Is the truth relative to each man's outlook on the world? Does one truth vary depending on who you ask? Ask your average protestant about a truth of scripture and they will demean your proposed verse as simply your interpretation, making what the Bible says a matter of relativity. In such a case, the Bible could endorse killing and other such things depending on who you ask, thus, can it be so that the doctrine of Christ is actually relevant to the perception of the individual?
Take John 3:5 for example, there are many different ways that it can be taken, but is what this verse is saying relative depending on who you ask? Does not this verse actually say that unless one is born again of water and the Holy Ghost one cannot enter heaven, or is that just an individual interpretation of what that verse really says? Well, in the modern Protestant world, we can see that what this verse really says is, relative to the Protestant that one asks, for one it means, that we are cleansed of our sins and are made a Christian, for another it merely symbolizes this, thus, which one of these is the universal truth, which how can one correctly understand this statement of truth uttered by God Himself? Is there really a truth out there that can be seen and heard by the individual?
To clarify: there are some truths, like, my car is in my garage, it is true now, but after I take it somewhere it is not true that it is in the garage, thus, this is a truth that is relevant to the actions of an individual, that somethings that are true now, might not necessarily be true tomorrow. This is a transitory truth, it is something that is temporarily true, or true under certain circumstances, but not necessarily universally true. Our question is, is this kind of philosophy applicable to all things, including religion? There are some, especially modern philosophers, who will say "yes, your truth is your truth, but it is not mine, I have a different truth than you." Indeed, I do have a different truth than these pseudo philosophers, for in the world that I live in, there are some truths are always true, that cannot cease to be true because I am different, and have different experiences than someone else, for me 2+2 always equals four, no matter how many times one, nor no matter who, adds it up; it is a universal truth, it is a persistent truth, one that is not limited to any individual interpretation. The fact is that it is impossible for truth to be relative, or varying from person to person. If it's truth, then it is truth for all, not just some. But actual belief in the Truth does indeed vary from person to person, it is our understanding of certain truths that can vary between different persons, yet the truth still remains the same, it endures. That two and two is four is a universal truth. It has always been true whether humanity has known it to be or not; and will always be true. The notion that, just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for me is logically impossible. If it's true Truth, then it will be true for all. It can't change because it is an enduring truth, it is something that is not relative to one's understanding of mathematics. In another manner, water always boils at a set temperature, it is true for all persons, and so, no matter who boils the water, it will always boil at the same temperature as it would for anyone else, these are some of the the persistent truths that make the world work. These kinds of truths that we live by everyday, and are applicable to all under all circumstances, are the truths that endure, truths that are always true, and are true for everyone at every time, a persistent truth. That two and two are four, and the temperature at which water boils are these kinds of truths upon which one can trust to solve an equation and to boil a pot of stew.
But what of religion, is religion transitory or persistent truth. Ask Your local Protestant pastor and he may tell you in so many words that it is the first, and then later on tell you flat out that it is actually the latter, but not until he has already proven to you why it is the first; he is a relativist, his understanding of a book, he elevates to be an enduring truth, even though he will admit that his understanding of this "enduring truth" is actually relative to the understanding of the individual, in other words, Baptism might be necessary for all for salvation at all times, this the Protestant might concede, but then, will tell you that someone can have a completely different understanding of that which completely redefines it to mean something completely different, making what he said was eternal enduring truth relative to how one wants to see that particular issue, making in fact transitory, or relative, and not enduring nor universal. The Protestant will do the latter because of his belief in private interpretation of the work from which the rule of baptism is drawn, he must submit his own understanding, and the text itself, to the rule that he and others accept as truth, but then relative, that the truth of the Bible is relative to the judgment and understanding of the individual, he will submit this truth of this work to that rule, because that rule is the reason why he has no magisterium to follow, why he rejects an enduring and persistent truth given by God Himself, which is not relative, and thus would not conform to the way he wants this truth to operate. He will say that the Bible is contained of persistent and enduring universal truths, and then say that they are all relative to how the individual wants them to be, thus, these "truths" of the Bible, such as of the necessity of Baptism, might be true for the pastor, but not for someone else in the congregation, or rather some other pastor, the truth of that verse of the Bible is relative, then in the eyes of the Protestant, because it is not actually an eternal truth, but relative and transitory.
Jesus Christ said "Heaven and earth will pass away, but My Words will not pass away", so, in essence, we have an assurance from the God-man Himself that the Christian religion that He founded is based on persistent and eternal truths, not transitory earthly truths, that pass away, and are relevant to certain circumstances. Quite simply, then, Protestantism is not contained of nor following, the words of Christ Jesus, because Protestants follow relative transitory truths, and not the objective universal truths of God. The nature of Christian dogma is that of an enduring eternal truth uttered by God. One can either build his religion or philosophy based on the sands of transitory things, or he can build his foundation on the rock of the persistent truths of the universe that always were and always will be. The Pastor, then, does not have in his own philosophy the enduring truth of Christian dogma.
This philosophy of relativity in religion is based on the fact of whether or not some one actually believes these truths is relative. By this it is meant that one person may believe that 2 + 2 = 4 and another may not; but either way, we know that the one that believes it to be true, is indeed correct in his belief, and the other is not. Applying this to religion, we come to the same conclusion. However, in religion, we don't have the same sense of understanding the truth. Well, what do I mean? Well, let me explain by using gravity as an example. Now, it is a universal truth that gravity exists, we all know this, it is an enduring "persistent" truth, but what about relativity? Gravity is always acting upon us, whether we like it or not. Now, suppose someone does not believe that gravity is true. Under the terms set forth by the relativist pseudo philosophers just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for someone else, thus, if the said person were to actually disbelieve in gravity, then gravity would have no effect upon him, because it is relative to whether or not this person accepts it as their truth. Now, were that person to go the tallest building they can find and jump from its heights, according to their belief system, since they don't believe in gravity, they won't fall to their instantaneous death. Obviously this is not so. If one were to jump from a high place, they would fall to their death because they are bound to the universal "persistent" truth of gravity, which is a persistent truth, applicable to all regardless of whether or not they believe it its reality; so much for relativity. Obviously, truth is not subject to the limited understanding of the individual, whether someone understands, or believes, a certain truth does not alter is truthfulness, does not lessen its effects in reality, truth is not subject to one's understanding of it.
Likewise, if the religion founded by Christ is such a universal and persistent truth then regardless of what all others believe, all will be held accountable to this truth, because, like gravity, it is applicable to all. The truths set forth by God apply to all men who are made subject to the laws of God, thus, they are responsible for knowledge and practice of these Truths. Such is the truth of John 3:5, as it says all men must be born again of water and the Holy Ghost to enter the Kingdom of heaven, it is a universal truth applicable to all men, who are all subject to this fact, this eternal Truth of God, all men are bound to observe and keep this observance, otherwise, the sentence is being barred the kingdom of Heaven, for the rejection, or failure to observe this Truth, is the failure to observe and obey the authority and Divinity of the God Who instituted it, it is to show disobedience to, or disregard for the the Divinity and authority of God.
Since we believe that Jesus Christ is God made man, then indeed, we should do as He commanded, and obey all things that He commands, thus, it is much more logical to follow this course of action, than the objective relativist view that God may not exist for someone else, and according only to one. Now, answering the Protestant relativity of truth. According to the 33,000 different Protestant sects, He [God] wants us to proclaim His only Son, Jesus Christ, as lord and savior, and all is fine, nothing more, nothing less; and even there there is no real agreement, since this only according to the relative interpretation of a book that can be obscure in one or more areas, thus they have no real agreement on the truth, what is objectively true, and what is actually false, they don't really have the concept of truth. Protestant proclaim this, and claim that it is eternal persistent truth, but then will submit that to the private judgement of the individual Protestant. This is the root of the relativist philosophy, for it is the concept that one persons' interpretation of the scriptures is as good another, thus, the whole relativist philosophy that is destroying Christianity now is actually drawn from the Lutheran and Zwinglian philosophy of private interpretation, made more abstract and obscure via sola scriptura. The only thing that unites them is their disdain and hatred for the Catholic Church.
Now, continuing with our previous line of thought concerning persistent truth, since there is a universal truth of God, we need to know which Truth is of God; the following quote from St. Alphonsus Liguori will serve our purpose in discerning which church contains the persistent truths about God:
Clearly, then, if indeed the Roman Catholic Church is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church, then what it teaches is applicable to ALL, being universal and persistent truths, this Church being the one true Church then is true for all, and thus, since in it alone is salvation found, as a persistent truth, it is true for everyone, not just those who believe. The Truths of this Church are then universal and persistent truths applicable to all, this is the nature of Catholic Dogma.
"A church which is not one in its doctrine and faith can never be the True Church ... Hence, because truth must be one, of all the different churches ... only one can be the true one ... and out of that Church there is no salvation. Now, in order to determine which is this one true Church ... it is necessary to examine which is the Church first founded by Jesus Christ, for, when this is ascertained, it must be confessed that this one alone is the true Church which, having once been the true Church must always have been the true Church and must forever be the true Church. For to this first Church has been made the promise of the Savior that the gates of Hell would never be able to overturn it (Matthew 16:18) ... In the entire history of religion, we find that the Roman Catholic Church alone was the first Church, and that the other false and heretical churches afterwards departed and separated from her. This is the Church which was propagated by the Apostles and afterwards governed by pastors whom the Apostles themselves appointed to rule over her ... This character can be found only in the Roman Church, whose pastors descend securely by an uninterrupted and legitimate succession from the Apostles of the world (Matthew 28:20)"
1 comment:
Further clarification of the phrase: "there are some truths, like, my car is in my garage, it is true now, but after I take it somewhere it is not true that it is in the garage, thus, this is a truth that is relevant to the actions of an individual, that somethings that are true now, might not necessarily be true tomorrow. This is a transitory truth, it is something that is temporarily true, or true under certain circumstances, but not necessarily universally true."
This mainly refers to some truth that is conditional, one that is true at one point and not for another reason, or rather, true at one point in time and not true at another, a conditional truth, a phrase that would be much more likely that transitory, though that one does fit the bill best under that kind of philosophy being dealt with, as well explained by the great English Catholic author G. K. Chesterton:
"An imbecile habit has arisen in modern controversy of saying that such and such a creed can be held in one age but cannot be held in another. Some dogma, we are told, was credible in the twelfth century, but is not credible in the twentieth. You might as well say that a certain belief can be held on Mondays but cannot be believed on Tuesdays. ...What a man must believe depends upon his philosophy, not upon the clock or the century." (Orthodoxy, p. 80)
Here Chesterton deals with the relativist placing objective beliefs, "persistent" truths if you will, under the relative scope, making what is objective subjective, or rather, saying that at one time such and such a thing is plausible for such and such a reason, but is not plausible at some other time, namely our own, for such and such a reason; Chesterton describes this as being imbecilic. This deals primarily with the condition of time and its relationship to truth, or rather, to things that can be altered, a truth that may apply to something at one time, and not at another, as described in the above post.
"2+2 always equals four, no matter how many times one, nor no matter who, adds it up; it is a universal truth, it is a persistent truth, one that is not limited to any individual interpretation."
This is referring to truths that are reduced to private interpretations by individuals, in the post I use the fifth verse of the third chapter of St. John the Evangelist's gospel as an example to illustrate my point that there are objective truths that are assaulted in our day and being reduced to the subjective interpretation of the individual, which in reality does not conform to the nature of divinely revealed truth, no matter what the doctrinal relativist says. Of course this concept can be taken several different ways, for example, all of this could be taken to illustrate the ludicrousness of moral relativism, which is also rampant today, and also to the dogmatic relativist, who reduces the dogmas of the Church Magisterium to mere interpretations and formulas in an attempt to justify some false or perverted doctrine or interpretation, and by doing so, he gets away with it; John 3:5 is just one example out of many.
"It has always been true whether humanity has known it to be or not; and will always be true. The notion that, just because its true for you doesn't mean its true for me is logically impossible. If it's true Truth, then it will be true for all. It can't change because it is an enduring truth, it is something that is not relative to one's understanding of mathematics."
The same standard applies to Catholic dogma, the truth of John 3:5 has always been true since it was uttered by Christ, and applies to all men, whether they are cognizant of it or no. Nowadays they say its true for Catholics, but not true for non-catholics because of their incognizance of it, it is reducing this truth of the faith to a mere interpretation or relativity, placing the truths of God under man-made conditions, making them conditional, the "true for one, not for another, true at one point, but now we know better" type deal. This is dogmatic relativism, and it's a heresy, and it's present all over the place.
"Baptism might be necessary for all for salvation at all times, this the Protestant might concede, but then, will tell you that someone can have a completely different understanding of that which completely redefines it to mean something completely different, making what he said was eternal enduring truth relative to how one wants to see that particular issue, making in fact transitory, or relative, and not enduring nor universal."
Sometimes a Protestant will tell you of the necessity of Baptism, but then again, in accordance with Protestant relativity, upon which Protestantism stands and falls, he will say the opposite later on, it is Protestant relativism and is extremely inconsistent. The protestant might say that the necessity of Baptism is condition to this or that condition, or something of the like, some protestants will do this, and sadly even some professing Catholics will do this, they will say that belief in Jesus Christ is necessary, and then in the next paragraph say the opposite, and say that it is, and it is not... under certain circumstances. It is this mentality that leads to the evil of moral relativism, which justifies almost every evil deed known, and maybe even unknown, to man.
"Ask Your local Protestant pastor and he may tell you in so many words that it is the first, and then later on tell you flat out that it is actually the latter, but not until he has already proven to you why it is the first; he is a relativist, his understanding of a book, he elevates to be an enduring truth, even though he will admit that his understanding of this "enduring truth" is actually relative to the understanding of the individual"
Your local Protestant minister might tell you that the Bible is the Word of God, and is thus objective truth, and then later say that that word of God is relative to how the individual wants to interpret it, thus, it is not really objective, since it can be so easily redefined to mean something completely different.
Post a Comment