The title is how I characterize the approach of moral relativists (those who claim there is no truth) and/or Christians who claim there are many paths to God besides Jesus. These folks probably make terrific neighbors and such but I must admit that I get frustrated talking with them.
Here’s a sample of their writing from another blog. The funniest part is that in his rebuttal he said, “Dialogue is always dangerous because it poses the threat of change and the possibility of error.” In his effort to accuse me of being scared of dialogue (Eek! Yeah, he has my number.) he once again refuted his own position. How could one be in error if there isn’t any truth? Relativists can’t go two sentences without contradicting themselves. When I read those comments I keep thinking they must be a parody and that the guy will all of sudden say, “Psych! Just kidding!. They are that bizarre.
Why search? Good Lord, life isn’t about searching for truth. It’s about living together as best we can with all the differences and baggage and trying to negotiate those differences. There is no such thing as truth, some metaphysical property that transcends time and space making one set of beliefs correct and all others erroneous. There is only the human commitment to getting along with one another and making the world a bit more tolerable. I have no commitment to truth because it doesn’t exist.
Time and again they claim there is no truth and then rattle off multiple truth claims. They come to your blog to explain why you are wrong, illogical, denigrating, disingenuous, etc. They consider you to be arrogant for thinking your views are correct, though they obviously think their view is correct. When you point these things out they go into full-spin cycle mode and things get even more confusing.
I find this approach to be:
- Passive-aggressive: They jump in with their truth claims then criticize you for holding truth claims. The “OK for me / not OK for you” hypocrisy is lost on them. False humility and ad hominem arguments (attacking the “intolerant” person instead of his views) are not virtues.
- Lacking confidence: They seem afraid to stand behind their views. Maybe they think it is safe to express a view provided you immediately caveat it with, “But you are right, too!” If you think you are right, then say so! If you think my truth claims are wrong, just explain why. It is OK, really.
- A waste of time: I don’t mind dissenting opinions. For example, we have regular commenters here who are atheists. We obviously disagree on some matters I find to be of great importance, but they share their ideas with clarity and good humor. But the truth-is-relative folks will “listen” and then dismiss whatever they don’t like with statements like, “But that is just your truth.” I’d rather dialogue with someone who acknowledges that on some issues we can’t both be right.
- Illogical and incoherent: In a logical universe something can’t be “A” and “not A” at the same time. For example, it is theoretically possible that one of the following is true but more than one cannot be true: Reincarnation (Hinduism), judgment and an eternity in Heaven or Hell (Christianity) or non-existence (atheism). If someone wants to claim that whatever you conceive God to be is what He becomes just for you, then that is a truth claim they would need to back up with reasoning in the marketplace of ideas.
- Dishonest: They claim there are no moral truths but make moral claims left and right, and they live as if there are truths. Their lives deny their words.
Other than that I think the approach is swell.
(Of course, I am not saying that different circumstances don’t yield different truths - e.g., pushing a toddler is immoral in a living room but moral if he is about to get hit by a car.)
Some relativists try to distinguish between truth and absolute truth. Truth is what corresponds to reality. Putting “absolute” in front of “truth” adds little, if anything.
Just because you can’t completely know God (a point I readily concede) doesn’t mean you can’t know what He revealed to us and wants us to know.
Just because the Bible is capable of being misunderstood doesn’t mean it is incapable of being understood.
Just because you make claims about God based on what you’ve learned doesn’t mean you are arrogant (provided you don’t share it in an arrogant way, but that is a different issue).
Should we be humble since we might be wrong on something? Of course. I’ve been wrong plenty of times. If you uncritically believe everything I write then you’ve got a problem. On topics I haven’t researched thoroughly I freely admit that I could be mistaken. For example, don’t ask me to state with utter confidence whether Calvinism or Arminianism is true and why.
But if I write about something it is because I think it is correct. If I think I’m wrong on something I don’t write about it. Yet the relativists interpet that as arrogance because they infer that I must think I’m always right.
I don’t get divisive over minor issues. I’m actually quite liberal on those. But on topics such as whether Jesus is the only way to salvation or whether He is God then I will unapologetically express and defend those views. Christians who can’t agree with the essentials might want find a new religion.
The false dichotomy that non-spiritual things can be true or false but spiritual things cannot is very costly. Jesus was not a relativist or a religious pluralist. It is too bad that pluralistic Christians spend more time and effort rationalizing why others don’t need Jesus than they do taking the Gospel to them.
Comments and critiques are welcome, provided that you concede that truth exists and that spiritual matters that can be true or false. Otherwise, why should I read self-refuting comments?
Filed under: Christian worldview, False teachers, Favorites | Tagged: Politics, religion, truth
Great post.
I did find one thing from that quote from the other blog that I could agree with.
“Good Lord, life isn’t about searching for truth.”
I can’t argue with that, the truth has been handed to us, we don’t need to search for it. We may need to search for the evidence to verify it, and that evidence is there if we look for it with an open mind.
Life then, according to me, is not even about searching for God; for he is revealed too. It is about getting to know God and growing into the person he wants us to become. I think that is why he put us here.
Hi SST – I agree in the sense that God has revealed himself and is not far from us (Romans 1, Acts 17:26-27, among others) but I would disagree with the comment in the post in the sense that we are told to seek first his kingdom, seek and you will find, etc.
Wow! You actually quoted me You still insist that I am making a truth claim, when I tried to explain that is not the case. Assertions are not True, they are either useful are not. Propositions either function well or they do not. For most modern and post-modern people, the idea that there is some transcendent property that inheres in certain sentences that gives them transcendent value is absurd.
I am not passive/aggressive, and your definition is not how it usually is understood. Passive/aggressive behavior is the avoidance of direct conflict through passive behavior. I have never mocked you or insisted that you are intolerant. I merely say that I don’t accept that there is some metaphysical property called “Truth” that inheres in certain propositions that elevates their status above all others. and to insist that the previous sentence is a “Truth claim” is to engage in the kind of language game I find untenable and unintelligible. A passive/aggressive response to your post would be something like this:
Yes, you’re right and I’m wrong, obviously. How could I be right. when confronted by your wisdom?
Sarcasm is usually an example of passive/aggressive behavior. I do not think I qualify.
I was talking with my wife last night about your blog and our encounters. I have to say that I am just fascinated by all this – your attention to detail, your ability to have a response in such a typological fashion, your willingness to assume that you have answers to questions. I feel bad you won’t come to my blog and share in discussions, because I think they would be fruitful for both of us. I will admit there are times I am angered by certain things Christian fundamentalists say; that does not mean that I believe you to be in error, or wrong-headed or bigoted, or anything else. As I said previously, I have no personal experience of fundamentalism, and it is alien to my own experience of the faith, and the God in whom I believe and whom I profess. That does not make it wrong. We just approach these questions from different angles, with different assumptions, and with different methods and goals. That’s all.
I have no investment in being correct all the time. I do not believe life is a test, with only one answer. I believe life is about living, and figuring it out as we go, and being wrong as often as we are right. That is why, for example, the phrase “sound doctrine” just doesn’t have any meaning for me. The phrase implies there is some one formulation of the teaching office of the church that is correct for all persons in all times, places, situations, and historical/linguistic/cultural circumstances. How is that possible when the world changes quite literally each passing second? God may have it all in God’ mind, but that hardly matters for us mere human beings muddling through as best we can, with all the murky mirrors and limited vision we possess.
I apologize for the length of this response, but I just wanted to clarify a point or two. Again, the light is always on and the welcome mat is always in front of the door should you change your mind.
Geoffrey,
I used your quote because it was current and convenient. But the post wasn’t about you. Your commenters provided some of it, as did po-mo’s in general.
Your comment about a “language game” is truly ironic.
I let your comment post even though you broke my commenting rule about 11 times. But I figured that one last dose of po-mo “reasoning” would just prove my points some more.
Peace,
Neil
” I will admit there are times I am angered by certain things Christian fundamentalists say; that does not mean that I believe you to be in error, or wrong-headed or bigoted, or anything else.”
Neil,
I didn’t know you were a Christian fundamentalist???? Is that what it’s called now when you actually believe the Bible?
WOZ – You must admit that there are many “versions” of being a Christian. Neil posts on them over and over. I would think that Neils views qualify as “fundamental.” I also think that he would take that as a compliment.
Geoffrey – Quoting from you (I think): “There is only the human commitment to getting along with one another and making the world a bit more tolerable.” I would only change the “a bit more tolerable” piece of that. It suggests a very sad existence. I don’t strive for merely a tolerable life. I think the human commitment is to carving out a happy, fullfilled, contented existence. I’m sure I could add much more to that definition if I had the time, but tolerable? No, that’s not all I’m looking for. Other than that, I must say that I agree with you.
In their own way, Christian “fundamentalists” are striving for the same goals. I’ll not begrudge them that until their belief system begins adversly affecting my goals. And I expect the same treatment from them.
Our different belief systems do make for fun, engaging, conversation. It also solidfies both our belief systems while at the same time educates both sides.
Are we saying that we can not have a true/accurate belief system? then what is the point to it all? if we can not possibly figure out the basics then we are all damned. I always thought that we can know though because the Bible tells us how.
I would recommend that if we belonged to a church that preached many paths that we cut the missionary budget. after all, if everyone can go to heaven then why try to convert Muslims, Hindu, etc. Lets just use that money and have one heck of a party.
My opinion here, but truth is uncomftorble for us. i mean if we can just try to get along with everyone and fit in with the world it would be much easier. Unfortunatley for us we are asked to be dead to this world for we know the truth. while we may not like it too say that their is no truth is like the man saying there is no God.
Magnus
I can’t put it into words as eloquently as geoffrey, but I felt like I had been mocked after I posted my views on his site.
As for the invitation to come back, I didn’t enjoy the other visit enough to want another visit.
Hi Magnus – thanks for commenting. Excellent points, especially about the missionary budget / party idea.
The logical conclusion of “Christian” religious pluralism
would be to stop sharing the Gospel and even to send reverse missionaries to convert people away from Christianity. After all, if these other ways are just as valid paths to God then why should Christians endure persecution?
Magnus
You are making the same mistake as many others. You asked if we cannot have a “true/accurate” belief system. In that context, your definitition of truth is the standard dictionary definition.
However, when a religious person says they are “searching for the truth,” they probably mean in the context that Geoffrey stated. His definition is posted for all to see: “some metaphysical property that transcends time and space making one set of beliefs correct and all others erroneous.”
Please don’t mix the Webster’s dictionary definition of true with the religious definition of truth. This is causing no end of confusion. Even Neil has done this, so you are not alone.
Could you explain this statement to me, please? I don’t understand what you’re saying: “Unfortunatley for us we are asked to be dead to this world for we know the truth.”
As for your last sentence, many people believe there is no God. That is their truth. That is my truth. Does that make me a bad person? No. It just makes my “religion” different than yours.
Your second question is the question for all times! How many people – and for how long – have asked “What is the point to it all?” Everyone asks this question – there are many, many answers. For me, it is to carve out a happy, content life for me and my family. To teach my children to be gracious, questioning, non-judgemental, etc. Again – this goes on and on…
Hi Mark,
Actually, you are making the same error as Geoffrey and Co.
Who said there is a different definition of truth for spiritual and non-spiritual matters? Truth is that which corresponds to reality. Just because you can’t prove something to be true with a mathematical formula doesn’t mean truth doesn’t exist. Geoffrey actually defines it in a similar manner, but he comes to the wrong conclusion that there aren’t truths about God.
Another example: There either is a God or there isn’t. Some people believe there is and some believe there isn’t, but those beliefs do not change whether God exists or not. Some people are right and some are wrong.
As a non-spiritual example, consider the recent changes in the hottest years as published by NASA. The actual temperatures for those years haven’t changed. There is a true average temperature. People have sought to determine those true temperatures. They thought they were right, but on some years it turns out they were not. But the actual temperatures haven’t changed. Does that mean NASA should stop seeking the truth? Of course not.
I find it amusing that you are not open to dissenting views, in re your comments about “letting my comment post”. What in the world are you afraid of? Honestly, I don’t understand the fear of dialogue. As for Mom2 feeling “mocked”, I apologize for that was not my intent. It seems to me that I am the one open to you, and the possibility that I might have something to learn here. i just assumed that we could have passionate, insistent discussions without getting all upset because someone said something that might hurt one’s feelings.
Woz says: “I didn’t know you were a Christian fundamentalist???? Is that what it’s called now when you actually believe the Bible?” I don’t believe the Bible. I profess belief in God and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. The Bible is witness to the events of God.
Magnus says: “Are we saying that we can not have a true/accurate belief system? then what is the point to it all? if we can not possibly figure out the basics then we are all damned.” First, by conflating “truth” and “accuracy”, there seems to be an assumption that there will come a point, or has come a point, where the search for understanding the Christ event will cease. As for the point of it all, on one level there is little point. Theological reflection is a third-order of Christian life. The first is confession, the second is worship. Only as we struggle to understand our lives and the God whom we confess and worship does theology become active.
Anyway, I wonder if this comment will be posted, and I am saddened by your refusal to dialogue. You want to be right, and I want to have a discussion in which we might possibly both benefit. Too bad. I’m still gonna visit, even if I’m not allowed to say what I think.
i guess i would ask where that definition came from? i have done a quick search and can not find truth defined that way. so are we saying that we can just create our own definition to words? i could have lots of fun with that!
Does it make you a bad person? i have to say that if you do not believe in God then you are a fool. As a Christian I believe that we all know that their is a God. The Apostle Paul said it in the New Testament that all people know there is a God, whether they choose to admit it or not. Just because someone believes something does not make it true. i hope that is not what you are suggesting? that would open up a big can of worms.
“I find it amusing that you are not open to dissenting views, in re your comments about “letting my comment post”. What in the world are you afraid of? Honestly, I don’t understand the fear of dialogue.”
Fear of dialogue? Heh. Did you read my post? It isn’t fear, it is not wanting to waste time with people who either can’t understand or are playing games with simple concepts like “truth.” I have lots of time for people who are honestly seeking the truth.
I know where Mom2 is coming from, and that is what I mean by passive-aggressiveness. It was all through your comments and Democracy Lover’s yesterday, for example. Maybe you’ve been doing it so long that it isn’t as obvious to you as it is to me.
“First, by conflating “truth” and “accuracy”, there seems to be an assumption that there will come a point, or has come a point, where the search for understanding the Christ event will cease.”
1. Truth and accuracy are often used as synonyms. 2. I thought you said you weren’t searching?
“You want to be right, and I want to have a discussion . . .”
Sigh. Another example. You said I want to be right as if that is the truth and as if it is some type of character flaw. But the truth is that I think I am right (eek!) just like you think you are right. I like discussions. I learn all sorts of things by consider opposing views. But if someone comes to the conversation with a wrong definition of “truth” and insists that not only does he not know any truth but that it isn’t attainable, why bother?
Magnus, that “big can of worms” has been opened for a very long time! People are at war because of people have different views on what is true.
And just because the Apostle Paul said something in the NT does not make it true! I am not choosing to “not admit” a belief in God. That’s rediculous. I have no deep seeded belief that God exists. So I guess that makes part of the NT just plain wrong. Paul was just another person, right? So he is not immune from making false statements (even if he didn’t know it).
I will refrain from flaming your DA comment about me being a fool – even though you richly deserve it. “Just because someone believes something does not make it true” cuts both ways.
I guess I need to know what the commenting rules are around here if Geoffrey’s comment above was “let” in.
Hi E.R. – I’m going to reply to some of these inside the comments because I get tired of seeing my face multiple times in the avatars to the right (I can only assume the rest of you do as well!).
I don’t publish official rules, but I included this somewhat – but not completely – tongue-in-cheeck note at the end of the post: Comments and critiques are welcome, provided that you concede that truth exists and that spiritual matters that can be true or false. Otherwise, why should I read self-refuting comments?
Sometimes I let comments through because they help prove a point or the flaws can be used to educate others on how to respond to them. But that has limits, because this isn’t a full time job for me.
For the record, I have deleted fairly few comments – a fraction of 1% of the 3500+ received to date. And I’ve only banned 2-3 people permanently, and that was for repeated ad hominem attacks or serial and petty side-tracking.
“[I]f someone comes to the conversation with a wrong definition of “truth” and insists that not only does he not know any truth but that it isn’t attainable, why bother?”
Can we set aside the issue of truth for a moment? Can we also set aside the ad hominem comments on the whole passive/aggressive issue as well, and concentrate on the issue of dialogue? It seems to me that you want there to be a right/accurate/true summation of the Christian faith. I want to learn, through dialogue, which includes the opportunity for argument and dissent without descending to personal attacks. I have not once said anything here to denigrate you, your position, or your belief-system, except perhaps to ask of what you might be afraid. Even that was more a reflection of my own interpretation of what you said, rather than an attack on you personally.
You want to set the ground rules for the dialogue that there is some necessity for arriving at “truth”. I want to set aside the whole idea and learn what it is you believe and why. As to the question of why bother – we are both human beings, both Christians, seeking to understand what it is we believe as we move through life. That’s why we bother. You seem to think that I am a relativist who accepts the multiplicity of truth claims. I have said repeatedly that I am a pragmatic pluralist who denies the existence of some metaphysical property called truth. Obviously, I accept the usefulness of my own views over others; I deny the validity of certain ways of viewing the world, including but not limited to an overweening secularism, a triumphalist scientism, and certain metaphysical vocabularies that I think are irrelevant today. Simply because there are elements of fundamentalism that I do not agree with does not mean that I believe nothing; it simply makes my beliefs different. Difference is not error. It is just difference. My disagreements with secularism and scientism are not that they are not “True”, but they fail to account for all sorts of human events and phenomena, dismissing much of life as unintelligible. I find that as silly and confounding an attitude as some biblicists who argue for literal interpretations of scripture. Multiplicity and plurality are the reality with which I live, and through which I try to make sense of the events I interpret through my faith. THis is not a denial of God; it just a denial of the adequacy of certain ways of talking about God. This does not mean, however, that I am not open to listening to others. I just refuse to listen uncritically, that’s all.
Neil
NASA absolutely should not stop searching for the truth. When they correct a report or finding, it only makes it “more true” than it was before.
The Bible, however, doesn’t lend itself to such scrutiny. You cannot correct the Bible because there is no way to know for sure if statements in it are true or not – it’s all about faith.
Neil said: The Bible lends itself to scrutiny in many ways – prophecies (e.g., Daniel’s prediction of the Greek empire 200 years ahead of time), countless archeological finds, validation by secular historians, the reliability of the transmission of the original writings (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls), eye-witness accounts, logical reasoning (so just where was Jesus’ body if He wasn’t resurrected?) etc. Do we have video of the miracles? No. But even if we did many people would rationalize those away. I can’t cover all those in depth here and I know some people will never find them to be compelling – for whatever reasons. But it isn’t all about faith. Or said another way, it is about faith grounded on reason and evidence – but it isn’t “blind faith” or belief in spite of the evidence.
I have faith that NASA, upon finding new evidence, will change their belief based on such evidence. I cannot do the same for the Bible. There isn’t a committee or board that oversees the contents of the Bible, changing it based on new evidence.
People use the Bible the way they use statistics – they see “truth” in the data from different angles and arrive at different conclusions. Heck, sometimes they look at data from the *same* angle and arrive a different conclusions. Does that change the truth? No – the truth is the truth. But I trust the system that NASA uses much more than that of religions.
“Religions” and other human institutions all give us reason not to trust them. But we can discern and discuss the un-changing Word just like it has been done for 2,000 or more years.
Mark,
as a Christian i believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and i accept it for truth. By doing that i have to live by what it says and trust in. I would be a hypocrite if I told you that your view is right because it is not possible for me to say that knowing what the Bible says.
i would never say that Paul made any false statemnets knowingly or unknowingly. I accept it as truth and by doing that must believe that your view is wrong.
too many Christians today are not sticking up for what they say they believe, that is one of the reasons why we have this relativim runing rampant in Christian society.
I use the Bible in learning about God and truth and how to live my life, are you saying you just use your own thought or intelect? is there a standard that you use that guides you besides you? perhaps if i knew where you got your standards for living and your views from then maybe we could discuss it more. i could then use the standard that i use, the Bible, and we can see the standard that you use and see if we can talk about those things.
please know i meant no dis-respect to you and i hope that you keep searching for contentment and happiness.
Magnus
I, too, would be a hypocrite if I told you your view was right. Please don’t call me a fool for not doing so.
Where did I get my standards for living? A full answer would be very very long. The short answer is this. It is natural – and self preservation demands – that we (people) get along with each other. Meaning that we abide by rules that we all can live by.
It is natural (and self preserving) that:
– we don’t kill each other (lest we get killed ourselves)
– we don’t steal (lest we have our possesions stolen)
– we don’t commit adultery (lest our partner may as well)
– we respect each other
– we respect each others property
– we live in a safe society (break the law – go to jail)
– etc.
It’s a short list but you obviously (I hope) get the point. Now you might want to say that my “natural” definitions are actually derived from the Bible. I say the reverse is true. The rules for living a “moral” life are in the bible because they occur naturally. Someone threw in extra rules because of superstition and/or a lack of understanding about the world, but the basic “rules for living” are as natural as the Sun rising in the morning.
Neil
I knew you’d have a good reply to my NASA post. Good job. I only want to stress that it’s the *system* of science that I place my trust – not any particular institution.
“But we can discern and discuss the un-changing Word just like it has been done for 2,000 or more years.” That is your grounding. I understand that, too.
No problems…
21 comments before I even got here- wow. This one sure generated some serious discussion, even without Dan. Well since I don’t have much time I will simply say I enjoyed the post and I know exactly how you feel about this whole thing. Thanks for the excellent post.
i was quoting Psalm 14:1, but if you do not read or know the Bible you would not know that. If you ever run across a copy you may take some time to read it if you have not already. Self preservation, if i remember right it can be boiled down to 2 things Pain or Danger.
Christianity is opposite of that. So i would agree there are ‘extra rules’, but not because of superstition/ lack of knowldge. i would put Christianity up against self preservation all day long.
Neil said: The whole “natural” thing brought up by Mark and Magnus will make an interesting post sometime. We might want to pick up that theme again then.
Man, y’all are bouncing through comments today. I can’t keep up with you all.
How about if I just offer this:
Truth is good. Go with it where you find it.
“…being a theological liberal and a mainstream Christian (United Methodist)…”
” I don’t believe the Bible. ”
At least now I have a clearer understanding of what’s happening to the UM Church. :>)
Woz
If John Wesley were around today he would be kicked out of most Methodist churches. i say that having read Wesley and being a member myself of a United Methodist Church.
Of course, if Jesus were around today, he’d be kicked out of most churches, so Wesley would be in good company.
Magnus,
Agreed. In fact, I’m not sure Jesus would be accepted in many of them. :>)
I was afraid my “not believing the Bible” comment would be twisted to mean something other than it was intended. I do not profess faith in the Bible, but in the God testified to in Scripture. I do not confess the Bible, but the Christ confessed by the Bible. Taking that sentence out of context and make of it more than it is is disingenuous at best. I stand by it, however, because it is in the best traditions of the Church throughout its history; the Bible is not revelation, but is testimony to revelation. The Bible is not professed or confessed by Christians, it is the source, the wellspring of that which we confess and profess.
There is nothing wrong with the United Methodist Church, as far as I am concerned. It is precisely its dogged doctrinal and confessional agnositicism that is its greatest strength. Our doors are open to all; my wife’s church has conservatives, fundamentalists, evangelicals, liberals, radicals all worshiping together, discussing together, arguing together, and living together, negotiating their differences together out of a commitment to the primacy of living a Christian life dedicated to the pursuit of practical divinity. Of the mainline denominations, it is the one I find most congenial to difference and multiplicity. Only those elements who feel threatened by the reality of diversity insist upon confessional uniformity in the United Methodist Church.
“Of the mainline denominations, it is the one I find most congenial to difference and multiplicity.”
Guess you haven’t heard about the Muslim Episcopal yet (or is it Episcopal Muslim?).
“It is precisely its dogged doctrinal and confessional agnositicism that is its greatest strength. ”
Someone’s going to have to help me out here.
As for the rest of it – OK.
i think i see where you are comming from Geoffrey. The Bible is not the inspired word of God, but we can use it to learn? i guess i could not accept that though, as Wesley said if there be one error in that book there well as may be a thousand. if there be one falsehood then it is not from the God of truth.
the limited study i have done on looking at the early church and some of its great thinkkers has been that each believed in the inerrancy of scripture. the overwhelming majority held it as having final say. it seems now we are trying to get away from that though. now if we believe the Bible we are called bigots, narrow minded, un-educated.
i am happy to not only believe the Bible and what it says, but also the early leaders and reformatonist in what they said about the Bible.
In its Discipline, The United Methodist Church sets forth its articles of religion, which are uncontroversial general statements concerning God, the Trinity, the person and work of Jesus, and the source and goal of the work of the Church. These views are so general, rooted in understandings that, barring a few historical instances, are pretty general statements of what it means to be a Christian. There is no single confession or doctrinal standard to be a United Methodist, other than confession of Jesus Christ as Lord, the efficacy of his grace for salvation and sanctification, and the hope for the final consummation of the kingdom of God. There is no Augsburg Confession or other statement that defines the United Methodist way of being a Christian; that is what I meant by doctrinal agnosticism. I do not mean that UMs believe anything they want; I just mean we don’t hold to a single confession. That’s all.
Geoffrey,
You say that you believe “in the God tesitified to by scripture” and “the Christ confessed by the Bible”. I want to ask, if you don’t accept the Bible as the sole and authoratative standard for revealing the character and beliefs of God and/or Jesus, where do you get those views from? A special extra-Biblical revalation just to you? Just wondering. Maranatha!
The Church itself, as the Body of Christ, is a testimony to Christ. The Creation itself “cries” out to the reality and glory of God.
Mark & Dan,
I enjoyed reading your comments (as well as all the others). I get confused who said what, so forgive me if I mess it up.
I think someone said Neil was a fundamentalist and someone else took it as directed at them. Regardless, I’ll accept that label. I heard that this means someone who believes in the basic fundamentals. That applies to me. I don’t accept some of the scorn that comes with the label, but that just means I have to try harder.
Mark said “Paul was just another person, right? So he is not immune from making false statements.” Generally, I agree with this. Paul was a human, a sinner like you and me. The one difference was that God told him what to right down. So while I’m sure he made LOTS of false statements, those aren’t included in the Bible.
Dan said that if Jesus were around today, He’d be kicked out of most churches. I think I agree with the spirit of that comment, if not the verbage. I think He wouldn’t be kicked out, nor would Buddha, Mohammed, or any number of so-called prophets. That is unfortunate.
Neil, as usual, you sure find a way to stir things up. Thanks for sticking to your guns. You do it much better than I could. I’m sure some will find fault with my comment about about Paul, but doubt that you will be among them. I’m not sure I can back it up as eloquently (I can almost quote the verse that I know you would use – All scripture is inspired by God…).
So, Jesus walks into an early church meeting and he sees the flag of Rome flying at the front of the meeting house. “What the heck..??!!” he yells as he tosses down the flag to the ground.
He takes over the podium from the preacher, who is talking about how thankful he is for Rome’s army and all the protection they offer the believers. Jesus laughs out loud and says, “I beg your pardon, but blessed are the peacemakers. If a soldier forces you to carry his pack for a mile (which he can do within the laws of Rome), carry it two miles. Maybe get him in trouble with his superiors!
You see, you can overcome evil with good. Resist strategically, not violently. No, I tell you the truth, you should turn the other cheek when backhanded. Don’t fight back! BUT neither should you back down. Face ‘im down. Make him treat you like an equal, not a subservient.
And remember, money is a root of all sorts of evil. Beware its trappings. It’ll be easier for a camel to squeeze through the eye of a needle than a rich fella to enter God’s kingdom. No, if you want to be perfect, go, sell all you have, share it with the poor and join my community. Don’t forget: It’s the rich and powerful who are oppressing you!”
And with that, Jesus walked over to the collection plate where they were taking money to support the “Holy Widows” campaign (asking the poor widows to give money to start a “holiness class” especially for women) and he turned the table over, knocking the money everywhere. He then chased the fellas waiting the table out of the meeting house.
They asked Jesus not to come back next Sunday. Jesus responded, “This is to be expected. I came not bringing peace but division. Folk are going to get riled up when you follow in my steps. Follow in my steps anyway. Do your part to pester the religious sorts, just for fun.”
OK. Now I really give up. Can someone please explain what Dan is babbling about??????????????
Randy – you did great. You seem to know what you believe & why. That puts you way ahead of a lot of other folks. Keep it up.
Wow! I get home from work, decide to stop by and give Neil a read, and see almost 40 comments already! I’m pressed for time, but I find it funny how much certain words such as “truth” can seemingly cause such fear. People seem to want to over-define the word to avoid commiting to what it means.
Adding qualifying words like “fundamental,” “absolute” (as Neil already mentioned in his blog), and others does not change “truth”…it only increases our own comfort level with it. Truth, as it pertains to the Bible, does not hold a seperate definition. Although, I’m sure you can call it “ultimate truth,” if that’s a more comforting qualification.
No personal offense intended, I promise, but THIS is the very root of what it means to be a a fundamentalist, and it is, itself, nothing supported by the Bible. It attributes something to a THING written by a human being that God reserve’s solely for God’s self: Perfection! Infallibility! Inerrancy!
“The one difference was that God told him (Paul) what to right down. … So while I’m sure he made LOTS of false statements, those aren’t included in the Bible.”
So odd. Belief in the inerrancy of the Bible, itself, is extrabiblical. Inspired does not mean without error.
“Can someone please explain what Dan is babbling about?”
A few comments were made about Jesus being kicked out of/not welcome in Today’s Church. I thought a lightweight imaginary story (but based on real verses) might be of help and still touch on the topic.
Can someone please explain why WOZ must be a bit hostile in his comments towards me?
Can someone please explain why WOZ must be a bit hostile in his comments towards me?>
Oh Danny, You are such a tender fellow.
I didn’t see hostility there. I’ve been reading you all over the net for a long time and it sounds like babbling to me also.
I know you are sincere, but one can be sincerely wrong.
A word for Geoffrey also, I may not have the seminary degree like you or the level of education, but I’ve been around long enough to know an insult when I see or hear one.
A good discussion can be educational and this is what Neil invites here. The Bible is THE best source.
Re. Jesus and John Wesley getting kicked out of churches today: Interesting points. I think Randy is right in that it is virtually impossible to get kicked out of any church. We lost church discipline a long time ago and look how many additional false teachers snuck in and now have leadership positions.
But I think I get what the commenters originally meant. I’d wager that if most pastoral search committees – especially of mainline denominations – knew the tone and content of the messages Jesus, Paul, Wesley, etc. would preach they wouldn’t even interview them. Too politically incorrect. Too judgmental. Too exclusive. Oh, the messages would have plenty of grace to offer, but plenty of truth as well. Too much, in fact.
I heard a clever piece on Paul’s “resume” once to that effect – i.e., jailed several times, beaten, too rigid, etc.
Re. fundamentalism: That is one of those loaded words that I rarely use because it is highly likely to be misunderstood. I am glad to be a fundamentalist in the sense of focusing on fundamental principles. I don’t get too wound up about non-essentials even when I disagree with them. I don’t agree with infant baptism, for example, but I won’t leave my church over it.
But on the exclusivity of Jesus, for example, I won’t waver. I can point to at least 100 passages noting directly and indirectly that He is the only way to salvation. So I would expect authentic and minimally educated Christians to hold that view. Anyone not holding that view and claiming to be a Christian would be “saved and confused” at best. Saying that Christianity and other religions will get you to God mocks the cross, the martyrs, the Bible and common sense.
The Bible tells us that it is God Breathed, it tells us that it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction.. 2 Tim 3:16
Jesus knew the scripture and often times would quote it verbatim. he even hinged his whole argument on one word John 10:35. now are you saying that nowhere in the Bible does it explicilty say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God? if so i want you to show me where it explicitly tells us about the Trinity.
How can we believe in an all powerful God who is creator of all things, but somehow he could not make sure that what he wanted to say got to us in some way?
there are plenty of examples in both the Old and New Testaments of the Bible being the word of God and not of man.
ER,
Once again, this is why so many of us disagree with you. The bible is inspired word of God, in it’s original manuscripts. It is living and breathing, not just an ancient document. (Hebrews 4:12). So the Bible says one thing and you say another, this is why we always disagree…
ER,
Yes, the Bible is a thing. I will agree. But it is HIS thing to convey truth about Himself to us. To say that it is less than that is to say that He lied to us, for this is the very word that attests to HIM, and that He confirmed while on earth. To say that it is any less than infallible, in it’s original manuscripts, is to say that He is less than infallible. Yes, He used men to write it, but those men were inspired by God.
Hebrews 3:7 “Therefore, as the HOLY SPIRIT says:…” and then the writer of Hebrews quotes Psalm 95, a psalm we know to be written by David. But the writer says that the Holy Spirit says it.
This is why so many of us question your faith… you doubt the very Word of God… both the Logos and the written Word, one and the same.
“This is why so many of us question your faith… you doubt the very Word of God”
I think some here continue to misunderstand some others. ER, nor I, nor others, I’d hazard to guess, doubt the Word of God. We don’t always accept your translation or interpretation of the Bible but that is not the same as doubting the Word of God – the Logos, as you rightly noted. Nowhere have you seen where we have doubted Jesus. Just your interpretation of Jesus, sometimes.
The Bible tells us that Jesus is the Word. We trust Jesus. Not the Bible. We love the Bible, it is inspired and useful for teaching and edification, but it is not what we worship, we worship the Christ, Jesus. JESUS is where we place our trust, not the Bible. I believe the same is true for you.
Magnus said:
The Bible tells us that it is God Breathed, it tells us that it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction… now are you saying that nowhere in the Bible does it explicilty say that the Bible is the inerrant word of God?
Yes, nowhere – in zero places – in the Bible does it make the claim that these 66 books that the protestants call “the Bible” are “inerrant” if you want to be a Christian. Nor does it say that one must think of God as a Trinity if you want to be a Christian. These are extrabiblical positions and for that reason alone, I’d think that lovers of the Bible and The Word would be wary of making claims that the Bible doesn’t make.
A couple more thoughts on language:
Fundamentalism. I think this is a good word that has been done damage by those who claim it. The anabaptists, the protestants, the Nazarenes, and many other groups have started when they wanted to get back to the fundamentals of the faith. The pharisees, if I remember correctly, began as a group that wanted to get back to the basics, the essentials.
I am all in favor of getting back to the fundamentals of the faith, living as the early church lived, except in our modern context. In our better moments, that’s what we anabaptists are trying to do. Living the Sermon on the Mount, Doing unto others, living simply, doing with and for the least of these. Preaching Good news to the poor, freedom for the captives, healing for the ill and the day of God’s Good Favor.
The fundamentals.
But too often, fundamentalists of all faiths (or most faiths, anyway) are getting “back to” fundamentals that didn’t even exist. Doctrines that go beyond the holy writ, expressing intolerance and even violence in the name of keeping the “fundamentals” – as they define it – absolutely. Tis a shame.
And briefly, on “inerrant,” without error:
This doesn’t really make much sense in the context of the Bible, it seems to me. The Bible is a book of truth, not facts. It doesn’t matter to the Creation story that the world wasn’t created in six literal days. That’s a story to illustrate the Truth that God is our Creator. To insist that the story is without error seems to be missing the point.
God’s Truth is inerrant. Human stories to relate that Truth are just vehicles for Truth and it doesn’t make sense to many of us to talk about that in terms of “inerrancy.”
And to acknowledge that not every line in the Bible is not literally factual does not mean that we don’t believe in Truth or that we can’t work to find God’s Truth. But we find that through God’s revelation, not through insisting that every line in the Bible is factually correct.
“Comments and critiques are welcome, provided that you concede that truth exists and that spiritual matters can be true or false.”
Amen!
Neil, you say it like it is and I always appreciate that! It’s really no wonder why your posts attract comments from non-believers—God is blessing your efforts to reveal Himself to the world as you stand for Truth.
The cruxt of Christianity is faith, and sometimes no matter the various arguments, viewpoints, dotrines and dogma—each of us must step out and take that leap of faith and cling to God’s Word and believe that it is true—all of it, even when we can’t completely understand all of it.
“But without faith it is impossible to please [God]: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.” –Hebrews 11:6
Keep up the good work! Keep the faith.
Dan,
Here in lies the problem. We admit that the Bible does not say inerrant or Trinity, but these are positions that the larger body of Christ has agreed to. Especially the Trinity. Doctrine comes about because of error in the history of the church, in other words, the Bible says THIS about a certain error that has arisen. The Bible makes it clear that God is One (Ephesians 4), but it also makes it clear that Jesus is God (John 1), the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. So, they are all ONE. Therefore how are we to view them? We don’t believe in modalism because Jesus was on earth, the Father in heaven, and the Holy Spirit was to come, after Jesus had ascended to heaven. All three distinct persons, but the same God. The doctrine of he Trinity was born. To not hold to this doctrine, is to have a false view of God as some do.
Some do believe in modalism, which means that God changes modes… one moment He is the Father, the next the Son and now the Holy Spirit. Yet Scripture refutes this view, at the Baptism of Jesus, Christ is baptized, the Father commends His Son, and the Holy Spirit descends like a dove. Modalism is refuted.
Inerrancy has only come on the scene in recent history because men have questioned the authority of Scripture, whereas before, all those involved accepted it as true. It describes what we believe the word of God says about itself, and testifies of itself. The moment you punt on inerrancy of Scritpure, is the moment that faith starts to slide down the slippery slope.
Yes, you two have different views of Jesus than I do. Why? Can’t answer that, but to say that both of you have in common the mistake of modern man, throwing out the past b/c you have found some sin in the church fathers you don’t like. But I do see something in both of you that doesn’t square with Scripture, and that is a level of holiness in the life of the believer. Peter tells us to be holy because He is holy. If we are truly saved, born again, made new creations, then we will begin to reflect the nature of the One that caused us to be born again. In other words, we will begin to live lives that are holy. I’m sorry, but I don’t see that in either of you. You think you can trust in Jesus, and continue on in sin. You defend homosexuality.
In other words, you believe in relativism, instead of absolute truth. Absolute truth is what the Bible says, not what man makes it to be.
That leaves us with this question: How do we know that our interpretation of the Bible is correct? And this is where the body of Christ comes in to play. While not authoritative, we do need to look to those who have gone on before us in the faith, and those now, who hold to the faith. We know the Trinity is true because it has stood the test of time. We know that the rapture occurring in 1988 is not true… b/c well, you get the idea.
Your view of homosexuality and ER’s view of Jesus, becoming a Jesuian… does not hold water with Scripture. What both of you have done on those issues is to decide for yourselves what truth is, outside of Scripture. No where does the Bible defend homosexuality or ER’s view of Christ. (Which is too convoluted for me to really get a grip on).
Both of you want to claim to be brothers in Christ, but what Christ?
OK, that’s enough for now.
Blessings
Timothy
WOW!
that was great.
A guy goes to sleep for a few hours to get ready for work and look what happens! First, Neil, why in the world would I be embarrassed by my comment? You still want to see contradiction and inconsistency, when I want to argue that I am committed to a certain perspective without thinking that claiming it is “True” adds anything to the claim. You keep calling me a relativist despite my own insistence I am not. I guess I just have not made my position clear, something I have to work on.
As to the question of the the Bible – why in the world does admitting error – whether it’s Wesley’s one or a thousand – somehow detract from its usefulness as testimony to revelation? I have never understood that idea, and I still don’t. The sources for faith and the Christian life are Scripture, tradition, reason, and experience, what Albert Outler called “the Wesleyan quadrilateral”. Each informs the other, interprets the other, chastens the other, and gives insight to the other. Such a position is respectful of the individual, the community of the Church, the whole history of the faith, and the testimony of Scripture; I find it refreshing, moderate, a nice middle road between an overweening and irrational biblicism and a hubristic, thoroughgoing rationalism.
This has been one of the best dialogues I have ever had on the subject of religion on the internet. Heated, passionate, but only rarely slipping in to ad hominem attacks and invective. Thank you for the opportuniy, and I do hope we can do it again sometime.
Peace and God’s Blessings to all.
Geoffrey,
just remember that the “Wesleyan quadrilateral” was not used in that way by Wesley. He place scripture above the other three and if one of those contradicted the Bible he would stick with scripture. one of my pastors tells me that that is the way it is taught at most Methodist seminary schools. Almost more like scripture with a triangle below it.
peace to you as well!
Wow, what a day. This is more than I can digest at one sitting.
Magnus, I liked all of your comments.
Re, “The Bible tells us that it is God Breathed, it tells us that it is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction.. 2 Tim 3:16. Jesus knew the scripture and often times would quote it verbatim.”
Um, the Scriptures as we know them now — the Bible, as a whole — did. not. exist. when Jesus is said to have said what he said about Scripture.
Timothy, feel free to do anything — ANYTHING — but doubt my salvation, my sincerity, or my relationship with God through Christ.
You are not qualified to judge any of that. You make a fool of yourself when you try using carnal knowledge — it means “earthly,” temporal,” “HUMAN” knowledge — to judge me or anyone esle you disagree with!
How you, or anyone else, dare is beyond me.
ER
Jesus many times would quote the prophets and Psalms verbatim. Are you suggesting that he made them all up? when he tells people do you not know what is written, i guess he was foreshadowing to when it was written? I assumed that you knew when i said that our Lord quoted scripture that it would be the Old Testament.
Do not worry though, there are plenty of places in the New Testamnet where it identifies itself as the word of God as well. Also many times when the Apostles would quote each other and say it was scripture.
i know that you know this, why you would make such an easy strawman argument like that is beyond me. perhaps it is late in the day. please read the God inspired scripture that is profitable unto eternal life, for rproof by anyone including skeptics and use it to correct one another when one goes astray.
God bless
Timothy,
Thanks for the dialog and the calm and friendly manner you’ve used. Unfortunately, you are mistaken in many ways, at least about my position (I won’t speak for the others’, but suspect you’re mistaken about them, too.
“Yes, you two have different views of Jesus than I do. Why? Can’t answer that, but to say that both of you have in common the mistake of modern man, throwing out the past b/c you have found some sin in the church fathers you don’t like.”
This is simply not true. Assuming you’re talking about homosexuality, I’ve “thrown out the past” for one reason and one reason alone – I don’t think historic church teachings about homosexuality fit with God’s Word. And, if one thinks a teaching doesn’t square with God’s Word, what does one do? Throw it out. No other choice.
On other matters, too, I hold my positions because I think that’s what the Bible teaches, or rather, what God teaches through the Bible and God’s Spirit. On the topic of the Trinity, that is not one that I reject out of hand. It is a useful way to think about God – Creator, Son and Holy Spirit. What I reject is that as an essential.
“But I do see something in both of you that doesn’t square with Scripture, and that is a level of holiness in the life of the believer. Peter tells us to be holy because He is holy.”
I’m sure you are aware of the meaning of “holiness”? Set apart for a special purpose? I’d have to say that I don’t know you well enough to begin to guess if you’re life is a holy life. Similarly, I’d have to suggest that you aren’t omniscient enough to know whether my life is set apart for a special purpose or not. I certainly prayerfully have that as a goal, by God’s grace.
This is part of the arrogance that turns many away from the church, it seems to me: People making snap decisions based upon not much who then begin to pronounce this person or that person as a sinner, as “not holy,” as “not Christian.”
We ARE to make judgements, we ARE to test the fruit of the Spirit. Show me where I haven’t been reflecting the fruit of the spirit and you may be helping me. Telling me I’m not “holy” doesn’t. Instead, it seems to be a word you’re using to say that I disagree with you on a particular sin, therefore I’m not holy.
“In other words, you believe in relativism, instead of absolute truth. Absolute truth is what the Bible says, not what man makes it to be.”
Again, factually incorrect. I don’t believe in relativism, as you seem to be talking about it. I DO believe in absolute Truth. And the Absolute Truth is what GOD says it is, not the Bible. The Bible says ALL KINDS of stuff (kidnap virgins of the dead enemy and forcibly make them your wife, polygamy, genocide, etc) that is not absolute truth. We find that only by God’s Revelation through the spirit.
“We find that only by God’s Revelation through the spirit.”
So the Spirit failed in properly inspiring the scripture the first time, or men can never get things completely right even why guided by the Spirit? Then why should we trust anyone else’s “revelation” by the Spirit today? It would be just as flawed and wouldn’t have had 2,000 years of scrutiny over every letter.
Neil,
Greetings! I saw your name bandied about at Geoff’s blog and felt compelled to check you out. I haven’t the time to read all the comments here, but I intend to give a look and of course leave me two cents. (Unless the rates went up.) I think I’ll enjoy the visit.
ER,
Dare or not to dare. I dare. Your faith as you have expressed does not line up with Scripture. Your actions as you have carried them out on your blog and on others, does not line up with Scripture. You lack the fruits of the Spirit found in Galatians and humility found throughout the NT, and as Jesus said, “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits…. therefore by their fruits you will know them.”
Your blog, attitude and treatment of fellow brothers in Christ is repugnant. And until I see some true repentance on your part, I will never consider you a brother in Christ.
For those of you who hold to a po-mo worldview, I know this seems harsh, but I would rather stand strong in the face of a man who claims “new” views of Christ and be condemned by the po-mo world, than stand idly by letting him spew forth his errant views. After all, is it loving to let someone lead others into drinking his cyanide laced koolaid? Or better to point out the minions dropping dead by his side?
Dan,
Again, the point is that you have taken a sin, wrapped your view around it, and deemed it OK. Sorry, but you are out of line with Scripture. If we take your view of things, we can then justify “any” sin, whether it be homosexuality, murder, lust, greed, hatred, gossip, etc… All of which the Scriptures condemns. I would rather stand with Scripture than with you. I know this is personal… but see the above.
For the rest… remember Christ’s words…
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from me, you who practice lawlessness.’”
Timothy, my response: Stand in front of a mirror and read what you wrote above to yourself. It applies.
Thank God it’s not up to you, or anyone else on this earth, to check IDs letting people into the Kingdom. You would “fence” heaven itself, to your own peril.
You’re not “harsh.” You’re not “daring.” You’re just wrong — and not that far from the error that entangled you wnen we first met, lo, many years ago.
Wow! It truly is a shame to see the ugly direction things have gone for a few people in here. I’ll leave that side of things alone. I’ve tried to “catch up” on the actual points behind many of the ideas posted so far. How so many “Christians” can spend so much time trying to refute the validity of the Word of God is beyond me. I would say the time would be better spent taking the Gospel to the unsaved, but by reading in here, that wouldn’t work since it’s only a sorta partially inspired, misinterpreted, inconsistant, ancient text full of half-truths. Hey! I just found another word to put in front of truth! Then again, by reading much of what I’ve seen in here, truth doesn’t really exist either.
Oh, and Tim.
Yer ugly and yer wife dresses you funny.
This reminds me of the disciples arguing about who gets to sit to Jesus’ right.
It is PRECISELY why I have not darkened the door to a church in so long. One “brother” says, “You’re not saved because you don’t believe the way pastor says we are supposed to believe.” Another calls that brother a hypocrite. The followers in the church line up behind the man or woman with whom they most identify, and follow that PERSON into the abyss. Meanwhile, I’m home on Sunday mornings — comfy in my pajamas and a cup of Folgers by my side — reading any one of 5 translations of God’s Word, trying to decide for myself what God is trying to tell me.
You boys have a good time launching verbal missiles at each other. Some of us Christians would rather listen to God than scream at each other about who gets to stand at the gates of heaven and tell sinners, “You are OUT of here!” as if they missed home plate in a head-first slide.
I saw this on a church sign: “Stop, drop and roll doesn’t work in hell.” Bet that saves some souls.
Hi w2skunkworks – thanks for stopping by and commenting.
What is your understanding from the Bible as to how Christians should worship and serve together?
If someone teaches something on a topic you consider to be important and you think they are in gross error, what is the best approach to take?
Peace,
Neil
[...] 38 is a famous line. The truth-is-relative crowd likes to wax philosophical about what truth is. But truth is simply that which corresponds to [...]
[...] Postmodern Christians Teacher: There is no truth, including the Bible. [...]