The Early Church Telling the Old, Old Story

Christians in the Roman world found themselves in a cultural setting of moral decadence, philosophical relativism and religious pluralism.  However, they narrated the world in a new way.  They did not accommodate the faith to the culture but set forth the faith in a countercultural way.  In a world that had no set beliefs, they proclaimed, “We believe.”  In a world that had no ethic, they proclaimed, “We behave.”  In a world where there was no belonging, they declared, “We belong.”

Robert E. Webber, Who Gets to Narrate the World?: Contending for the Christian Story in an Age of Rivals, 51.

A Pastor Ready In and Out of Season: J. C. Ryle’s Warning for His Times...and Ours

I suggest, for one thing, that we ought to exercise a special jealousy over our own personal religion [i.e., evangelical Protestantism].  Let us take heed that it is thoroughly and entire Evangelical.  The times we live in are desperately unfavorable to a sharply-cut, decided, distinct, doctrinal Christianity.  A fog of vague liberalism overspreads the ecclesiastical horizon.  A settle determination to think everybody is right, and nobody is wrong, everything is true, and nothing is false, meets us at every turn.  The world is possessed with a devil of false charity about religion.  Men try to persuade us, like Gallio, that the alleged differences between creeds and schools of thought are only about “words and names,” and that it is “all the same thing.”  In times like these, let us be on our guard, and take heed to our souls—“Watch ye: stand fast in the faith.  Quit you like men: be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13).  Let us steadfastly resolve to stand fast in the old paths, the good way of our Protestant Reformers.  Narrow, old-fashion, obsolete, as some may be pleased to call that way, they will never show us a better!

J. C. Ryle, Knots Untied, Kindle, loc. 403—412.   

Normative Ethical Relativism

Israel (Beaner) has just finished this essay on Normative Ethical Relativism or Conventional Ethics. In her philosophy class, before getting into the history of philosophy, I had her to do a fairly extensive survey of metaphysics, epistemology and ethics. This task was broken into two separate sections: first examining these foundational categories from within the Christian worldview, then, secondly, a brief overview of the dominate views that secular philosophy has devised. Secular ethics was her final section in this part of the class, and she chose for her essay Conventional Ethics. Enjoy.

Normative Ethical Relativism, also known as Conventionalism, is the system of belief that morals “ought” to be designated by individual societies. It teaches that whatever a certain society says to do, their citizens are morally obligated to follow these ethical constructs. Francis Beckwith, in his book with Gregory Koukl, Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air, defines it in this way. “[N]ormative ethical relativism teaches that each society survives because of consensual moral arrangements that all individuals are obligated to honor...Morality, then, is relative to culture, determined by popular consensus, and expressed through laws, customs and mores” (p. 49).

There are some obvious flaws facing this perspective on human attitudes and behavior.

First, no one society can accuse any other society of do that which is morally wrong. Assuming this axiological idea, we in America were wrong in telling Nazi Germany, during World War II, that is was morally wrong to kill Jews and others on a whim. So also, during the War of Southern Independence (the so-called Civil War), the North could not have told those in the South that it was immoral to keep slaves, as the North and the South represented two very distinct societies or cultures.

A second flaw is that no law or behavioral code is wrong if appointed by the society’s majority. In this way, it confuses morals with mores. Beckwith has a good example illustrating this point. Again from Relativism:

“An attorney once called a radio talk show with a challenge. ‘When are you going to accept the fact that abortion on demand is the law of the land?’ She asked. ‘You may not like it, but it’s the law.’ Her point was simple. The Supreme Court has spoken, so there is nothing left to discuss. Since there is no higher law, there are no further grounds for rebuttal. This lawyer’s tacit acceptance of conventionalism suffers because it confuses what is right with what is legal” (pp. 51—52).

Third, and finally, if a particular society legalizes or allows something that an individual citizen sees as morally wrong, they themselves become immoral outcasts for transgressing the status quo. This is known as the Reformer’s Dilemma.

If conventionalism is correct, no moral reformation would be possible without the reformer(s) becoming an iconoclast of sorts. Martin Luther’s struggle against the abuses and oppression of the Roman Catholic organization; Corrie Ten Boom and her family’s efforts to hide Jews during the Holocaust; William Wilberforce, with the ending of the slave trade in England and Europe, and many other men and women who spent themselves seeking to liberate souls and setting free the truth would have to be deemed as immoral persons, and their causes as wrong. However, today, we hold these people in high esteem for what they stood for and did.

For the sake of argument, let’s pretend that Normative Ethical Relativism is correct. If so, we can do nothing but rebuke the above men and women for their choices, because they are by definition immoral for going against what their societies said was morally right. So, was it all in vain? Was that they did pointless, because it was not what their societies would have had them to do?Conventionalism does nothing but give to us a number of counterintuitive results. With this theory of morality, virtue becomes vice and heroes become hellions.

Men and women may say that they believe that ethical truth is relative to society, but in their heart of hearts they know there is an ultimate, universal standard of moral truth that is to govern their lives, to which they must give an account (Rom 1:32). This ultimate standard of moral truth is revealed to us by God in three ways: 1) the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, 2) in nature, and most explicitly 3) in his Son, Christ Jesus our Lord. He has written his moral law on our hearts (Rom 2:15) and stated in clearly in the Ten Commandments. Even so, the conventionalist seeks to suppress God’s truth and ultimately trades it for a lie (Rom 1:18, 25).

Christians must resist conventionalism wherever it is found. Conventionalism renders the gospel of Jesus Christ meaningless. For biblical salvation presupposes repentance, and repentance an absolute moral law. Conventionalism seeks to do away with any absolute moral law, trivializing repentance, undermining biblical salvation, thus making nonsensical the cross of Christ. But, since it contradicts the God of the Scriptures, it is impossible to live according to conventionalism consistently. Therefore , it cannot in anyway possible be morally right. Conventionalism is just one of many ways humanity has tried to throw off God’s rule over us.

One reason people reject God’s standard and accept others, such as conventionalism, is because God’s law is perfect (Ps 19:7) and demands perfection from us. But no one can live up to this standard. Only in Jesus Christ, who was sent by the Father, and came to earth in the form of a man (Phil 2:6f) is there hope. He lived in perfect obedience under the law of God; he died the death that no other man past, present or future could ever endure; he bore the sins of all those who would believe. The third day he arose again from the dead, and showed himself to his disciples. He ascended into heaven and is sitting on the right hand of God the Father Almighty. Trusting Jesus Christ is the only hope for humanity’s moral problem. God alone is our ultimate standard for morality; not society, not ourselves, only him.

If they are right, they are wrong...

I have an apologetic maxim that I have tried to instill into both my girls. That is, “If they are right, then they are wrong”—the “they” being unbelievers. One of the most (ironically) consistent entailments of every non-Christian outlook is self-contradiction. This problem haunts the reasoning of everyone who will not evaluate things in light of God’s redemptive-providential plan and rule in Christ. If they are correct in their premises, they will draw contradictory conclusions, and vise versa. This is the folly of those who will not build their house of knowledge on the sure rock of Christ's enduring word.

The following editorial exchange is an explicit example of this problem. For a little background, the Daniel Esau reference is to a letter Mr. Esau wrote seeking to vindicate religion in general and Christianity is particular from secularist’s letters attacking the sam

I’m not particularly interested in standing with Mr. Esau in his attempt to defend the abstraction “religion.” I only know of particular religions, and only one that is defensible, namely Christianity. Ms. Hawkins had a similar interest, narrowing her focus to Christianity, so I felt obliged to answer.

'True religion' depends on one's beliefs

I read with interest the commentary by Daniel Esau, "Religion has accomplished much good" (Oct. 30), on his defense of religion. I certainly wouldn't argue with his list of good deeds done in the name of Christianity, though good-hearted people with or without religion contribute to the same causes. But I take exception to his use of the words "true religion" and "false religion." When it comes to spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.

Muslims believe theirs is the true religion. That some have chosen the path of terror does not negate its peaceful side any more than our criminals define all Americans. And we all know that within the Christian religion there are many deviations of what each considers the truth.

Major violence throughout history began when one religion decided to spread its beliefs to the entire world by force, a concept that Jesus never taught. History has shown that Christianity and Islam are the two main culprits of this phenomenon.

Many historians believe that the seeds of Islamic terror began with the first Crusade in 1095 when Christians invaded Jerusalem and massacred the entire Muslim population. People tend to remember things like that.

ROSEMARY HAWKINS

My response...

Letter writer’s belief depends on opinion

“True religion depends on one’s beliefs” (Rosemary Hawkins’ letter, Nov. 4) and regarding “spiritual beliefs, truth is a matter of opinion.”

Strangely, Hawkins perceives herself to be free from the slough of religious irrationalism that she imposes on others. One can only conclude with Hawkins that religious truth is merely opinion and thus autobiographical, without objective meaning; or that Hawkins believes to possess that privileged place of objectivity that allows her to pass universal judgment on religious truth claims.

If it’s the former, then her letter was just one more person’s “spiritual belief” expressing a distaste for other religious perspectives, which isn’t very remarkable. However, if it’s the latter, then she believes her letter conveyed objective truth about religion and her point is self-contradictory.

Hawkins’ view has the pretense of even-handedness. But the fact is that it’s just one more perspective that claims to have religious truth cornered.

Because the Christian Scriptures teach that Christ is the Truth and the exclusive Way, all contrary claims are false by definition, including Islam. Therefore, Hawkins’ denial of such claims is just another way of saying that Christianity is a “false religion,” the very thing she wants to “take exception” with.

KEVIN STEVENSON

Presuppositionalism Applied II

McLoughlin's madness seems to have no stops. After six or so months of silence without McLoughlin attacking the Faith in the Bedford Bulletin, he struck again this week with the following letter to the Editor. My response follows.

No belief in a god

Mark Twain said “faith is believing what you know ain’t so.” Maybe that’s why at least one billion people have no belief in a god. These non-believers come from the safest, healthiest, most educated, most charitable, most technologically advanced and most crime-free nations on earth, according to the research of Zuckerman. Countries with high percentages of unbelievers include global bright spots like Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Japan, Canada and France. These people are not the world’s idiots.

Also, scientists as a group fail to see these “obvious” gods whom believers keep talking about. Despite the fact that the U. S. is a highly religious society, almost all elite American scientists are non-believers. Researchers Larson and Witham found that only 1 percentof the National Academy of Sciences members were believers. To many of them, reliance on faith is a complete surrender of the mind or at least a stubborn reluctance to think. Why, for example, shouldn’t a person who defends her god on faith, not defend the existence of the thousands of other gods? Maybe, as Dawkins says, everyone is an atheist except for their god. If a Christian were born in Iraq rather than the US, he/she would surely have been a Muslim. What does this say about the uniqueness of the Christian God?

It’s clear that arguments based on reason and reality are not likely to have much of an impact on a concept that has nothing to do with either. Further, faith doesn’t lose debates because it doesn’t play by the rules. Dawkins says, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.”

Many thousands of excavations have been conducted all over the world and not one artifact has been found that provides direct evidence of even one god, one miracle, one angel, one genie, or one demon. The shroud of Turin is but one example of the many frauds that have been perpetrated. So where is the scientific evidence for a god? Charles Darwin said, “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge. It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.” Maybe Lucretius was right, “Fear was the first thing on earth to make gods.” Or maybe Mark Twain was right, “it ain’t the parts of the Bible that I can’t understand that bothers me, it is the parts that I do understand.” Or maybe Aristotle was right, “Prayers and sacrifices are of no avail” and “men created gods after their own image.” Xenophanes speculated that "if horses had gods, those gods would be horses.”

Many will use Hitler as an example of the horrors of unbelief, but he is the wrong choice for atheism’s poster boy. Hitler was not an atheist, at least not according to his own written and spoken words. He was raised a Christian and as an adult quoted the Bible and drew upon religion for inspiration. From Mein Kampf: “Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator. By defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” Even more significant, virtually all of his enthusiastic supporters were believers too, from his generals right down to the Third Reich’s privates. It wasn’t atheists delivering Jews to death camps. It was believers. Without a doubt, future generations will shake their heads and wonder how this could have happened. They do today.

David McLoughlin, Feb. 24, 2010

The Faith of Unbelief

As Christian philosopher C. S. Lewis said, “Good philosophy exists if for no other reason than to answer bad philosophy.” Few examples better typify the latter like David McLoughlin’s last letter, “No belief in a god” (02/24). It teemed with sophomoric desperation and demonstrated that McLoughlin can plainly understand the nature of neither faith nor the debate.

McLoughlin owned Richard Dawkin’s comment, “Faith is evil precisely because it requires no justification and brooks no argument.” This invokes three concepts: Faith, morality and rationality. These are interrelated.

First, Christians happily confess that faith in the absolute-personal God of the Bible provides the necessary grounding for our experience and interpretation of morality and rationality. McLoughlin must also answer the grounding question from his atheistic perspective.

McLoughlin’s quote speaks of “evil.” Within an atheistic worldview, what in the world is evil? Apart from the Christian God, what ultimate reference point is there that can serve as a universal, absolute standard for making judgments about human behavior? All atheistic answers to this question are reducible to crass relativism. Relativism says that “morals” are the emotive responses of mere personal tastes. Accordingly, McLoughlin—in logical keeping with his atheism—is only imposing his personal tastes on everyone else, when he says that your and my commitment to Christ is “evil.” Driven to consistency, there isn’t a principled difference between what McLoughlin has attempted with this remark and saying that the group of people who favor chocolate over vanilla ice-cream are committing “evil” in their commitment. In short, what philosophical right does any atheist have to call anything objectively “evil”? We’ve yet to hear a reasonable answer to this question.

Closely related is the “is-to-ought” problem that atheists must face. Unmistakably, McLoughlin contrasts us “common people who gladly hear Jesus” (Mark 12:37) with the “most educated,” “elite” atheistic scientists. Scientists, however, are restricted to empirical or physical observations for their conclusions. Therefore, as David Hume concluded, there is no rational justification, per atheistic science, for moving from the observable “what is the case,” describing human behavior, to “what ought to be the case,” prescribing human behavior and conduct. Granting McLoughlin’s outlook, then, we’re left with the atheists’ strong-armed “Might makes right” brand of ethics—what’s commonly called tyranny.

Secondly, regarding rationality. From the foregoing, it’s obvious that McLouglin has no standard, as do Christians, which could morally obligate all people everywhere to regiment their thinking in a rational and coherent manner. Additionally, his atheism “brooks no argument” for the why and the how of human reasoning, as many of my past letters have demonstrated. However, the problems don’t stop here. McLoughlin is far from faith-neutral; he has his faith commitments as well, despite how much he deplores the fact. His outlook additionally suffers from what’s called the problem of criterion.

McLoughlin speaks authoritatively about “reality,” presuming to pronounce what is and isn’t possible. How, though, does he know that God is not a reality? Because, “scientists fail to see” God. That notwithstanding, what criterion of rationality have these scientists adopted for their investigation of reality but purely empirical methods. We may now ask, How do they know that an empirical-only method is the proper criterion for evaluating and investigating reality? There is only one answer to this question in terms of McLoughlin’s position.

An empirical-only criterion would be rational if, and only if, atheistic scientists begin with the presupposition that reality is material-only. That is, McLoughlin and his gods (i.e., ultimate authorities) begin with the deep faith commitment that reality is such that nothing immaterial can exist, and that well before they select their method or criterion for exploring reality. They begin with faith, plain and simple, that reality is Godless, and upon that faith they adopt a criterion that would preclude any detection of such a Being (since “God is spirit,” John 4:24). Then, in perfect accord with their controlling faith commitment to the non-existence of God, they interpret, or rather sift, the evidence round about them in perfect harmony with their controlling presupposition of a Godless reality.

Of course, McLoughlin and his sort find the idea of faith repugnant. But there’s no way around it. We all must begin somewhere and with some final authority, which has Crown-rights over all our thinking—that is faith. For Christians, this trust is placed in the Self-attesting, Creator-Redeemer Christ speaking in the Scriptures; for atheists, like McLoughlin, it’s something in creation (Romans 1:18—32). And this is the good news, that Jesus Christ died in such a way that the ungodly like you, me, and McLoughlin could be redeemed from our cosmic treason and rebellion; our de-Godding of God; or, our “bad philosophy,” as C. S. Lewis put it.

Kevin Stevenson, Year of our Lord, Feb. 25, 2010

Right Reasoning, pt. II, Modus Tollens

To continue our series in valid forms of argument...

II. Modus Tollens (Latin, lit. “The mode of taking”):

A. Formally stated:

1. If P is the case, the Q is also the case;
2. Not-Q,
3. Therefore, not-P

B. 1. Illustrated from ethics:

(Here I cite Gregory Koukl and Francis Beckwith’s Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air, 1999, 65.)

“In like fashion [to B. F. Skinner’s conclusions in Beyond Freedom and Dignity], relativists must remove the words praise and blame from their vocabularies. But if the notions of praise and blame are valid, then relativism must be false.”

The line of reasoning is modus tollens.

i. If (P) moral relativism is the case, then (Q) the words praise and blame are unintelligible.

ii. But, (not-Q) the words praise and blame are valid moral categories (even presupposed by relativists!).

iii. Therefore, (not-P) relativism is not the case.

B. 2. Illustrated from Scripture (1 John 2:19, speaking of the antichrist heretics):

“They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us.”

Again, modus tollens.

i. If (P) they had been of us, then (Q) they would have continued with us.

ii. But (not-Q) they did not continue with us.

iii. Therefore, (not-P) they were not of us.

B. 3. Illustrated from Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s Sherlock Holmes, “The Adventure of Silver Blaze” (since Sherlock Holmes is Beaner new favorite movie!):

“A dog was kept in the stalls, and yet, though someone had been in and fetched out a horse, the dog had not barked. Obviously the visitor was someone whom the dog knew well...”

i. If (P) the horse thief was a stranger, then (Q) the dog would have barked, since the dog always barks at strangers.

ii. But (not-Q) the dog never barked.

iii. Therefore, (not-P) the horse thief was not a stranger.

C. The fallacy factor:

As with the modus ponens, discussed in pt. I of the Right Reasoning series, the modus tollens is susceptible to a formal logical fallacy, namely the fallacy of 'denying the antecedent.' (Remember, in the case of an “If...then” conditional statement, the “If” clause is the antecedent, and the “then” clause is the consequent.)

Obviously, the fallacious attempt at a modus tollens would formally follow like this:

1. If P, then Q;
2. Not-P,
3. Therefore, not-Q.

However, the conclusion, though perhaps true, doesn’t follow from the premises. This too is an invalid line of inference.

Consider this.

1. If (P) the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints (i.e., that the elect will persevere in their faith to the end) is true, then (Q) no Christian would denounce the faith.

2. However, (not-Q) some once-professed Christians do denounce the faith.

3. Therefore, (not-P) the doctrine of the perseverance of the saints is not true.

It is amazing how many Arminians believe this to be a reasonable argument!

D. This last argument is valid, yet unsound: (see section D of Right Reasoning, pt I).

Hypocrisy: a great reason to be a Christian

While at work this afternoon, I was able to catch bits and pieces of an interview with Carrie Prejean, former Miss USA, on a conservative talk radio program. (I’ll take for granted that you’re aware of the firestorm of controversy surrounding this young lady.) In part, the program seemed to be a plug for her new book, Still Standing. According to what Miss Prejean said, the book is an exposé of sorts, explaining how she has bravely weathered the persecution from the Leftists, due solely to her stand for traditional marriage, which is the only reason in her mind.

The whole issue of Prejean’s new role as the Right’s poster child for political persecution notwithstanding, the interview evoked some thoughts of on the topic of hypocrisy, particularly of those times when the unbeliever raises the classic “so many hypocrites in the Church” as an objection to coming to believing obedience in Christ.

Douglas Wilson, in one chapter of his artful book, Persuasions, faces the problem of hypocrisy in the Church with an interlocutor named Dorothy. Dorothy feels that she could not lower herself to be on the same team with so many losers, so many hypocrites, and thus join herself to the Church. Wilson makes two salient counterpoints.

First, Wilson affirms that hypocrisy in completely inconsistent with Christian ethics. He subsequently demonstrates that between God and man the relationship is either for or against, reconciliation or enmity. After a question or two, Wilson leads Dorothy to the concession that God is against hypocrites. In Wilson’s insightful style, he explains to Dorothy that she’s actually on the hypocrites’ team already, as God is against unrepentant sinners, those who rebel against his Lordship and scorn his offer of grace and mercy in Christ Jesus. Wilson drives the point home by ironically concluding that hypocrisy in the Church is precisely why he could never be an unbeliever; unbelievers share the roster with hypocrites—God is against both.

In a slightly more indirect manner, he reveals the irresolvable paradox Christians face under the merciless scrutiny of the unbelieving world. One the one hand, if a believer is in wonton sin or scandal, and his/her church exercises ecclesiastical discipline in order to restore the believer to the high moral standard of the kingdom of Christ, then Christians are immediately labeled by unbelievers as being self-righteous and bigoted, lacking feeling and empathy.

On the other hand, if the Church fails to address open sin among its people, then the charge is always, “What a bunch of hypocrites!” The point here being, whether the Church takes action or passively tolerates sin in her ranks through inaction or indifference, the unbeliever’s sword of criticism always cuts both ways.

The other day Steve (see Steve at stevegalt.blogspot.com) and I were discussing this very topic. He recalled a response he once used in a dialogue. Essentially, he began by admitting that all believers are hypocrites at one point or another in their pilgrimage, this much is as undeniable as it is inexcusable. However, he invited his friend to examine the high moral calling of the Gospel; pointing out that because of the holiness of the One setting the standard, Christ simply cannot say, “Oh, sin just a little and you’ll be fine.” No, rather, the standard for the Christian is no less than Perfection—Jesus himself.

Steve then asked his friend to examine the demands of the ethical options open to the unbeliever. Because the rejection of biblical law leads directly to moral relativism, the only moral standard available to the unbeliever is the one self-imposed. That is, they simply get to set their own standard. Apart from the absolute morality of God’s Word, all value judgments are reducible to emotive expressions: “That is evil!” becomes “Yuck! I don’t like that!”

Now, Steve’s point was that even people who arbitrarily set a moral standard for themselves still live lives that are very often inconsistent with that low standard they’ve set. They too are hypocritical.

At the end of the day, the objection from hypocrisy is an ad hominem attack; it has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the claims of Christ speaking in the Scriptures.

We must also ask, What right does an unbeliever have to make value judgments, particularly against the Faith? When they make the judgment that it’s wrong to live without integrity, what standard are they assuming in their valuation? Without assuming that law of Christ, they’re simply imposing their self-made standard on others...something else they complain we Christians do. We’re too intolerant of the perspectives of others, they say. Just ask Perez Hilton, he’s so tolerant. Ah, more hypocrisy!

Therefore, hypocrisy is everyone’s problem. As Wilson put it, it’s another great reason to never become an unbeliever.

IT’S ALL RELATIVE, OR IS IT?

Do you remember the day when the most often quoted verse in the Bible was, “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life,” from John 3:16? That is no longer so today.

Although few people know where it comes from, the most cited verse today is Matthew 7:1, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” Why the shift?

The reason is that many people, sadly many Christians too, wrongly identify it with an increasingly popular idea known as relativism. Relativism says that all truth, especially in the domains of morality and religion is relative to the viewpoint of the individual, culture or religion. Hence, “there is no objective, absolute truth,” says the relativist, and “all religious and moral truth claims ought to be treated as equally true and valid.”

This is a favorite tactic to muzzle Christians today, but it has nothing to do with what Jesus meant in Matthew 7:1 (just read the rest of the chapter!). Moreover, such statements are self defeating; they fail to meet their own criteria. If they’re right, they’re wrong.

To illustrate this point, listen to a discussion between Paul and Joe.

“All truth is relative to the individual,” says Paul.

Joe replies, “And my truth, Paul, is that relativism is false. Do you agree?”

“NO!”

“Then you don’t believe that truth is relative to the individual, so relativism is false?” asks Joe.

Bob, seeking to recover, says, “Yes, I guess that I do agree with you then.”

“Then you do agree with me, that relativism is false, right?!?”

For Paul to say anything is for Paul to say nothing.

This dialogue demonstrates the self contradictory nature of relativism. If something is self contradictory, it is necessarily false.

Turning to morality, the one who says that “No one should ever push their moral beliefs onto others” is in fact guilty in doing that very thing. The statement itself is a moral judgment about truth. The words ‘no one’ make it universal; ‘should ever’ qualifies it as absolute, thus making it an absolute moral judgment which everyone ought to believe! But an absolute, universal morality and truth is the very thing this person is clamoring against.

The most popular area of application of relativism is in the realm of religious truth claims.

The fact that there is an increasing diversity of religious perspectives in our culture has given rise to the notion that such diversity proves that religious truth is subjective to the individual and therefore relative. This simply does not follow. The fact that there are an infinite number of possible answers to the problem 10 times 10 in no way disproves that the only true answer is 100. Just because a belief may be subjectively true or false, it does not follow from that that it is not also objectively true or false—even absolutely and universally so. To claim otherwise would be self contradictory.

Again, consider this: “All religions are equally true and valid.” If this statement is true, it is false. For if it is true, Christianity also is true. And if Christianity is true, it is true that all other religions are false. Therefore, the statement that “all religions are equally true and valid” is false. Contrariwise, claiming that Christianity is not true, because it claims that all other religions are false, then the statement is still false because it has now said that the Christian religion is not true. So any way you cut the cake, relativism is false!

I grant, for argument’s sake, that if Christianity is not true, then relativism is the best we can hope for. It also must be granted though that if relativism is false, as shown above, then it is Christianity or nothing; Christianity or irrationalism; Christianity or moral anarchy.

So Christian, may I suggest to you that if you are flirting with the philosophy of relativism, you repent. Relativism renders the Gospel of Jesus meaningless. For biblical salvation presupposes repentance, repentance an absolute moral Law; relativism seeks to do away with that Law, trivializing repentance, undermining biblical salvation, thus making nonsensical the cross of Christ.

And to all who would quote “Judge not...” desiring to identify it with the ridiculous notions of relativism, I would suggest that you rather quote Isaiah, who says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (5:20). Since that is the logical end of relativism.



Kevin

Rallying with a Relativist

“It’s wrong to impose your morals on others!”

Uh…pardon me, but when you tell me it’s wrong to do something, aren’t you imposing your morals on me?

“There are no absolutes.”

That in itself is an absolute statement.

“No one’s moral opinion is valid because we all speak from how we’ve been indoctrinated.”

Well, I guess that would apply to you as well, which means what you’ve just said isn’t valid either.

“Everyone should be able to believe whatever they want!”

Then why are you arguing with me?

“Life is meaningless!”

Would you consider that a meaningful statement?

“You can’t know anything for sure.”

You seem rather sure about that.

“Students, no view of reality is superior to any other.”

Then why are you grading our papers?

“You have no right to say truth is external! We all create our own reality!”

Then I’m your fault.

“Oh, here we go again, another right-wing fundamentalist making bold assertions of fact!”

Pardon me, but didn’t you just make a bold assertion of fact?

“There is no right; there is no wrong.”

Is that statement right or wrong?

“You can’t tell anybody they’re wrong.”

Am I wrong in doing so?


From Frank Peretti’s The Wounded Spirit, (Nashville, TN: Word Publishing, 2000) pp. 117-118