The Exclusiveness of Christ – Part 2

To talk about people needing to experience faith and belief for themselves is indeed to talk about relative truth. You cannot say that talking about relatives and absolutes is meaningless, because you have just entered into that discussion, and I’m sure you doing take your very thoughts as meaningless. Indeed they are not.

Secondly, we still have the dilemma that you are making an absolute statement when you say absolutes are irrelevant. Is that statement irrelevant as well? Or when you claim truth is unknowable, how do you know that your very statement is true?

There has to be a truth to be known, and that truth by its very nature must be absolute. Here I am only arguing logic. We could be talking about any subject, this principle that absolute truth exists remains.

Once the fact of absolutes is established, the next logical step it to discover what that absolute truth is. This is when I bridge the gap and start talking about my faith in Christ. Jesus Christ proclaimed, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). This is an absolute claim.

When the claims of Christ are examined, I have found that they are reasonable and true. I am not talking about having “found religion.” I speak of the experience of having God reach into my life and change it.

Christianity has become a lot of things to a lot of different people. Sadly, a belief system that is supposed to have a hold on the absolute Truth of Jesus Christ, has largely become relativistic itself in its approach. This is to its shame.

God’s will for the church of Christ as found in the Bible is a lot different than what most churches have become. When I talk about the truth of Christ, I am referring not to what has been taught by men in church buildings or what has been done in error throughout the centuries; I am referring to God’s truth as revealed in the Bible. Yes, it does claim exclusivity, and yes I believe with all my heart that it is true.

C.S. Lewis, famously in Mere Christianity, had this to say about the exclusive claims of Christ:

I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept his claim to be God. That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God, or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God, but let us not come with any patronising nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.

Advertisements

3 Responses to The Exclusiveness of Christ – Part 2

  1. Nathan Williams says:

    Great post! Good thoughts. I love answering the assertion, “There is no such thing as absolute truth” with “Are you absolutely sure about that?”

  2. Daniel Dombek says:

    In response to the assertion, “There is no such thing as absolute truth” with “Are you absolutely sure about that?” as being contradictory, an equivocation may be at work here: Absolutes that are metaphysical (and as such a priori) and absolutes that are logical consequences (a posteriori, e.g., a law of science) are not, necessarily the same. The previous existing as itself, necessarily; the later, the consequence of an abstract epistemology (e.g. some form of logic).

    In this regard, give the epistemological matrix, it may be possible to come to and absolute certainty (in the second sense of “absolute”) that there are no “Absolutes” (in the first sense), and not be contradictory (in an Aristotlian sense).

    It is similar to the situation of knowing something that you can’t know. Example: We know (deductively) that, at any given point in time, there is an exact number of people living on earth; but we do not know (inductively) what that number is at any given point in time.

    Besides, being “absolutely sure that there are no absolutes” reflects more the psychological state of the speaker than a scientific one.

  3. Thank you for your comments. I am going to dedicate a post to this sometime in the near future. Stay tuned.

    In the meantime, could you please clarify what you mean by the possibility of knowing the population of the earth deductively but not inductively?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: