated against his strategies. Soli Deo Gloria!
"... [B]ecause they refused to love the truth and so be saved" (2 Thess. 2:10, ESV).
"... Yea, hath God said, ..?" (Gen. 3:1, KJV).
"What is truth" (cf. Pontius Pilate, John 18:38).
"And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, ... correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, and they may escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will" (2 Tim. 2:24-26, ESV).
Postmodernism is the ultimate skeptical philosophy, saying that reality cannot be known absolutely and adhering to a "hermeneutic of suspicion" on all knowledge, especially any worldview that claims a "God's-eye" view of the world. To claim you cannot discern, find, or know truth is in itself a truth claim! Just like the typical prof that introduces his class to the so-called faith that you cannot know anything for certain, and is sure of it, so also every Postmodern precept can be shown to be gobbledygook. You can't know anything? How do they know? Allan Bloom, in his book The Closing of the American Mind, said that when they say all truth is relative, that statement is also relative and therefore the whole presupposition has no truth value and is inherently contradictory. When they say that there are no absolutes, are they saying that's absolute? When they say there is no truth, is that true? Denying that your claim has any power over them, are they claiming their claim should have power over you? When they say, as their favorite catchphrase says, "That may be true for you, but not for me!" Is that statement true for both of you?
When they say God is dead, how can they know He will not rise again and that there isn't a God who will not die despite their beliefs? They're admitting God was once alive! One couldn't postulate that without knowing God (no longer necessary to answer our questions or problems), really they're the ones who are dead. Nietzsche said that "we have killed him," referring to God, but what kind of God gets killed by mortals? Actually, Christianity is alive more than ever and Nietzsche, the patron saint of Postmodernism, is dead and Christianity's God will not die! How would they know He's dead? Can they disprove God's existence or relevance? Sometimes the avoidance of an issue or its denial only proves its reality.
There is a real "Death of God" movement going on: the suppression and repression of sound Bible doctrine, seeing orthodox teachings as unattainable and even inherently unknowable. In the latter days, many will depart from the faith or bail out theologically and give heed to seducing spirits according to 1 Timothy 4:1. This attack from within is far more lethal than from the secular world without.
When they challenge us: "Where's this God of yours?" Counter: "Where isn't He?" When they insist that all spiritual talk of God is meaningless, how meaningful is that? Of course, they deny the existence of the spiritual. Ask them: is any spiritual talk meaningful? Is there a spiritual? And in what way is or isn't God-talk meaningful? When they complain that it's just your interpretation, ask them if they like it when they're misunderstood, if only your view matters? When they say the Bible is nonsense, ask them what it's the main message is. When they say you can't find out spiritual truth, ask them how they found that out! When they insist we cannot know God, ask them how they know that! When they say that truth can only be known by experience, what experience led them to conclude that? Can they prove it? When they say we shouldn't take the preacher's advice on Bible matters, whose advice should we take? Should we take their advice?
My premise is that every "hermeneutic of suspicion" (i.e., "you can know nothing for certain") is inherently unintelligible and a contradiction in terms. To posit all truth as relative, one must stipulate: relative to what? Indeed, "All truth is God's truth" and "meets at the top," according to Augustine and Aquinas respectfully! We must start with God to know and explain anything (Prov. 1:7, "The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge..."), and therefore God cannot be dead or irrelevant. Knowledge begins somewhere! Everyone starts with some presupposition they cannot prove, and Christians assume God, just like secularists assume God isn't. The simple fact is that they won't let a "Divine Foot in the door" and rule God out of the equation from the get-go and any evidence for God discredits their whole worldview, which is an anti-worldview because they say one cannot have a "God's-eye" view or knowledge of anything in the real world--reality is indiscernible and even an illusion.
There is a place for healthy skepticism, but to assume you can know nothing is counterproductive to learning. To learn about God, you must assume God is and there is something to learn! Can you use Postmodern techniques to validate Postmodernism? It seems the only truths they are adamantly against are Christian ones and have declared war on God, not that they just don't believe in Him. If there is no God, why be afraid of Him or His influence? Postmodernism goes back to at least the cynicism of Pontius Pilate asking Jesus, "What is truth?" (Cf. John 18:38). Jesus came to bear witness of the truth and any one of the truth hears His voice. Jesus also personified truth and claimed: "I am the truth" [incarnate or its avatar]."
When we undermine the very foundation of truth, we destroy the basis of all knowledge and learning. The Bible claims to be our Answer book and to give us all relevant knowledge for an abundant life as a believer in Christ. Not acknowledging the truth leads to despair and cynicism and to the abandonment of all meaningful research and educational endeavors. Unbelievers, according to Rom. 2:8, are those who "reject the truth." They refuse to love the truth and so be saved (cf. 2 Thess. 2:10).
The self-evident refutation of Postmodernism is to take them up on their play on words, by asking intriguing questions that challenge their soundness: is that your opinion? How do you know that's true? What if you are wrong? Where do you get your information? How did you reach that conclusion? If that's a judgment, or is that your judgment? Is it always true that there's no truth? These so-called comebacks are answers to self-refuting claims, which are false by definition if the question's premise is true.
Postmodernism denies any absolute, universal truth, or at least knowable such truth, and is the basis for modern Sophism or nonsense in a philosophical sense. They believe in one absolute: there are no absolutes! How do they know there are not two absolutes, and how do they posit this one absolute as the only valid one? When they say you cannot communicate truth, ask them how they communicated that. When they assert that your truth has no power over them, how can they know that for sure and is that true for you? Is their truth supposed to have power over you? If Postmodernism were true, how could we know it using their techniques? And we would never know it--this is the epitome of nonsensical hermeneutics and the honest pursuance of knowledge. Postmodernists are atheists by consequence of there being no worldview possible, not by conviction as Secular Humanists are, and when they say there's no God, tell them that their unbelief has no power or influence of reality or over you. When they insist you can know nothing for certain, counter how they know that. Belief has no relativity to truth!
DON'T RULE GOD OUT FROM THE GET-GO; HE'S MAKING A COMEBACK INTO RELEVANCY AND THE EQUATION OF LIFE! Current academia is more interested in what facts work for them or what truths they are willing to accept that the objective, universal, absolute truths that are valid whether accepted and believed or not. Caveat: Postmodernists deny facts as real, objective, absolute, or relevant, and when you admit you have them or want the facts, they just say you're trying to exert power over them--what are they doing? Notice that you can reverse the tone and spirit of the question, neutralizing it's relevance, with an appropriate follow-up question! The problem with believers is that they are giving up on their worldview--it hasn't failed--they are just conceding by default, having not been prepared to fight in the devil's battlefield and turf and thus not inoculated against his strategies. Soli Deo Gloria!