On Mon 16-Feb-1998 11:21p, Charlie Ray wrote:
CR> Hi CHRISTOPHER,
CR> ***
CR> CR> Thanks for your comments on Dr. Veith's article.  However, I don't 
CR> CR> good in postmodernism at all.  Postmodernism emphasizes relativism 
CR> CR> the Bible emphasizes absolute truth in morals and theology.  Either
CR> CR> is God's Son or He isn't--Jesus is not a figment of the imagination
CR> CC>What is post modernism anyway?
CR> Most scholars mark the beginning of postmodernism around 1985 or so at 
e
CR> fall of the Berlin wall.  Modernism assumed a one storied universe in
CR> which 
CR> empirical science could provide all the answers to ultimate questions. 
CR> The 
CR> theory of evolution is but one example of this.  However, more recent 
CR> philosophical investigation of empirical science itself has shown that it 
CR> operates out of authoritative paradigms or models of our understanding of 
CR> reality and nature.  However, these models of the universe or reality
CR> often 
CR> turned out to be wrong to some degree.  That's why we had the Copernican 
CR> revolution and then the Newtonian revolution.  Even Einstein's theories 

CR> general relativity has been improved upon and corrected to one degree or 
CR> another.  However, the greatest danger of modernism and Enlightenment
CR> views 
CR> of the universe was its outright dismissal of supernatural events.  The a 
CR> priori assumption of naturalistic science is that there are no such 
ings
CR> as supernatural events, that all events have a rational and natural 
CR> explanation.
CR> Postmodernism, on the other hand, emphasizes the subjective nature of
CR> doing 
CR> science.  While empirical science is based on the scientific method, the 
CR> very selection of evidence and certain models designed to provide an 
CR> experimental verification and reproduction of an hypothesis often begs 
e
CR> question.  Are we asking and answering our own questions based on a 
ased
CR> worldview and an incorrect authoritative scientific paradigm or model?  
CR> Postmodernism has therefore concluded that uniformitarianism (the fact
CR> that 
CR> the universe is uniform in the past, present, and future allows 
ientific
CR> investigation of the natural universe) is possibly wrong.  Relativism in 
CR> empirical science must mean that there is therefore no absolute truth.  
CR> Humans are limited and therefore only create a facade of ultimate 
ality.
CR> It follows from this that reality itself is a creation of the mind and 
CR> therefore does not even exist in and of itself.
***Requoted because it makes sense and ties this whole discussion together***
CR> If different cultures have different worldviews, they in some sense are
CR> all 
CR> correct but just different ways of viewing reality.  Therefore, western 
CR> civilization is no better explanation of reality than say a third world 
CR> country's premodern explanation of reality.  Some
CR> Pentecostals/charismatics 
CR> have gone so far as to suggest that the reason pre-modern third world 
CR> countries experience greater numbers of miracles is that they believe in 
CR> miracles and the supernatural while western civilizations do not believe 
CR> and because of their unbelief are experiencing fewer miracles (See 
arles
CR> Kraft).  One might just as well suggest that pre-modern cultures are 
CR> superstitious and "think" they are experiencing more miracles but in 
CR> reality are only misinterpreting the events or their experiences as 
CR> "miraculous".  Magicians are experts in sleight of hand and so 
CR> Pentecostals/charismatics are experts in manipulating our interpretation
CR> of 
CR> perceived events.  What "appears" to be supernatural is in fact many 
mes
CR> smoke and mirrors or creative manipulation of people's interpretation of 
CR> the events.  I call it "manipulation".  However, true miracles would be 
CR> immediately obvious to all, including skeptical modernist observers from 

CR> western culture.  Clever magic tricks and emotional and mental
CR> manipulation 
CR> do not constitute "real" supernatural events.
True, especially in the Eastern culture.  However, many times in Jesus's life 
people were healed by him simply because they believed.  If we believe in a 
God that doesn't change (Which I do and must to keep my sanity) we must keep 
that in mind.
CR> Postmodernism, therefore, is rampant with relativism and embraces as 
CR> equally true and valid even the New Age anti-intellectualism and claims 

CR> ineffable (beyond words) supernatural experiences which are really closer 
CR> to superstition and pagan worldviews of the past than to Christianity.  
CR> Christianity is rooted solidly in this world and in an objective
CR> revelation 
CR> in history--the history of salvation as it has unfolded in Judaism and 
CR> Christianity.  Christianity led to an objective view of nature and 
CR> creation and ultimately led to science.  Few atheists and agnostics will 
CR> acknowledge this but the modern university system and science itself 
CR> evolved out of the Catholic monasteries.  They were centers of
CR> intellectual 
CR> investigation of God's revelation in nature and in Scripture.  Libraries
CR> of 
CR> manuscripts developed.  These libraries contained not only theological 
CR> works and copies of Holy Scripture but they also collected Arabic works 
CR> with translations of Aristotle and Plato and other classics but also 
CR> mathematics, astronomy, geography, etc.
Very true.  Inm fact, if I'm correct, only people studing to be priests and 
monks were allowed to be students at these universities.
CR> Postmodernism is, in short, a return to a pre-modern worldview in many 
CR> ways.  It denies absolute truth on the basis of our past errors.  
wever,
CR> to deny absolute truth, even in theory, is to embrace superstition, 
CR> relativism, and ultimately paganism.
Just superstition's bad enough.
CR> CR> sake 
CR> CR> of drawing in unwary pagans, what we wind up with is nominal Christ
CR> CR> who 
CR> CR> know nothing about sound doctrine, spiritual disciplines, or 
CR> CR> self-sacrifice.
CR> CC>I know of self-sacrafice but I'll admit, I'm just now learning of 
piri
CR> CC>discipline and whatever sound doctrine is.
CR> Yes, Chris, life is one long process of discovery and refinement and 
CR> learning.  Part of our spiritual discipline is to pray and develope a 
CR> devotional life.  However, another aspect of spiritual discipline is to 
CR> develop a rational Christian worldview, a Christian apologetic.  To do 
ny
What is a Christian apologetic?
CR> less than this is to admit to the world that ultimately Christianity is 
CR> irrational, fideistic, and irrelevant.
CR> CR> I left the Pentecostal movement about a year ago after being within
CR> CR> fellowship for over ten years.  Postmodernism and existentialism is
CR> CR> rampant 
CR> CR> in their paradigm and truth seems to have taken a far, far backseat
CR> CR> pragmatism and Pelagianism.
CR> CC>Was in a pentacostal spinoff for awhile.   Lot's of candy, little 
eat,
CR> CC>everybody understands me here.  In other words, lot's of hype little 
CR> CC>substance.
CR> Yes, Christopher.  I think you get my drift also.  When there is no 
CR> rational support for one's message what you wind up with is an empty 
CR> experience.  Such experiences may or may not be valid but we are 
CR> continually wondering if they are even true because there is no rational
CR> or 
CR> logical support for them.  What distinguishes a Pentecostal's emotional
CR> and 
CR> spiritual experiences from the ecstatic experiences of a New Ager or a 
CR> Buddhist?  If there is no logical argument and no sound biblical 
CR> hermeneutic supporting a particular theological view, then what ultimate 
CR> meaning does it have?  If the truth is based on our experiences who can
CR> say 
CR> that homosexuality is wrong (or any other sexual deviation for that 
CR> matter)? However, if ultimate spiritual and theological truth is 
CR> propositional and revealed in an objective Holy Book, then all of our 
CR> spiritual experiences must be tested and weighed by that revelation, not
CR> by 
CR> our experiences alone.  If I proclaim that someone has been raised from
CR> the 
CR> dead in the middle of an ecstatic prophecy to the gathered church, I must 
CR> actually raise a corpse from the casket for my claim to be truthful and 
CR> valid.  To spiritualize the claim as a way of retro-fitting or 
CR> rationalizing away the fact that the dead person was not actually raised
CR> is 
CR> to, in effect, lie.  Either the dead person is raised or they are still 
CR> dead.  Otherwise, we are playing fast and loose with the truth and buying 
CR> into a false relativism and a postmodern worldview more closely 
filiated
CR> with pre-modern superstition than to a supernatural Christian worldview.
It wasn't so much logic that got me further and further from the 
Pentacostals.  Lot's of people don't understand this, so let me explain it 
this way.  You sign up for a college class.  You get the lesson everyday, but 
they're short lessons that really don't teach you much and the great 
majority, the last part, is sent hooping and hollering and speaking a 
language no one else understands.  But, this was in the class description so 
it's alright for awhile, but you notice the teacher keeps repeating himself 
with different words and it carries on like this the whole year.  Maybe this 
will help people understand better.
Peace.
CR> Sincerely in Christ,
CR> Charlie Ray, 
CR> Chaplain
CR> 1 Timothy 4:16
CR> Watch your life and doctrine closely.
CR> Persevere in them, because if you do,
CR> you will save both yourself and your hearers.  (NIV).
CR> chaplain@isgroup.net
CR> ---
CR>  * WR  # 461 * Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura, Solus Christus.
CR> (1:3603/140)
--- CNet/3
---------------