These are all the Blogs posted on Tuesday, 2, 2010.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
What is Liberalism?
 I had lunch last week with a friend in his thirties who is ready anytime, anywhere, for a lively conversation about the ills of liberal political thought in America, particularly if it involves comparing the President to arsenic. I said, “Define liberalism for me.” He fixed a serious brow and launched into two or three paragraphs of politicians on the far left in government who drive him crazy.
“That’s not what I mean. I mean, give it a definition. Define liberalism.” That was surprisingly difficult for him.
“You tell me,” he said. I said, “It means a loosening of rules that are attached to some standard. Liberalism always implies a standard and one’s view of that standard. Without a standard, there is no such thing as liberalism.” He was listening, so I went on. “Furthermore, I believe that by the time a person is 6 or 7 years old, it is pretty much determined which he will be in life, a liberal or a conservative” (I wasn’t sure I could sustain that last part, but I knew it would provoke him a little). “The greatest determining factor is parents. They can rear children who find freedom in a good system of rules and boundaries, or children who find rules merely a barrier to a better life.”
He disagreed. He had come from a home void of conservative rearing, and yet became a strong conservative himself. “I yield the point,” I said, “but every conservative got it from somewhere, having been influenced profoundly by someone early in life.” We agreed.
The term liberalism, whether in politics or religion or any other arena presupposes a standard. A man who is liberal seeks to loose where the standard has bound. In America, we have taken the concept of liberty and perverted it to mean tolerance. That’s the main reason that the words liberal and conservative seem so hollow to people. It is impossible for one to be conservative or liberal without a point of reference, some standard by which we can judge. To reference conservative or liberal without a standard is like using the words large or small without saying that you refer to elephants, fish, people, or tractors. When in America we still use the terms liberal and conservative, without agreeing on a standard, liberals win the day. If indeed there is no standard, then people should be free to live without anyone criticizing their thinking or actions.
Americans often have a misunderstanding of American liberty. It is true that the Declaration of Independence includes the words "All men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to insure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Observe though that even in these words our forefathers saw this liberty for which they were willing to die as something which included government. A standard.
During the 2000 campaign, Al Gore touted the popular view among many liberals when he promised if he were elected that he would appoint judges "who understand that our Constitution is a living and breathing document," people who understood that "it was intended by our founders to be interpreted in the light of the constantly evolving experience of the American people."
That’s liberalism. The standard, in this case the U.S. Constitution, must be flexible enough that I can change it to do as I please. But our forefathers never meant for liberty to mean “freedom from any standard.” In the United States, we use the term liberty, but many misunderstand it to mean “morally neutral.” They don’t get it. The standard is missing.
Liberalism is, in the long run, a flawed view. When is a locomotive more free—when it’s chugging down the tracks, or when it leaves the tracks and plods off into some meadow? Likewise, men are most free when living within the confines of valid laws, constitutions, and ultimately the Word of their Creator. This is from good authority:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God's servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God's wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God's wrath but also for the sake of conscience (Romans 13:1-4, ESV).
Liberty and liberalism sound alike, but they are very different. If every man were a true liberal, anarchy would result and ultimately no one would have liberty. Imagine what would happen on the NFL football field if the officiators decided to be liberal with the official rules.
There are Biblical examples of liberalism, none clearer than in Numbers 16. Consider the first three verses and remember that God had chosen Moses as lawgiver to Israel. God made the law; Moses delivered and administered the law.
Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took men: And they rose up before Moses, with certain of the children of Israel, two hundred and fifty princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown: And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, “Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the Lord?” (KJV).
The argument was that the standard for Moses being the lawgiver was merely that he was holy. That wasn’t true. The standard was God’s Word. Moses was lawgiver because God chose him for that job. Korah was liberal in that he tried to find a way to loosen what God had bound. “Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, every one of them.” Was the liberal smoke-and-mirrors argument to get the congregation’s focus off God’s standard? They fought the standard that made Moses the leader, and, in their liberalism, sought freedom from the rules.
One more closing note: As Christians we must guard against ways of thinking that fight or deviate from the New Testament as our final standard. Ultimately, liberalism from that standard is the most serious matter of all, because the consequences are eternal. Jesus said, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). Posted on 03/02/2010 2:05 PM by Glenn Colley
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Where in the World?
“On a hill far away…” Christians are extremely familiar with the lyrics to this song. But have we ever stopped to consider that this is a real place? A place that changed history and a physical location that still exists today. There are more than 120 locations listed in the Bible, and yet none is more important to a Christian than Golgotha. Located outside the walls of Jerusalem two thousand years ago, Golgotha would have been a spot that was passed by quite frequently. Jesus and His apostles would have all been familiar with the spot on which Jesus would draw His last breath. It was a familiar location for the Jews. In fact, Mark 15:29 says “Those passing bywere hurling abuse at Him (Jesus).” The text says that people were passing by, which means that it was probably by a road. The Romans used crucifixion as a highly visible torturous means of death as a reminder to others. Mark 15:40 says that women were looking on from a distance, which means that it was in a highly visible place. That is where most scholars get the idea that it was set upon a hill.
How big would this hill be? Since this was right outside the city of Jerusalem, it was probably not a huge hill—especially given the geography of the area. Standing at an elevation of 2,575 feet, the city of Jerusalem was mainly built on top of hills. Seven mountains surround the city, one of which is the well-known Mount of Olives. Even though there are seven mountains, none of them would be considered massive, since the tallest mountain (Mount of Olives) stands at 2,900 feet above sea level. Through the years, the exact location of Golgotha has become lost. Many believe that a place called Gordon’s Golgotha is where it was originally located, but nobody can be sure. What we can be sure of is that it was a very important place in the history of mankind. It is where Jesus Christ our Savior died to set us free. On this hill, the prophecy of Jesus bruising Satan’s head in Genesis 3:15 was fulfilled. It is where every human being gained a hope of living with God for all eternity and the ultimate act of love occurred. Everything in Christ’s life led up to the event of His death, and everything in history up to that point led to that hugely significant event also.
Translated into Aramaic, Golgotha means “Place of the Skull.” In Latin, the words are Calvariae Locus, which is where we get the term Calvary. Many have guessed as to why this location is called Golgotha or the Place of the Skull. Out of all of the many guesses, there are four prominent theories. First, the Aramaic contraction Gol Goatha means “Mount of Execution,” and being a place of execution there are many skulls left there. Second, it is said that it was located near a cemetery and the name was derived from all of the bones that were there. Third, the skull of Adam could have been buried there. Amazingly, this is the oldest theory there is. That is why many scholars believe that this is the true reason for the name. The Global Flood would make it difficult for one to precisely pinpoint this location; however, it is interesting that many scholars have reached this same conclusion. The fourth is that the location’s landscape resembles the shape of a skull. Pictures of the landscape of the fourth make it the most known theory and also the candidate for the most likely. So many things changed at that remarkable place. History was made. At that location God gave man a reason for living. It is a place that will always hold a special reverence in the mind of Christians and will be remembered from here until the coming of Christ. Posted on 03/02/2010 2:13 PM by Joe Wilkie
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Materialism: Is Your Money Under God’s Control?
Self-control. It’s part of the fruit of the Spirit which Christians are to have in our lives as evidence that we are led and walk by the Spirit (Galatians 5:16-26). It’s one of the Christian qualities that we are to have increasingly in order to “be richly provided…an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” (2 Peter 1:5-11). In fact, none of the other traits of love, joy, faithfulness, steadfastness, godliness, and the like that Paul and Peter command us to have would be possible without self-control. Generally, most Christians know this. That’s why we are quick to cite self-control as necessary to overcome such sins as fornication, addiction, and anger.
What about our finances, though? Regrettably, it’s hard to imagine self-control being applied when one looks around and sees how much we Americans are in debt and, more importantly, why we are in debt. Throughout my lifetime, American society has stressed how important it is to “get ahead” by defining success as having the absolute best of everything right now. This is what we call “The American Dream.” Many of us are making that dream a reality, no matter what it takes. According to sociologist Michael Kimmel, the average American home has three TVs, two VCRs, three radios, two tape players, two CD players, more than one video game console, and more than one computer.[1] A website devoted to the video-game industry reported HD-TV ownership growing from 35% in 2008 to 53% in 2009.[2] Add to that what many of us aspire to—nice automobiles, annual season passes to our favorite sporting events and amusement parks each year, a roomful of toys for the kids, and the two-story, double-car garage house with plush carpet, expensive furniture, a putting-green yard with a swimming pool, basketball court, and award-winning flowerbeds and trees.
While nothing is inherently wrong with possessing any of these things, several serious questions must still be raised. For one, how long did it take for our parents and grandparents to acquire these luxuries, if in fact they acquired them at all? The sober truth is that Mom and Dad in some cases got along just fine without having the best of everything, or else saved, scrimped, and sacrificed for years in order to have them in their later years. Not this generation, though. The average credit card balance of young adults is $1,465,[3] yet the average person in that age bracket works on the minimum-wage level.[4] In other words, many of my peers are spending money they don’t have for things they think they need and want to have as soon as possible. We have let ourselves be deceived by Satan’s temptations manifested in the media and by what we see in our society into thinking that happiness will never truly be ours and life will never be at its fullest without_(insert product here) .
Meanwhile, where is our Lord and what is His will for us? Sadly, in many aspects of our lives, they are ignored and eventually forgotten due to our materialistic mindset. God’s kingdom—the Church (Colossians 1:13; Revelation 1:6, 9)—and righteousness are supposed to come absolutely first in our lives (Matthew 6:33). We are supposed to meditate on God’s Word “day and night” (Psalm 1:1-3). We are supposed to offer our best to Him instead of our leftovers (Malachi 1:6-8). We are supposed to cheerfully and liberally give beyond our means to the work of the Church (2 Corinthians 8:1-5; 9:6-7). We are supposed to provide for our families’ necessities (1 Timothy 5:8), which would include food, clothing, and shelter (Matthew 6:25-34), as well as education (Proverbs 22:6; Luke 2:52) and health needs (Matthew 25:36; James 1:27). In addition, husbands are supposed to love and honor their wives (Ephesians 5:25-33; 1 Peter 3:7), wives are supposed to love and respect their husbands and be homemakers (Ephesians 5:33; Titus 2:4-5), and parents are supposed to bring their children up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4; cf. 2 Timothy 3:15; Deuteronomy 6:6-7).
Would materialism allow for this? Think about it. If you had the mindset that you have to have the absolute best of everything—right now—then each month an average American family household would probably spend around a minimum of $500 on food and clothing, and $2000 on a mortgage for a very nice house and all the taxes, furnishings, insurance, and utilities that come with it. Add to that a minimum of $850 for at least three nice vehicles (two for the parents, and at least one decent car for the kids so they can feel popular at school) and all the driving expenses, maintenance, and loan and insurance payments that come with them. Don’t forget the $500-800 you’ll need on average every month for college and savings for your children, and $450-700 for health benefits for the entire family. Add this up and we’re looking at a minimum required annual income of $51,000-60,000—just to cover the cost of the necessities, specifically the best of the best of said necessities. This is not counting the annual minimum of $10,000-20,000 needed to cover the cost of the various luxuries that we think we must have, some of which was listed earlier!
Now, how many of us have a job that pays $50,000-80,000 a year? Some do, but more of us do not. That means that either we will go into credit card debt and have to work very hard for a long period of time to get out of it, or both the husband and the wife will have to work. Granted, there is nothing inherently sinful about both spouses working (Proverbs 31:13, 16, 24). However, remember that a week only has 168 hours. With one or both parents working a total of 50-70 hours a week, often at all hours of the day or night, what time is left for their marriage? What time is left for the type of parenting that God wants from them? What time is left for the work of the Church, or for the worship assemblies of the saints? What time is left for personal Bible study and devotion? And when one has the mindset that I must have the best of everything right now and therefore puts the majority of his income towards achieving that end, what amount of his finances goes to the Lord?
Not much.
Are we too busy laying up treasures on earth instead of in Heaven (Matthew 6:19-21)? Have we forgotten that in the end what we obtain here on earth is meaningless (1 Timothy 6:7; Ecclesiastes 2:1-11)? I think many of us have. How else do you explain why so many Christians are apathetic and lazy in their service to God? How else do you explain why many missionaries and church works cannot get proper funding? How else do you explain the high divorce and adultery rate and how our society as a whole becomes more and more corrupt with each generation? Our materialistic desire for riches has truly caught us in a snare and has caused us to stray from the Faith (1 Timothy 6:9-10).
How would we know if God truly had control of our finances? This will happen if we remember that we exist only to serve Him (Ecclesiastes 12:13). We must also remember that everything we do must be by His authority (Colossians 3:17). If we truly believe that, we will then “count the cost” (Luke 14:25-33). This means that we will figure out what our income will be and then make a godly budget which puts Him and His Church first (Matthew 6:33), followed by the true needs of our family and others before our own needs and desires (1 Timothy 5:8; Philippians 2:3-4). In order to follow this budget, we must then work to always have an attitude of contentment, regardless of how much we have or don’t have, knowing that as long as we are faithfully obedient the eternal reward will be more than worth it (Philippians 4:11-12; 3:12-14, 17).
What is needed for any of this to happen? Once again, we come back to self-control. Do you have self-control in your life? Is your money in God’s control?
[1] Michael Kimmel, Guyland: The Perilous World Where Boys Become Men. New York: HarperCollins, 2008. p. 145.
[2] http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=24757
[3] http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planning/Debt-Consolidation/Credit-Card-Debt-Statistics/
Posted on 03/02/2010 2:17 PM by Jon Mitchell
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
In My Professional Opinion…
Our understanding of even the most familiar stories of the New Testament can be enhanced by applying knowledge and experience acquired in fields of study other than theology. As a law professor, I enjoy studying and lecturing about the early Jewish and Roman legal systems. It brings out many meaningful details in the story of the trial of Jesus. Take, for example, the events recorded in Matthew 26:59-64:
Now the chief priests, the elders, and all the council sought false testimony against Jesus to put Him to death, but found none. Even though many false witnesses came forward, they found none. But at last two false witnesses came forward and said, “This fellow said, ‘I am able to destroy the temple of God and to build it in three days.’”
And the high priest arose and said to Him, “Do You answer nothing? What is it these men testify against You?” But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest answered and said to Him, “I put You under oath by the living God: Tell us if You are the Christ, the Son of God!”
Jesus said to him, “It is as you said. Nevertheless, I say to you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Power, and coming on the clouds of Heaven.”
1. The trial of Jesus was the most unjust, illegal trial in history. The term council (Matthew 26:59) refers to the Great Sanhedrin consisting of seventy-one men, including the high priest. Established in Jerusalem during the intertestamental period, the council was the highest court of Israel—the equivalent of the U.S. Supreme Court. These important Jewish leaders were supposed to be acting as impartial judges during Jesus’ trial. According to Matthew, however, they resorted to soliciting false testimony to convict Jesus (Matthew 26:59). They likely did so by bribing and assuring the witnesses that they would not be subject to any penalty for perjury. Under Jewish law, a false witness was supposed to be punished with the same penalty that was being sought for the defendant (Deuteronomy 19:16-19). In Jesus’ case, the false witnesses should have been sentenced to death for lying. Instead, they were encouraged to say anything that might incriminate Jesus.
Soliciting false witnesses was just one of many illegalities committed during Jesus’ trial. Under Jewish law a capital case was subject to strict legal procedures and evidentiary standards. Yet legal scholars estimate more than two dozen laws and procedures were ignored or violated during the trial of Jesus. There is only one plausible explanation for such an excessive number of judicial errors: the council members had already made up their minds. The trial was part of a larger plot to kill Jesus (Matthew 26:12; Luke 22:2; John 7:19; 8:37). Since the outcome was predetermined, there was little reason for the council to be concerned with legal safeguards.
2. The trial of Jesus was one of the greatest proofs of Jesus' innocence. Under Jewish law, two credible witnesses were required to convict someone of a capital offense (Deuteronomy 17:6; 19:15). Each witness was required to provide detailed testimony concerning exactly who said or did what as well as when and where. If the witness accounts did not agree in every particular, both testimonies were thrown out.
The fact that the council had so much difficulty soliciting false testimony against Jesus speaks volumes about the blameless life Jesus lived. According to Matthew, many individuals were willing to testify but none of them had anything incriminating to say against Jesus (Matthew 26:60). Eventually two false witnesses testified to what Jesus had purportedly said about destroying the temple (Matthew 26:60-61).
According to Mark’s account, “their testimonies did not agree” (Mark 14:56). One witness apparently testified that Jesus said He is “able to destroy the temple” (Matthew 26:60-61). The other witness, however, claimed Jesus said, “I will destroy this temple” (Mark 14:58). It was unclear from these witnesses whether Jesus said that He would destroy the temple or that He coulddestroy it and then rebuild it in three days. Furthermore, one witness alleged Jesus referred to “the temple” while the other quoted Jesus as saying “this temple.” While both likely presumed Jesus was speaking of the actual temple in Jerusalem, the second witness’s account leaves open the possibility that Jesus was speaking metaphorically and was referring to His own body as the temple in question. Given the contradictions in their accounts, their testimony should have been excluded and the case against Jesus dismissed.
The most amazing thing about their testimony was that it was apparently the worst thing anyone, even Jesus’ enemies, could drudge up about Jesus. If Jesus had been a mere human, imagine the testimony that might have been elicited. Every misstatement He made in His public ministry would have been scrutinized; every public misstep would have been twisted into a felony case. Despite the relentless efforts of the council to solicit all manner of lies, this flawed testimony about a relatively harmless statement was the best evidence that could be mustered against Him. This alone is powerful evidence that Jesus was in fact the perfect Son of God.
3. The trial of Jesus was further evidence of Jesus' sacrificial love for mankind. Because of the obvious discrepancies in their testimony, the two false witnesses were not credible enough to satisfy the legal burden of proof in the capital case against Jesus. Therefore, all Jesus had to do was remain silent and the Sanhedrin would have had no evidence to convict Him. The Jewish ecclesiastical rule in this regard was similar to our modern constitutional right against self-incrimination. In capital cases, the Jewish rule was later interpreted to go even further than the U.S. Constitution and prohibited a guilty verdict based solely on a defendant’s confession, even a voluntary confession ( Mishnah Torah, Sanhedrin 18:6). Therefore, Jesus was well within His legal rights to remain quiet. For a time Jesus did remain silent in the face of His accusers (Matthew 26:63). In so doing, He not only demonstrated His knowledge of the law but also fulfilled Messianic prophesy (Isaiah 53:7).
However, Jesus loved the souls of men too much to invoke the first century equivalent of the Fifth Amendment. While men had no compunction about treating Jesus unjustly, He still willingly paid the ultimate price for them to satisfy God’s perfect justice. When pressed by the high priest about whether He was the Christ, the Son of God, Jesus spoke the fatal words, “It is as you said” (Matthew 26:64). Instantly, the high priest construed Jesus’ statement as blasphemy, the penalty for which was death under Jewish law (Matthew 26:65-66). Of course, such a statement was only blasphemy if it were untrue. Yet, the chief priest and the rest of the council refused to entertain the possibility that Jesus was truly the Son of God. In the end, Jesus’ undeserved sentence was not only the result of the Jewish leaders’ refusal to acknowledge the law but was also the result of their refusal to acknowledge the Judge of all the earth who now sits at the right hand of God (Matthew 26:64; Acts 10:42; Romans 2:16; 2 Timothy 4:1; 2 Corinthians 5:10). Today, men are still guilty of making the same mistakes. As Christians it is our responsibility to uphold both. We must fulfill the law of Christ (Galatians 6:2) and continually confess before men that Jesus Christ is Lord (Matthew 10:32-33; Romans 10:9-10). Posted on 03/02/2010 2:20 PM by Matt A. Vega J.D.
Tuesday, 2 March 2010
Postmodernism An Attack on Truth
“Listen to your father who begot you, and do not despise your mother when she is old. Buy the truth, and do not sell it, also wisdom and instruction and understanding” (Proverbs 23:22-23)
When it comes to truth, we must always be buyers and never sellers!Unfortunately, many in our world today are guilty of “selling out” the Word of Truth.Isaiah 59:14 reads, “Justice is turned back, and righteousness stands far away; for truth has stumbled in the street, and uprightness cannot enter” (NASB). Isaiah spelled out the people’s sin problem and their only hope for deliverance. The prophet emphasized that their sin had separated them from God. He confessed that their unrighteousness had caused a profound sense of loss and confusion, and one of the major effects of their sin was that the truth had been compromised. It was no longer embraced by the people. It had been sold or, as Isaiah stated, it had “stumbled in the street.”“Yes, truth is lacking,” Isaiah went on to write, “And he who turns aside from evil makes himself a prey” (Isaiah 59:15).When truth is lacking, when it is no longer embraced, when it is sold, it makes one a victim to evil passions and desires. It allows the entrance of falsehood and godlessness. It spits in the face of Biblical authority in favor of manmade doctrine.Where there is a lack of truth, there is an absence of godliness.
Unfortunately, truth is so little valued in this day and age.People hold opinions rather than convictions.People follow their feelings rather than Biblical precedence.People exalt cultural standards over what God has authorized.We live in a day and age where truth is being sold as if it were nothing more than a cheap trinket at a weekend garage sale.We live in a day and age where moral relativism seems to define our societal views. We have become our own tailor of truth. Truth has become whatever one believes it to be.No longer is it, “God said it and that settles it.” No longer do we hear, “What would Jesus do?” Now it’s, “I said it and that settles it,” or “What would I do?” I am my own guide when it comes to deciding what is ultimately right and wrong. Truth depends on my point of view.Truth is subjective and open to interpretation. What might be true for you may not be true for me and vice versa. Everyone’s measuring stick is different based on his set of circumstances.
As if moral relativism were not enough of a threat to truth, we have seen an even more aggressive effort to vandalize and dismantle truth in favor of personal tastes. Beyond the notion that truth is relative is the postmodern mindset that there is no such thing as absolute truth. This mindset has made a considerable impact on our modern world and spills over into virtually every aspect of our society, including theology. The Lord’s church has certainly been a victim of the postmodern ideology. Since a basic tenet of postmodernism is the denial of absolute truth, the Lord’s church and the Holy Bible become primary targets. Postmodernist thinking scoffs at the idea that there is an objective body of spiritual truth contained within the pages of holy writ, and that this truth must be learned, believed, and lived in order to be pleasing to God. Those adhering to a postmodern way of thinking choose to maintain that no one can really know anything for sure. Nothing is hard and fast. There are no concrete truths. Everything is relative and subjective. As a result, God’s inspired Word is reduced from a divine instruction manual on how we are to live to nothing more than a collection of stories and letters that were written with a cultural bias. In other words, Biblical writers only addressed issues of their time. Because our world is so much different today, these writings are no longer applicable. What may have been true for the first-century culture has no bearing on a pluralistic, postmodern society.
When inspiration and authority are ignored, one is left with a custom-made religion tailored to fit precisely what man desires. If absolutes do not exist and morality is relative, then people are free to live and worship in virtually any manner they choose. It should be noted, however, that the postmodern view as it relates to religion and theology does not intend to destroy God. Religious postmodernists still acknowledge God and maintain a belief in the heavenly Father. They still worship Him as Lord of their lives and give credence to the Bible. But if God’s Word is not inerrant and its truth is not universally objective, then what type of God are we left with? We cannot have it both ways. We are left with an either/or scenario. Either we accept God as the supreme ruler of the universe and His Word as absolute, perfect truth or we don’t. We cannot take some hybrid approach that allows one to believe in a Holy God but at the same time diminishes His influence. Either “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. ” (2 Timothy 3:16-17), or it is not. If inspiration does not result in inerrancy then it has no purpose. If the Scriptures are “God-breathed,” then they are without error. It is true that man penned the words and although man is fallible, his words were infallible because God intended them to be. Man did not originate prophecy (2 Peter 1:21). A prophet was a spokesman for God; he did not speak for himself nor did he add any comment. The Holy Spirit guided man so that he spoke and wrote exactly what the Spirit wanted him to write. Man was the instrument; God was the author. He was inspired of God and divine inspiration must be inerrant and infallible or else God is imperfect and so is His Word. What would be the purpose of serving an imperfect God?
Logic does not seem to be a factor when it comes to propagating this “no absolutes” theory. Think about the statement, “There is no such thing as absolute truth.” Is this not an absolute truth statement? This statement is logically contradictory, is it not? If this statement is true, then it means that absolutes do exist. In other words, if it’s true, then that makes it false. Think about the statement, “Truth is relative.” Here again we have an absolute. But, if a statement is relative, it is not always true. This means there are absolutes, which means the above statement is false. It is an undeniable fact that two plus two equals four. There is no refuting that water freezes at thirty-two degrees Fahrenheit. These are absolute truths. There is no denying that they exist.
What cannot be argued logically is that truth is absolute by nature. It is restrictive by nature. It is exclusive by nature. If it were not, then it would not be truth. If something is true, then everything that stands in opposition to it must be false. Truth is not subjective. It is not open to interpretation. Truth is not affected by feelings or emotions, questions or doubts, approval or disapproval. Truth will always be truth no matter what trials or scrutiny it is subjected to because truth stands independently of man. It is what it is regardless of what one feels about it. And absolute truth is just as much a reality in the metaphysical realm as it is in the physical realm. Jesus stated, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me.” (John 14:6). This is a truth statement. Is it narrow? Yes. Is it restrictive and exclusive? Yes, but that is the nature of truth. It is what it is, and no illogical, circular reasoning can change its nature. Jesus said that we can know the Truth (John 8:32). What truth was He referring to? The perfect, authoritative, and absolute truth of God’s Word.
When all the layers are peeled back, when the dust settles, and when the muddy waters become translucent, postmodernism becomes exposed for what it truly is—an illogical, nonsensical ideology that attacks truth in an effort to customize religion and spirituality into something that better suits the times (a.k.a. cultural tastes). In the midst of such customization, may we remember the words of Paul to Timothy in 2 Timothy 1:13-14, words that clearly were not written with a first-century bias but were meant to be passed on to future Christians. “Retain the standard of sound words which you have heard from me, in the faith and love which are in Christ Jesus. Guard, through the Holy Spirit who dwells in us, the treasure which has been entrusted to you.”
Posted on 03/02/2010 2:22 PM by Chris McCurley
|
