The Narrow Road of Truth - Part 3

By David Barnett

Today, the post-modern spirit is rampant in our schools and universities, and a new definition for ‘tolerance’ has been formed. ‘Tolerance’ now means something along the lines of, ‘If what you have stated is true for you, then who am I to say that it is wrong?’; if a thought or theory is valid in one person’s mind, it must be held by all to be valid. And hence, society’s integral principle of ‘antithesis’, which literally holds civilization together, is done away with; ‘pluralism’ has re-emerged, and is, to quote Karl Marx out of context, ‘the opium of the people’. And yet, despite its sway in the universities and its frequent usage in political addresses to win the favour of the majority, the idea of ‘pluralism’ in the realm of ‘truth’ has only and can only take root in those fields which do not have any immediate consequences on the social-structures and general management and well-being of a society. Pluralism is widely-held in the Arts and in modern Philosophy, yet it would be the height of absurdity and a great danger to the public if our engineering firms and medical practitioners functioned on the basis of there being a plurality of truths, or truth as subjective. Take the following example.

Imagine a brain-surgeon telling his patient, “The clinic down the road believes that making micro-incisions with hi-tech utensils into the skull is the most affective and risk-free method for removing brain tumours. And yes, I freely admit: all outward evidence and recorded results would suggest that there is an extraordinarily high success-rate for operations performed in such a manner. However, that method doesn’t really hold true for me. I have a background in Hinduism, and I believe that there are unique healing properties in cow dung. Hence, I’ve brought in this cow, and so rather than me operate on you and remove the tumour, I instead want you to massage cow manure into your head where you believe the pain is. Repeat this process three times a day (after a meal preferably - but it doesn’t really matter, because it’s all relative) for exactly nine months.”

As foolish as this is, this line of reasoning is being accepted and propagated in various academic fields every day. I labour this point, because although the notion of antithesis (that is, that A is not non-A) is fundamental to the survival and well-being of society and the sanity of mankind; it is a notion which is denied on many fronts, not the least of which by some people who profess Christianity as their religion, though it is the most antithetical of all the religions of the world.

The Narrow Road of Truth – Part 2

By David Barnett

Thus the distinction between truth and errors is amplified clearly: straight and narrow and singular is that way which leads to everlasting life, that way which is encompassed in the teaching of Christ and the apostles; and on the contrary: broad and many are those ways which lead to everlasting misery, those ways which are proposed by false teachers and prophets.

This is all very important for our day, because the age in which we live is one of ‘pluralism’; which is to say, there are more truths than one truth; or to state the same negatively: there is no singular, perfect, harmonious unit of truth; or, to rephrase the same but in a more personal context (as it is usually heard today): ‘no one can lay claim to knowing the truth, especially if that truth says every other belief system is wrong’; i.e. no one today can claim what the New Testament writers claimed two-thousand years ago about the truth of Christianity. So prevalent is this idea in our society, that anyone who does believe in one substantial, objective system of truth - regardless of his world-view or religion - is seen to be ignorant, intolerant, and arrogant. The greater part of our post-modern society likes to believe in subjective truth, or a ‘plurality’ of truths; and even if they do not and can not consistently practice their profession, they will proclaim it till they die.

Perhaps this is no more clearly expressed than in the discussion about ‘religious tolerance’, where the irreligious obstinately insist that those who do have religious beliefs hold them less firmly, and be more accommodating of other peoples’ religious beliefs. Once upon a time, ‘tolerance’ was generally defined thus: whilst a person held strong views, they insisted that others had the right to dissent from those views and argue their own case. There was a threefold assumption under this old view of tolerance: 1) Objective truth is out there, and it is our duty to pursue that truth. 2) The various parties in a dispute think that they know what the truth of the matter is. 3) Nevertheless, they believe that the best chance of uncovering the truth of the matter is by the unhindered exchange of ideas; regardless of how wrong those ideas seem to other parties. Perhaps this was best summarised by Voltaire, who famously said, ‘I do not agree with a word that you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’.

The Narrow Road of Truth – Part 1

By David Barnett

N.B. Much of the discussion on ‘tolerance’ was derived from a sermon preached by D.A. Carson entitled ‘The Intolerance of Tolerance’. I’m sure you could find this sermon - free to download - if you googled it. For further discussion on ‘antithesis’ and the implications for a culture that shuns it, I would recommend the book ‘The God Who Is There’ and/or ‘Escape From Reason’ by Francis Schaeffer.

When the writers of the New Testament speak of the truth of Christianity, and that particular doctrine which encompasses it as an entity or system, it is always in the singular, i.e. ‘the truth’; that is, a unit - a perfect, harmonious, consistent and singular unit of truth. This is how the New Testament writers refer to the solitary truth of Christianity:

‘Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offences, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them’ (Rom. 16:17). ‘Take heed to yourself and to the doctrine’ (1 Tim. 4:16). ‘There is... one faith’ (Eph. 4:17). ‘If anyone wills to do His will, he shall know concerning the doctrine’ (Jn. 7:17). ‘And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free’ (Jn. 8:32). ‘For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness’ (Rom. 1:18). ‘The elder, to the elect lady and her children, whom I love in truth, and not only I, but also those who have known the truth’ (2 Jn. 1:1). ‘But when some were hardened and did not believe, but spoke evil of the Way before the multitude...; And about that time there arose a great commotion about the Way...; But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets’ (Acts 19:9, 23; 24:14). ‘...not pilfering, but showing all good fidelity, that they may adorn the doctrine of God our Saviour in all things’ (Titus 2:10). ‘He who formerly persecuted us now preaches the faith which he once tried to destroy’ (Gal. 1:23). ‘My brethren, do not hold the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with partiality’ (Jam. 2:1). ‘Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this doctrine, do not receive him into your house nor greet him’ (1 Jn. 9, 10). ‘...so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith’ (2 Tim. 3:8). ‘...contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints’ (Jude 3).

Though the terms used to describe the embodiment of the teaching of Christianity are varied in each context (such as ‘faith’, ‘teaching’, ‘doctrine’, ‘way’, ‘truth’, etc.), it should be obvious that they all, with the preceding definite article, encapsulate the single sum of the Christian faith as a whole. There was no plurality in truth or way or doctrine in the Christianity taught by either Christ, or His apostles. Conversely, when the inspired writers of Scripture warned against false doctrines and teachings and prophets, it was always in the plural sense:

‘But there were also false prophets among the people, even as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies... And many will follow their destructive ways, because of whom the way of truth will be blasphemed’ (2 Pet. 2:1, 2). ‘...Which all concern things which perish with the using - according to the commandments and doctrines of men’ (Col. 2:22). ‘...not giving heed to Jewish fables and commandments of men who turn from the truth’ (Titus 1:14). ‘For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away form the truth, and be turned aside to fables’ (2 Tim. 4: 3, 4). ‘Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world’ (1 Jn. 4:1). ‘Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons’ (1 Tim. 4:1).

That is, deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, plural; in contradistinction to the blessed Spirit of Truth, who alone teaches the believer all things (1 Jn. 2:27; Jn. 14:26). And so it goes...

In real life, there is no such thing as an Atheist.

Note: This post is a follow-on from a previous post that I wrote on Friday, October 3, 2008 entitled “Militant Atheism and Logical Fallacies”, this directs the reader also to some resources by Dr R. C. Sproul (links at the bottom of the post).

All credit goes to "Wretched Radio" for finding the short film mentioned in this blog post.

____________________________________________________________

I know I wasn’t alive in 1973, but there have always been “One hit wonders” that come on the radio, even today. Clint Holmes is no exception either. His song “Playground In My Mind” got to number 2 on the charts 36 years ago. The song is famous for the line “Oh the wonders that I find, In the playground in my mind”.

Frankly, that’s where some ideas should stay. Nevertheless, there are some ideas that get let out into the open, despite the exhortation from Mum and Dad to “think before you speak”. One of these ideas that escaped that parental filter is commonly known to us as Atheism.

Christians are so often on the defence when it comes to debates about the existence of God, and there is a time for using an “evidentialist” approach to defending The Faith (apologetics). However, better to be on the offence (2 Corinthians 10:5) since we must contend earnestly for The Faith (Jude 3).

Logic is another tool for Christians to “wield the sword” (so to speak), and to have an attacking position in a debate with an “Atheist”. Logic can be posed in question form. For instance if I want to do what the Proverbs say and “answer a fool according to his folly”, I might say to an Atheist, “How can someone tell me that murder is wrong, if my DNA made me do it?” or “Why shouldn’t someone be able to kill you right now? Why should they be held responsible?”.

Consider the above question posed a different way in this short film (below) “Cruel Logic” (click here for more info).



Obviously, for a Christian, actually kidnapping an Atheist and shocking him with a Taser is not an option that we have. Nevertheless, the film does bring up a vital point.
That an Atheist cannot answer the question of Morality. Meaning “Who get’s to decide right and wrong?” Nietzsche understood the Atheist Philosophy, Nietzsche connected the dots to where Atheism must eventually go, if this Atheist thinking is true. It may sound a bit strange but I respect Nietzsche, he was honest about his philosophy, and if there ever could be such thing as an Atheist, Nietzsche would have to be one of only a few.

As Christians, we know that God is the ultimate author of right and wrong. He determines the standards because He is THE standard. Amazingly, He has chosen to reveal His standard through His Word (The Bible), and most importantly He has chosen to reveal Himself in the person of His Son. Refusing to acknowledge this means refusing to accept an ultimate morality, whereby murder is spelled out as a Sin, punishable by Eternity in a Lake of Fire. Having denied this very truth, the Atheist is stuck. Dawkin’s and friends cannot even provide reasons for saving their own lives. That is why there are no Atheist’s in real life.

Exodus sermon series by Dr Noel Due

This year has begun with a look back to the beginnings of God's people. Dr Noel Due is taking his congregation through the Book of the Exodus. And you needn't miss out! Each Sunday afternoon Noel's sermon will be uploaded onto www.sermonaudio.com

To go straight to the 1st sermon in the series which was preached on the 25th January 2009, click here.

We hope you are fed and equipped through this series.

What is the real question?

This Coming Fellowship - 31/01/2009

For you "Timothy's":

The first TF for 2009 is right around the corner! Although invitees usually get their invite for each event via post and/or email, we all know us men need reminding, and often misplace/accidentally delete invitations. So here’s a permanent? version of the invitation:

When: Saturday the 31st January 2009, 5.30pm till 9.45pm
Where: Coromandel Baptist Church/New Creation Teaching Centre, 936 Ackland Hill Road, Coromandel East (South Australia).
Teacher: Ps. Hank Shoemaker, Assistant Pastor at Aldinga Beach Community Church of Christ, and speaker at http://www.newcreation.org.au/
Topic: "The Book of Deuteronomy".
Cost: $20 (includes 2 course dinner, drinks, supper and free resources)



Any questions? Have you crashed into this web page somehow and would like to know more? Please email: timmyfellows@gmail.com

Remeber to visit this website regularly for updates, and to comment on what you read/ watch.