Don’t get me wrong. I absolute agree with your conclusions. That is the exact reason why I addressed Schulz from a philosophical perspective. From Schulz’s perspective, even your claim, “A continual posture of humility is appropriate for Christians” could be potentially wrong. The question for the Christian is then, If Schulz is correct, where do we draw the line?

It appears, upon first glance, that Schulz’s assessment of truth is incompatible with a Christian worldview. That is not to say that she has nothing of value to offer, which you address. However, I am attempting to engage the philosophical undercurrent of her thoughts.

Things are going well. The girls are growing like weeds, which I know you are all too familiar with.

Blessings,

Ev

Too often, Christians act and respond as if they have it all figured out. The older I get, the more I realize that I have made mistakes in the past. All the while, I thought I was in the “right”. A continual posture of humility is appropriate for Christians.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to this. This makes for great discussion.

Hope you are doing well. Miss hanging out with you!

Wade

Interesting post. I wonder if Schulz thinks she is “wright” about her assessment? Although it is beneficial to think about one’s attitude in communicating absolute, objective truth (1 Peter 3:15-17), Schulz claims touch issues much deeper. Here are a few questions that came to my mind as I listened to her presentation:

1. How does she explain a correspondence view of truth (i.e. something is true when it corresponds to reality) ?

2. When we realize we are wrong, aren’t we also affirming the right by negation?

3. How does one know something is wrong, unless there is an objective right by which to compare it’s “wrongness”? (i.e. Who is morally better, Hitler or Mother Teresa)

4. If Schulz claims are “right”, then how does the Christian trust the Internal Guide (The Holy Spirit) that leads us into truth?

Obviously these are questions rhetorical. I use them to emphasize an underlying philosophical assumption that even Schulz commits to. These philosophical issues go unanswered, which is a tragedy because they are the philosophical assumptions that under gird Jesus’ own words. It’s funny that Schulz uses the “road runner” analogy to support her initial claim. Philosophers also use this example as an analogy for the fallacy that Schulz commits. Its called the suicide or “roadrunner” tactic. This simply means that one only needs to apply Schulz’s claims to themselves to see whether or not they hold up. For example, Schulz claims that we can not know reality, and yet this is a metaphysical interpretation of reality, therefore we should not trust her own claim.

Check out what God’s word says about truth:

John 17:17; John 16:3; John 8:32; Titus 1:14; John 14:6; etc.

It appears as if the writers of Scripture view truth in the objective sense. That is to say, the truth is true for everyone, at every time.

So, in the attempt to keep this post brief, I would offer the following thoughts.

1. There is truth (the right) and all opposed to the right is the wrong. (Laws of Non Contradiction, Identity, and Excluded Middle)

2. We can know the truth even if by doing so apophatically (by negation or realizing we are wrong).

3. Knowing, and communicating the truth (The Gospel) is the call of the disciple of Jesus, but doing so with gentleness and respect. (1 Peter 3:15-17). This may satisfy Schulz astute observations regarding emotional aspect of being “right” or “wrong”.

Anyway, maybe I’m wrong? The question is, where does the evidence lead?

What are your thoughts brother?

Ev