Basically, what Wells is calling for is a return to biblical truth-not only to its content, but to the very concept of truth. The Old Testament prophets and New Testament apostles had a certainty that contrasts sharply with modernity's outlook. They were convinced that the revelation that they had received from God and proclaimed was true in an absolute sense. It was not just true for them or true in their time alone. It was true "universally, absolutely, and enduringly. "
Wells is aware that this conception of truth is regarded by moderns as untenable. He advances three reasons moderns cite in defense of the position that we can no longer hold to absolute truth as those ancients did.
(1) The first is often more implicitly assumed than argued per se. It is the idea that we have progressed to the point where we can no longer turn back to that older way of thinking. What is culturally older is considered to be of less value. While this was earlier based on Darwinism and the philosophy that stemmed from it, it has more recently been related to technology.
(2) Second, there is the contention that it simply is not possible to slip back into the ancient or biblical worldview, the way one would take off a garment and replace it with another. Worldviews are tied to the psychology and experiences of a given age, and ours is modern. While the argument of New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann along these lines is now considered obsolete, this belief seems to linger.
(3) Third, we now face religious pluralism and a bewildering array of claims to truth. It is therefore no longer possible to believe simplistically, as did the biblical writers, in an unqualified view of truth.
Wells responds to each of these contentions, arguing that they need not deter us from holding a biblical understanding of truth.
(1) First, to hold the view of the progress of the human spirit in view of the atrocities of this century requires a greater credulity than to believe the biblical writers.
(2) Second, from the fact of contemporary experience, it does not follow that we must simply acquiesce in this view. Experience is to be interpreted, and it certainly has not been shown that we have lost our freedom to accept or reject beliefs. If beliefs were strictly determined, what would be the point of writing books to persuade someone on any subject, including this one?
(3) Third, while religious pluralism in our time has reached a magnitude previously unequaled, it is quite remarkable to hear the claim that this requires giving up the uniqueness of Christianity. Wells says, "Had this been the necessary consequence of encountering a multitude of other religions, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul would have given up biblical faith long before it became fashionable in Our Time to do so. "
Wells is aware that this conception of truth is regarded by moderns as untenable. He advances three reasons moderns cite in defense of the position that we can no longer hold to absolute truth as those ancients did.
(1) The first is often more implicitly assumed than argued per se. It is the idea that we have progressed to the point where we can no longer turn back to that older way of thinking. What is culturally older is considered to be of less value. While this was earlier based on Darwinism and the philosophy that stemmed from it, it has more recently been related to technology.
(2) Second, there is the contention that it simply is not possible to slip back into the ancient or biblical worldview, the way one would take off a garment and replace it with another. Worldviews are tied to the psychology and experiences of a given age, and ours is modern. While the argument of New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann along these lines is now considered obsolete, this belief seems to linger.
(3) Third, we now face religious pluralism and a bewildering array of claims to truth. It is therefore no longer possible to believe simplistically, as did the biblical writers, in an unqualified view of truth.
Wells responds to each of these contentions, arguing that they need not deter us from holding a biblical understanding of truth.
(1) First, to hold the view of the progress of the human spirit in view of the atrocities of this century requires a greater credulity than to believe the biblical writers.
(2) Second, from the fact of contemporary experience, it does not follow that we must simply acquiesce in this view. Experience is to be interpreted, and it certainly has not been shown that we have lost our freedom to accept or reject beliefs. If beliefs were strictly determined, what would be the point of writing books to persuade someone on any subject, including this one?
(3) Third, while religious pluralism in our time has reached a magnitude previously unequaled, it is quite remarkable to hear the claim that this requires giving up the uniqueness of Christianity. Wells says, "Had this been the necessary consequence of encountering a multitude of other religions, Moses, Isaiah, Jesus, and Paul would have given up biblical faith long before it became fashionable in Our Time to do so. "
- Millard J. Erickson, Postmodernizing the Faith:
Evangelical Responses to the Challenge of Postmodernism, 1998.
No comments:
Post a Comment