Christian Relativism

[Puritan Sailor]

I know, I know, it's an oxymoron. But I've been confronting this problem for some time now with someone. How do you deal with it?

It goes like this:
Everyone's interpretation is different.
No one is right.
The Holy Spirit teaches us differently.
So we can't judge one another for the doctrines we hold.
We all have a peice of the puzzle and we need to learn from one anothers views.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
As long as we believe on Jesus, nothing else matters.


Can anyone relate to this? And if so, how have you overcome it? Has anyone been able break through to people like this?

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by puritansailor]
Edited to be less emotional or inflammatory. Let's just stick with the primary concern.

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[Bladestunner316]

I feel ya brother I deal with the same thing with my grandma and old arminain friends of mine. You just gota stand firm and pray for no two christians are going to see alike. Peter even said that the things Paul spoke of were hard things and he was an apostle let alone walked with God!!!

Persevere in Love thats all I can say

In Christ
Blade

 

[yeutter]

I can relate. This kind of post modern thought has become commonplace in this generation. Sadly it has seeped over from the acadamy to the main stream of society.

The approach I take assumes they are not completely sold on post modern thinking.

With fellow history students and coworkers, I answer it by talking about the nature of all truth. It is constant. Then I challenge them to demonstrate why they are certain that truth about God, who is the author of all truth is not knowable. If A does not equal -A in other spheres why is this not a valid premice when we deal with eternal truth.

What their responce is determines where I take it from there.

 

[Ianterrell]

I think approaching a strong view of scripture helps to defeat that. I've found that some people don't understand the logical connection between world-view and practice. If you can excavate that connection it may help.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Pat,
It is a losing battle if the person on the other end does not have the same convictions as well as that percent of grace that enables truth to seep in and detect error.

Remember, I have previously mentioned the Calvary Chapel movement? This is how they think. They read a section of sdcripture, much like a fortune cookie, and seek to rationalize what God is trying to say to THEM.

I say, just shake your head (nod) and pray silently!

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Scott Bushey]

 

[Bladestunner316]

30So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
31And he said, "How can I, unless someone guides me?" And he asked Philip to come up and sit with him.

Very rarely does God enlighten us on our own concerning divine truths it does happen but its important to have like minded christians to help us along the way.

blade

 

[Scott Bushey]

Nat,
The scriptures say that each one is given a certain amount of faith. This faith is what will guide the amount of knowledge we can discern.

Mat 13:23 But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.

 

[Dan....]

This is exactly the situation that Keith Mathison discusses in his book, "The Shape of Sola Scriptura".

We all have our "own" interpretation of the scriptures, and who are you to say that my interpretation is wrong? This thinking is subjective and leads to outright rejection of authoritative truth.

The individualism of our modern society has led to a rejection of the true meaning of [i:69e437ff70]sola scriptura[/i:69e437ff70].


(Have I mentioned that I highly recommend the book, [i:69e437ff70]The Shape of Sola Scriptura[/i:69e437ff70] by Keith Mathison?? :yes::yes: )

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Dan,
Does Mathison address how to talk to people who think like that?

 

[BrianLanier]

Paul, I just wanted to thank you again for recommending Copi and Cohen on Logic (along with Engel and Bahnsen's course). I am working through Copi and Cohen along side of Engel and then I am going to listen to Bahnsen as he overviews it. So far, It is extremely helpful. I can see the fruit of such a study in how you reason (argue) as seen above and in your other posts...[besides The Passion threads (tongue in cheek)!..only because I disagreed]. Anyways thanks brother!

Brian

 

[Dan....]

Now that I think more about it, it seems that what you are describing would be more the logical end of what Mathison refers to as tradition 0.


Mathison identifies 4 traditions:

[b:b69a6a14e3]Tradition 1:[/b:b69a6a14e3] That held by the early theologians of the church (Irenaeus,Clement, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Athenasius, Hilary, Cyril) "[i:b69a6a14e3]The scripture was to be interpreted by the Church, and in the Church within the context of the [u:b69a6a14e3]regula fidei[/u:b69a6a14e3] (rule of faith)...The Church was the interpreter and gurdian of the Word of God, and the [u:b69a6a14e3]regula fidei[/u:b69a6a14e3] was a summary of the apostolic preaching and hermeneutical context of the Word of God. But only the scripture [u:b69a6a14e3]was[/u:b69a6a14e3] the Word of God.[/i:b69a6a14e3]" (pg 48). This was the tradition that was revisited by the Reformers. "[i:b69a6a14e3]Like the anchient fathers before them, the asserted scripture as the sole source of revelation and denied the existance of equal authoritative extra-scriptural revelation. They asserted that scripture was to be interpreted in and by the Church and that it was to be interpreted by the anchient apostolic teaching of the Church-the [u:b69a6a14e3]regula fidei[/u:b69a6a14e3].[/i:b69a6a14e3]." (pg 120).

[b:b69a6a14e3]Tradition 2:[/b:b69a6a14e3] The view popularized in the Middle Ages; the view that the Roman Catholics finally officially dogmatized in the Council of Trent, "[i:b69a6a14e3]maintaining the existance of extra-scriptural sources of revelation equally authoritative as the scripture[/i:b69a6a14e3]" (pg81).

[b:b69a6a14e3]Tradition 3:[/b:b69a6a14e3] "[i:b69a6a14e3]In recent centuries Rome's position has begun to develop into a tradition III view in which the real source of revelation is neither scripture nor tradition but instead is the living magisterium. Whatever Rome says today is the apostolic faith. Scripture and tradition are to be interpreted by Rome to support whatever Rome teaches.[/i:b69a6a14e3] (pgs 151,152).

[b:b69a6a14e3]Tradition 0:[/b:b69a6a14e3] This was the view of the radical reformation. "[i:b69a6a14e3]The true authority of the rule of faith and of the church was completely rejected by the radicals....there is no sense in which tradition of any kind has any true authority. The individual believer needs only the Holy Spirit and the Scripture....In eighteenth-century America, this anabaptistic individualism combined with Enlightenment rationalism and democratic populism to make a radical version of Tradition 0, which has prevailed to this day[/i:b69a6a14e3]" (pg 152).

He expends much time going through a historical analysis of all the positions. He then looks at particular verses of scripture to show how some are misunderstood by Rome and some misuderstood by the proponents of Tradition 0.

He then more thoroughly critiques the various positions and final shows the the true nature of [i:b69a6a14e3]Sola Scriptura[/i:b69a6a14e3].

He builds the doctrine of [i:b69a6a14e3]Sola Scriptura[/i:b69a6a14e3] by the following points:


1. Scripture is the sole source of revelation.
2. The perfection of the Scriptures (its completeness as a source of revelation)
3. The Sufficiency of the Scriptures
4. Scripture as the final authoritative norm
5. The Inspiration of the scriptures
6. The Infallibility of the scriptures.
7. The Scriptures carry the authority of God Himself.
8. The scriptures are the supreme norm.
9. Scripture is to be interpreted in and by the Church
10. Ecclesiastical authority (is not ruled out by the scriptures being the final and supreme authority)
11. The Coporate judgment of the covenant community
12. Scripture is to be interpreted according to the rule of faith.



Anyway... I would say that at least 1/4 of the book is on combating the subjectivism of modern evangelicalism. If we can combat the modernist, then possibly less would be drawn to the post-modernism.



[Edited on 5-7-2004 by Dan....]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Thanks Dan, I'll look into the book. It sounds helpful.

[quote:e13538a155]
(1) I am sorry that you think pedophilia is o.k. (think about that)
(2) Neither are you
(3) "God is not the author of confusion." Also, teaching us "differently" is not the same logical proposition as teaching us "different *things*."
(4) Why did Paul judge Hymanaeus? Why did Jesus judge Peter (stand behind me satan)? Are you better than Jesus and Paul?
(5) This is fine. Let us remember that it is ONE puzzle though, not many puzzles. I don't have the "corner" on all truths. And we do need to learn from one another (proverbs).
(6) Could be in some situations. But your view precludes this. If there is truth and someone holds it then your #2 cannot be correct.
(7) Good. I have always wanted to have my pedophilia accepted..thank you for letting me know that I can molest children. [/quote:e13538a155]
Paul, this is why I labeled it Christian Relativism instead of moral relativism. You and I both know that they logically end up at the same place. But the form of Christian Relativism I am dealing with still understands that some things are "obviously" wrong. By what standard? Well, the "clear" teachings of Scripture.

So I never went to the pedophilia conclusion because that is mutually accepted as "clearly" wrong. There is no denying that there is absolute truth. They only deny that we can know the truth completely, because we're not God. So who are we to judge who's right and wrong in their interpretations of Scripture? I suspect that it's really a form of pride; they refuse to admit they may be wrong, so they lower the standard and say no one can be completely right in order that they may continue to cling to their bosom errant doctrines without threat of judgment from others. After all it is "just your interpretation."

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by puritansailor]

 

[Puritan Sailor]

[quote:874b9aebc9][i:874b9aebc9]Originally posted by Bladestunner316[/i:874b9aebc9]
Persevere in Love thats all I can say
[/quote:874b9aebc9]

This really does sum it up Nathan. Thanks. :thumbup:

 

[Bladestunner316]

Your Welcome Patrick heres a good verse Ive been reading through Galatians alot lately so this may help also.

Galatians 6


Bear and Share the Burdens


Bear and Share Burdens
1 Brethren, if a man is overtaken in any trespass, you who are spiritual restore such a one in a spirit of gentleness, considering yourself lest you also be tempted.


Specifically spirit of gentlness one thing ive got to learn is that like with my grandma and others is that I have to be gentle in spirit with them over these things instead of an iron fist type fo approach.

Cause I know many times Id wish people would be more gentle with me when confronting me with a particular issue etc..

blade

 

[Mary]

Puritan Sailor wrote:
[quote:fcac261edd]
So I never went to the pedophilia conclusion because that is mutually accepted as "clearly" wrong.
[/quote:fcac261edd]

Patrick, I am sorry to bring this up, but there is a Christian Boylove Forum (www.cblf.org). Now, are they REALLY Christians? No. BUT THEY THINK THEY ARE. Although most mainstream Christian would fight that, even more lukewarm denoms. However, 30 years ago, virtually no mainstream Christians would have been pro-homosexuality, either. Things change. And that is (I believe) the deeper problem with any kind of relativism (moral or Christian): it changes constantly. What is immoral today is fine tomorrow, etc.

I really believe that most Christians today honestly buy into the relativism thing. "There are many roads to the top of the mountain but they all lead to the same peak." "All religions are just using their own cultural background to grow in thier understanding of the divine." I keep hearing from my "Christian" family members that they "guess" that God really doesn't mind gay marriage, because, after all, they're decent people who just want to be committed. That can't be wrong, can it? This is from people who CONSIDER THEMSELVES to be conservative Christians. (Note my distinction). And they're family, not people I'm getting into debates with on the street. I know them, and I know they are sincere in their beliefs.

I remember when I was in Jr. High, some nun (can't remember her name now) went toe-to-toe with JP II over abortion. He eventually had her ex-communicated, but she was completely sincere in her belief that the rule was wrong, and JP was a sexist pig for daring to interfere with a woman's "right to choose." Of course, JP was only using the Bible as his basis for the rule, but that didn't stop Sr. Whatshername. And she became a major folk hero around metro Detroit.

Hope my ramblings make a little sense?

Mary

 

[Mary]

Ack! When I say JP II was "only using the Bible" as his basis, I mean that in a tongue-in-cheek way. As in, the nun is supposed to be "married to God" - you'd think she might care what the Bible actually teaches!!!!!

The prevailing mood among Christians seems to be discomfort that we were ever so "arrogant" as to believe that Jesus was the only path to God. It's the kind of embarrassment you hear a lot of these days. The same kind of embarrassment we hear nationally around Columbus Day. I am constantly hearing how close-minded and judgemental I am, based on the fact that I say there IS such a thing as right and wrong, and I form my opinions based on the Bible.

Copi & Cohen - are those the "Intro to Logic" guys? (BTW, one of them was a bigwig philosophy prof at Michigan for about 90 years.) I took an "intro to logic" class when I was in college. It was a disaster!! First of all, I'm not a great abstract thinker. Second of all, the prof was from Nigeria, and had the wickedest accent I've ever had to deal with. He made Apu sound like Prince Charles in comparision. Needless to say, I ended up dropping the class, and have hidden from all philosophy ever since!

Anyway, enough babbling for now. I hope I have added something fruitful to the discussion.

Mary

 

[Gregg]

[quote:4275977482][i:4275977482]Originally posted by puritansailor[/i:4275977482]
I know, I know, it's an oxymoron. But I've been confronting this problem for some time now with someone. How do you deal with it?

It goes like this:
Everyone's interpretation is different.
No one is right.
The Holy Spirit teaches us differently.
So we can't judge one another for the doctrines we hold.
We all have a peice of the puzzle and we need to learn from one anothers views.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.
As long as we believe on Jesus, nothing else matters.


Can anyone relate to this? And if so, how have you overcome it? Has anyone been able break through to people like this?

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by puritansailor]
Edited to be less emotional or inflammatory. Let's just stick with the primary concern.

[Edited on 5-7-2004 by puritansailor] [/quote:4275977482]

Reply...

I once lost a very close lady friend I was hoping to marry over something that was similar to this.

 

[Mary]

Gosh, I hope I didn't bring everyone down with the info about the forum. It turned my stomach, so I can only imagine how the parents on the board felt.

Gregg, one of the most difficult things in the world is making the decision to choose your faith (and the infinite love of God) over temporal love (whether intimate or familial). It grieves me to admit I have not always made the right choice.

Mary