I’m not sure where we modern evangelicals get the idea that our personal testimony is a “private” thing. We may not actually say that out loud, but by not sharing our personal testimony with others that is in essence what we are saying. It’s my testimony, something between me and my God. No where in scripture does it say this, so in light of hoping to be a doer of the Word and not just a reader of the Word, I went ahead and posted my own personal testimony on my blog today.
The Story of the Woman and the Well
I don’t know how many times I have read through the story in John 4:39-42 about Jesus and this “despised and immoral” woman at the well, but today, as I contemplated the reaction of the woman I thought about my own personal testimony and how many times (or I should say how few times) I have done what this woman did in verse 4:28-29. She left her water jar (her purpose for being at the well), went into town and gave her testimony to anyone who would listen.
This story is contrasted by the story of Nicodemus in chapter 3 who was a “religious” person of faith in that day, compared to the woman who was a despised by society, an immoral Samaritan. But look at the end result from the BKC chart below (click pic to see full chart), the woman was converted, she gave her personal testimony to others, and then others came to believe in Jesus Christ.
The “Faithless” in our Culture Today
Putting it in post-modern terminology we can understand, it was recently presented to me like looking at a modern church-goer (the Jew) and the homosexual or atheist (the Samaritan) of our twenty-first century society. While we evangelicals are quick to point out the sins of homosexuals and argue with the atheists who possibly represent to us the antithesis of faith and religion, it was this person who received the call of Jesus, and then proclaimed it to the world, not the church-goer.
When you look at our culture today the two groups I mentioned above probably know more about Christianity than evangelicals do, and they give their testimony loud and clear to whoever will listen. Those two minority groups in particular have educated themselves well in the arguments for their way of life, and how to oppose Christianity. Evangelicals though often stumble and fumble with what to say when asked simple questions about their own faith. Many today will not respond to apologetical arguments because they know their talking points so well they can refute all those common points of contention, but it’s hard to argue with a truly changed and transformed life. That’s the point of your personal testimony.
During part of my time in seminary it was required for us to actually write down our personal testimony. That exercise alone was an eye opener to me. I had to take a real look at what actually is my testimony, and until then, I’m not sure I was prepared defend my faith or give a proper testimony when needed.
True Faith Moves to Confrontation with Jesus Christ
Look what happened when she shared her faith with the town. “Many Samaritans from that town believed in him because of the woman’s testimony”, but the key to this verse is understanding the next set of verses in 40-41 where the “witness of the woman led to the Samaritans’ personal confrontation with Jesus”, giving them true and lasting faith in Jesus.[1] Jesus didn’t need the testimony of this woman (John 5:34) but because of the rejection of Israel in chapter 3 her testimony was more effective than the “religious” person.
As we move into verse 42 we see that ultimately the person coming to faith solely based on the testimony of an individual is secondary. These Samaritans proclaimed for themselves “for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this [Jesus] is indeed the Savior of the world.” Moving from the personal testimony of an individual, true faith then moves to it’s own experience and the “confrontation” with Jesus Himself.
If We Claim a Saving Faith We are Called to Share It
While this isn’t one of those traditional “share your faith” set of verses for the modern church-goer, it was a call to me to make sure we don’t just play “religion” and end up totally missing the point. This post could head in so many different directions from here but it really was meant to be a simple straight forward post. If we claim to be believers in Christ, we are called to share our faith with others.
[1] John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, , The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures by Dallas Seminary Faculty, ed. John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, Vol. 2, 2 vols. (Chicago, IL: David C Cook Publishers, 1983), 284-288.
Posts Related to This Topic:
After recent comments on my blog lately I once again was reminded how so many people in this world are actually seeking a reality of their own making, not the real truths that are actually real. This post-modern time we live in lends itself more and more to an absolute void of real objective truth and more to the relative nature of truth, which means truth is really just what you make it out to be. So below is part of how we studied “truth” in seminary, with something called the Correspondence Theory of Truth, which is almost better illustrated by the graphic above. If this doesn’t interest you then please head over to The Fillmer Photo Daily blog where I post mostly pictures (and few words), there is always something new to see there as well.
The Correspondence Theory of Truth is actually a tiny little worldly example at the bottom of this post so we have something to compare to what really is the way we get to Biblical truth, but you get the idea.
How Do We Arrive at What is True
This isn’t something new to us, even though we love to think it is with all our modern computer equipment and knowledge. Ling before we appeared, Pilate asked Jesus the rhetorical question, “What is Truth?”
Truth appears to be a property, that is an aspect of certain statements. 2+2=4 is obviously true. 7×5=15 is obviously not. Giraffes have long necks is obviously true. Hippos have red spots is not. The question though for the Correspondence Theory of Truth is, what is truth a property? In this case, there are three candidates: Truth is a property of sentences. Truth is a property of statements. Truth is a property of propositions.
What’s the difference between these?
A sentence is a group of written words, that contain a subject and a verb.
A statement is the occasion of the use of a sentence by someone.
A proposition is what is asserted when a statement is made, the content of the statement.
One may assert the same proposition with two different statements:
- George is a fine fellow who can be trusted.
- Mr. Shannon is a man of integrity who can be relied upon.
Both statements are about George Shannon, and both are true because they assert the same proposition.
One may use the same sentence to assert two different propositions:
- This is really cool!
- This is really cool!
In this instance the same sentence refers once to a dish of ice cream and then to a new car.
We also speak of beliefs as being true or false. Beliefs are basically propositions. They may be stated in sentences. Again the same belief may be stated in different sentences stating the same proposition:
Christ died for our sins.
- Jesus Saves.
- We have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
- There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.
Every truth may be represented as a proposition. Don’t be misled by those (postmodernists) who speak of “non-propositional truth.” If it is a truth it may be stated in a proposition—that is as a sentence which expresses the truth. Some thinkers see truth as a property of representations, linguistic representations or mental ones. They are mistaken. Others see truth as a property of propositions which are represented or expressed in thought or speech.
The best known theory of truth is the Correspondence theory of truth goes something like this: Whether what is said about the world is true or not depends on how the world is. In other words, a proposition is true if it corresponds to the way things really are.
Let’s label a proposition with the letter P. P may stand for any proposition you want. Under the correspondence theory of truth, P is true if two conditions are met:
- It is a fact that P
- The proposition corresponds to that fact.
For each true proposition, there must be a fact.
The association of truth with fact entails the association of words with world. In other words, it is possible to use words in ways that accurately describe the way the world is, even if some this this is impossible. This is absolutely essential if the proposition “The Bible is the Word of God” is to have any meaning at all. Conservative, Bible-believing Christians assert that the Bible gives, in words, an accurate, inerrant, description of the way the world is, of what has happened, and of what will happen. The sentences in the Bible, understood in context, accurately portray reality. That is, the propositions expressed in the Bible correspond to the way the world really is.
The Correspondence theory of Truth
This is the “scientific” definition, which serves less of a purpose here but it does have an important place.
The coherence theory of truth states the following: A statement is true if it coheres with other statements. The test of truth is internal. The system of statements one makes must cohere, must be consistent. If one proposition in a group is not consistent with the others, we know that the whole system is not true.
Propositions are truth-bearers. Those who hold to the coherence theory say that truth cannot consist in the relationship between truth-bearers and that which is not a truth bearer (such as a fact). Here is a problem with the theory already. It divorces truth from facts. Truth, these theorists say, consists in the relationship which truth-bearers have to one another. This may be a relation of mutual support among a set of beliefs or non-contradiction between them, or they may together support an overall concept..
We should point out that this theory leads to a relativism, since contradictory systems may be internally consistent. Moral relativists say that there is no external morality, nothing for moral statements to correspond to. If a moral standard makes sense to you that is all that we need.
Religious pluralists—those who believe that all religions are equally valid, that all of them lead to God, depend on the coherence theory of truth. Since all the different religions make sense in terms of their own system, then all are equally true. (It may be argued, however, that not all religions are even coherent within their own system, but this is another matter.
The important thing for us to remember is that the coherence theory separates “truth” from “facts” and seeks only internal consistency. Postmodernists like this theory.
Is the coherence theory of truth useless then for Christians? Not at all. God is consistent and rational. He has created a consistent world for us to live in. Coherence is helpful to us as a negative test—no set of propositions can be true if there is a contradiction within them. The truth will always be internally consistent. By itself, however, that is not enough. True propositions must be consistent with other true propositions, and together, all true propositions must correspond to the way the world is.
Some who defend the Christian faith do so on the basis that the Bible offers a coherent view of reality, and that it corresponds to the world as we actually live in it. No other religion or philosophy offers the same kind of benefit. Even coherent philosophies break down when we try to actually live by them. They just don’t correspond to the way the world really is. Francis Schaefer (The God Who is There) defends the truth of Christianity on this basis.
In conclusion the graph at the top really says it all. There actually are truths in this world, but they are surrounded by false propositions and we only gain knowledge when our beliefs overlap the truth.
Posts Related to This Topic:
Truth is something that is a main theme around my blog and encompasses much of what I write about as well. Truth, or lack of it, can take many forms and many arguments, but there is an ultimate truth, or deception of the ultimate truth prevailing in our society today about salvation. This ultimately goes to answer the question, “is Jesus the only way of Salvation?” There are basically three options recognized by theologians today. Only one of them is found in the Bible, that of Exclusivism, the other two are heretical.
The two main heresies about salvation that run pervasively throughout our culture, are those terms referred to as Pluralism and Inclusivism. Below is a quick explanation of all three, then a brief reflection on the heresy called Pluralism (I will individually address the other two in posts at a later date).
Brief Explanation of Exclusivism
Exclusivism (when dealing with Salvation) is that eternal salvation of the soul found only through faith in Jesus Christ. Only those who are called and have trusted Christ are saved. They are declared to be right with God, and all their sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ’s death on the cross. No one, who does not trust in Jesus Christ has any hope of salvation, but may only expect to be judged and condemned to everlasting Hell.
Brief Explanation of Pluralism
Pluralism can be defined as saying “all religions lead to God”, at least all of the higher ones, for they are all in touch with the same spiritual realities. Each religion merely describes these realities differently. Thus, anyone who follows any of the “higher” religions may be assured that he really is in touch with God. This is the position of many Americans today. It is the unofficial position of most television networks and programs being produced, and is represented as the only morally sound position in many venues of public life.
Since this is so prevailing it needs no further explanation, but here are a couple of examples: “We [Muslims, Jews, and Christians] all worship the same God.” as said by Walter Abdur Ra’uf Declerck (quoted in The Fort Worth Star Telegram, Oct. 25, 2003). You can find quotes like this in hundreds of places all over local or national media, and the Internet is overrun with the same sentiment.
One of the leading voices in theological circles is from John Hick, a British Theologian who gives a very good example of this type of thought process.
The great religious traditions are to be regarded as alternative [salvational] “spaces” within which, or “ways” along which, men and women can find salvation/liberation/enlightenment/fulfillment.. . . The great world traditions have in fact all proved to be realms within which, or routes along which people are enabled to advance in the transition from self-centeredness to Reality-centeredness. . . . Accordingly, by attending to other traditions than one’s own, one may become aware of other aspects or dimensions of the Real, and of other possibilities of response to the Real. . .
Brief Explanation of Inclusivism
This, in some sense, is more damaging to the ultimate truth, giving someone a false sense of their eternal salvation when it just doesn’t follow what Christ teaches in scripture. Satan’s best work sometimes can be seen taking truth and falsity and mixing them together into a lethal combination of false doctrine and incorrect theology. The danger here is that this comes from so far inside “the church” that many people are led astray.
Inclusivism says that Jesus is the only Savior, but He will save some who have never trusted Him. We can affirm that Salvation is only in Christ, without affirming the need to tell others about Him as they need not have faith in Him anyway. This is the position of some Catholics, who believe that other religions are more or less able to save depending on how similar they are to Catholicism. Thus, other denominations, and religions which teach that there is one God, or those which teach a high view of ethics will lead their followers to salvation. This is the view of many mainline denominations, and most theologians today as well.
An example is seen in the Catholic Theologian Karl Rahner when he says:
It is. . . quite possible to suppose that there are supernatural, grace-filled elements in non-Christian religions.. . . A lawful religion. . . can be regarded on thye whole as a positive means of gaining the right relationship to God and thus for the attaining of salvation. . . The member of an extra-Christian religion. . . [is] an anonymous Christian.
Reflections on Religious Pluralism
Pluralism as described by John Hick, is now the mainstream of most media outlets and continues to invade our daily life, even in the church. My personal experience with a pluralistic worldview has been mostly limited to the current media forms of our culture like the Internet, satellite broadcasting, and social networking entities, but more and more you can see this view prevailing in our government as well. One can now see how easily a person can make the transition from the Truth of an exclusivist worldview, to being more inclusivistic, and then to pluralistic without perhaps knowing the transition has taken place.
Many who carry a pluralistic worldview today are not even aware that this is indeed the worldview that consumes their life, but it is the worldview that engulfs their life. Just the fact that we live in a society where this view prevails puts many, if not most, of us in some type of pluralistic camp. Author Ronald H. Nash wrote an excellent book on this topic titled Is Jesus the Only Savior? At the end of his section on pluralism Nash quotes John Hick from Jesus and the World Religions with the following propositions:
“If Jesus was literally God incarnate, and if it is by his death alone that men can be saved, and by their response to him alone that they can appropriate that salvation, then the only doorway to eternal life is Christian faith. It would follow from this that the large majority of the human race so far have not been saved.”[1]
And Nash concludes the section on pluralism by saying
If I am a Christian exclusivist and discover after death that Hick’s version of pluralism really is true, I will have lost nothing except Hick’s good will during the life. But if I am a pluralist and it turns out that Christian exclusivism is true, then the consequences for me will be very serious.
These two statements are fundamental to the pluralism argument today and the last statement shows how deficient pluralism can be. In the media, where I have my personal experience with pluralism, I contend, is where most people in our culture have such a problem with an exclusivistic worldview when Hick says, “it would follow… a majority of the human race have not been saved. “
The media views what is or is not fair in two ways. One, what is socially fair to all (they insist and desire that all roads lead to the same God), and two, how some said worldview of fair effects the profit margin of the product or service they are selling (if they don’t say all roads lead to the same God, or wide is the road to salvation, they will immediately exclude some potential sales to those who don’t agree, which we have said is most in the world today). Exclusivism in the media’s eyes is not fair to all; therefore they will always tend to push their efforts to the pluralistic worldview.
A pluralistic worldview can be discussed or defended when dealing with a person or group one on one, but when dealing with an entity as large as a new media outlet or a prime time network program where pluralism is so ingrained in the essence of the production, you can not simply converse about Matthew 7:13-14. In the case of the media, your only recourse in the end may be to refer to what drives the business, and that is profit (for the most part). The sometimes not-so-simple task of refusing to do business with the group or funding them in any way would be one way of removing yourself from their pluralistic worldview, although it may not make a substantial difference. Another way, as could be the case when dealing with the government, is to voice your argument to the appropriate person.
Unfortunately, Hick’s view that eventually all human beings will ultimately be saved from Hitler to Stalin and everyone in between is the prevailing view of our culture, even among Believers, and changing their mind will mean changing their hearts to see the saving grace of God Himself.
[1] Ronald H. Nash, Is Jesus the Only Savoir (Grand Rapids, MI: Zonervan Publishing, 1994), 69-92.
Posts Related to This Topic:
In this particular article I was asked to choose the three most important reasons for including apologetics in my own personal ministry. The answer is the following post. Originally published on May 13, 2009 and republished for this blog on June 4, 2010. Although it is very important to understand the differences between religions like Jews, Christians, and Muslims (which is what the Coexist campaign seems to be trying to do), it is more important to me as a follower of Christ to understand our own reasons behind what we believe.
The three most important reasons for including apologetics as a part of my ministry, and to me any ministry, are personal truth, cultural relativism, and discipleship. More specifically, apologetics, to my ministry and to me is:
- For personal truth: To know the salvation I seek and trust is the actual Truth. To know why I believe what I believe to be true and not just to believe because I feel It to be true.
- Cultural relativism: To be able to defend the perceived truths of our highly relativistic culture, as we are commanded by scripture, in being able to lead others to a relationship with Christ and to do this through truth in scripture, knowledge, and love, not through a blended Christian worldview of the truth as we know it.
- Discipleship: To eventually be able to disciple, mentor, or lead other Believers to the truth in scripture so as not to be deceived by a cultural blending of Christian truths and worldviews.
For many years after I became a Christian I went through the motions of being a Christian. Not questioning the truth but accepting all known teachings from others as truth without understanding why. Taking a more apathetic approach to the truth of Christian philosophy, I became a lazy Christian believing the truth as truth, but not ever testing or seeking out the truth beyond an emotional basis. Similar to how it is said in No Doubt About It, “He is real to me. …So I cannot doubt His existence, and you don’t need to prove it to me”.[1]
I took God as self-evident, and although no one in more than 15 years as a Christian introduced me to an apologetic view of my faith, I didn’t need one either. Just because I hold God and Jesus as self-evident doesn’t mean everyone else does, and if I don’t have an apologetic understanding of my own faith, how can I effectively explain it to someone else.
It seems our understanding of truth in our culture today is relative. This may be a trend that started in America many centuries ago, but in the age of information everything seems to be on an accelerated course. Our society is constantly bombarded with inaccurate statements, reports, other media and information of all kinds and it seems goes unchecked. Unchecked so much so that one person can look at a door, call it red, another call it blue, and both agree the contradiction is true. Mis-information is bad, but one of Satan’s best weapons is to blend truth and falsities into one and make people believe it to be truth and fact without question.
According to Kinnaman in UnChristian, most outsiders see Christians as too hypocritical, too antihomosexual, too sheltered, too political, too judgmental[2] and most of what the outsiders perceive to be true about Christians is a blending of truth according to what scripture says and truth according to what our culture says is true. For these reasons, apologetics plays an important role in cultural relativism.
To be a disciple of Jesus is something as Believers we all strive towards as we grow and mature in our walk in Christianity. To become a disciple, Jesus poured truth into the original 12 during his ministry so they could in turn do the same to others when Jesus was physically absent. At any point in a Believers life they will be pouring into some other Believer, or will be poured into by a Believer, or possibly both at the same time. To achieve this we can and should follow the example Jesus gave during his ministry on earth and be ready to learn, and teach apologetically when called.
[1] Winfried Corduan, No Doubt About It: the Case for Christianity, 1st Edition (Broadman & Holman Publishers, 1997). 45.
[2] David Kinnaman and Gabe Lyons, Unchristian : what a new generation really thinks about Christianity… and why it matters, 1st Edition (Baker Books, 2007).
Posts Related to This Topic:
I began a new journey in my walk this summer, 2009, one I have felt a long time calling to pursue but just never could figure out how and when. That is probably because the how and when should have been left up to God, not me trying to figure it out but non-the-less, after many years, I have decided to start my academic pursuit of work in ministry, whatever that comes to mean in the future, in seminary.
For some reason, I decided to start off my 2009 class year at Liberty with Apologetics, probably because I knew so little about the subject. As an introduction we were given seventeen claims we as Christians are called to defend and fifteen we are called to refute, all of which I have listed below.
It was interesting that I should start my seminary work with this class. These point below are probably an overview of what is in the years ahead of me. I see many things I know I believe are true, but many I can not begin to explain in logical terms. Makes me look forward to the times ahead of me.
All of us as Christians are called to share and defend our faith. We don’t have to be experts in all these areas below, but we should know, the rest of the world expects us to be, or at least expects us to be able to explain to them, in common terms, the points below.
Seventeen claims we are called upon to defend as Christians in our Time:
The following are in no particular order, but all are important and all are challenged by the modern secularist mindset.
- God exists
- The Lordship of Jesus Christ—He was fully God and fully man.
- Christ died for our sins
- Christ rose from the dead
- God is all knowing and all powerful
- God is all goodness, in spite of the fact of evil in the world
- The Bible is the inerrant Word of God
- Events recorded in the Bible really happened and tell us something significant about God, about life, and about morals
- God will judge the world on the basis of the moral behavior of mankind
- Jesus Christ is the only way to heaven, to peace with God
- Faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for one to be right with God
- The churches have the freedom and right to preach and teach God’s truth in God’s way.
- The teachings of God’s word exemplify a moral “high ground”
- A life lived so as to please God is better than a secular lifestyle
- The historic truths of the Christian faith are objectively true, in the same sense that scientific truths or other secular truths are true.
- We are responsible to God for our moral behavior.
- Mankind is a special creation of God, not the product of evolution or of impersonal forces in the universe
Fifteen worldly claims we are called upon to refute as Christians:
Some of these may appear to overlap, but each is a separate issue, and each has adherents in the world. You will discover that there are people even in our churches who believe at least some of these, according to research done by George Barna.
- All Religions lead to the same god
- It doesn’t matter what your religion is as long as you are sincere—God understands
- Jesus is merely a great teacher or prophet
- God is too loving to ever send anyone to Hell
- A god who would send any of his “Children” to Hell is not a god worthy of our worship
- Morality is relative. You have to decide for yourself what is right and what is wrong.
- We are the end product of evolution, the crowning achievement of the forces of nature.
- Man is the measure of all things. What is good is what benefits the human race.
- The individual is all that matters—what’s good is what is good for you!
- Religion and Science are different realms—religious truths are different from scientific truths.
- “I know what’s best for me! I don’t need anyone else running my life!”
- Don’t worry about doctrine! Religion is about what you feel! If I have peace in my heart, then that’s all I need.
- The Bible is a human book, a product of the religious experiences of one people.
- The Bible is an old book—it was fine for back then but it has nothing to say to our time, to people today.
- Muslims worship one god too! So it must all be the same God.
This post was originally created on May 11 2009 and updated in June 2010.
