Skip to main content

The Truth About the Tolerance

In this postmodern, relativistic, and pluralistic society we live in, it is not unusual for those who believe in absolute truth to be accused of being intolerant and narrow minded. Are those charges and accusations true? Well, let’s consider them more closely:

(1) On the charge of being narrow-minded, there may actually be some truth to that, not because those who believe in absolute truth are narrow-minded themselves but because truth is narrow by definition. For example, if one person states that France is in Asia while another states the France is in South America, is the person who rejects those statements as being false because he happens to know that France is in Europe, intolerant? If somebody who knows that 5 + 5 = 10 rejects somebody else’s statement who says that 5 + 5 = 7, because he has never studied any math, does that make him intolerant? That is nothing more than political correctness run amuck. Truth is narrow by definition because it says that if something is true, then its opposite must be false.

(2) Hypocrisy reigns among those who argue that absolute truth is too narrow. Why? Because the one’s making those claims are as guilty of being narrow-minded as the people they accuse of being narrow-minded, since their claim is made by using absolute truth statements. I am intolerant and narrow-minded when I say that absolute truth exists (an absolute truth statement), but they are not intolerant and narrow-minded when they say truth is relative and there is no such thing as absolute truth (two absolute truth statements). Once again, a self-refuting, circular, and hypocritical argument is being used.

(3) Just because people, particularly Christians, disagree with worldviews or philosophies about truth other people hold, doesn’t mean they are intolerant. By accusing people of intolerance, they prove they don’t understand what intolerance means. Intolerance has nothing to do with truth itself; instead it has to do with the attitude in which one holds truth. Their accusation confuses what is held (truth) with how it is held (attitude).[19] Truth be told, the only way anybody is going to avoid being accused of being intolerant, is to agree with those making the accusations, to accept their claims. Is that not intolerance? When I disagree with their point of view I am intolerant, yet when they disagree with my point of view they are not. Do you see the hypocrisy? If I am intolerant, then they are just as guilty of intolerance as well!

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Inspired, Infallible, and Inerrant Word

  All Scripture is inspired by God and is profitable for teaching, for rebuking, for correcting, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16).   Our primary and final safeguard against false teaching is the Word of God. Verses 16 and 17 of 2 Timothy 3 are among the most important and significant in all the New Testament. They clearly declare the Source of Scripture and thus the Scripture’s authority. Second Timothy 3:16-17 and 2 Peter 1:21 for the basis for our conviction that the Bible is the inspired, infallible, and inerrant Word of God. Paul points out three important truths here: First, all Scripture is God-breathed. When Paul writes in that all Scripture is inspired , he is saying that the entire Bible and every word in it originates with God. Tom Constable correctly states that the Bible “does not merely contain the Word of God or become the Word of God under certain conditions. It is God’s Wor
Post a Comment
Read more

Crucified with Christ

  I have been crucified with Christ, and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me (Galatians 2:20).   Galatians 2:20 provides a succinct statement of the very heart of the Christian’s new condition. The believer has died so far as the law is concerned because he has been crucified with Christ . Crucified with is used figuratively, describing the identification of the believer with Christ in the theological aspects of His crucifixion. The tense of the verb is perfect, which looks at an action that occurred in the past, but which produced effects that continue. When the Lord Jesus was crucified, God identified every believer with Him, therefore believers were crucified with Him; they died to the law when Christ died on the cross. The penalty demanded by God’s broken law was satisfied by the crucifixion and its effects have never changed. Because the believer was and s
Post a Comment
Read more

Loving Christ

  The one who has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. And the one who loves me will be loved by my Father. I also will love him and will reveal myself to him (John 14:21).     But believing is not simply a matter of mental assent. Being related to Jesus Christ implies obedience, If you love me, you will keep my commands (John 14:15). The two articular participles here, has and keeps , imply far more than having a list of Jesus’ commandments so that one can recite them. They mean that the believer fully grasps His commands with the mind. I fully agree with Gerard Borchet when he says, “I would suggest that the two verbs taken together mean that the commands or the expectations of Jesus for his disciples are fully integrated into the way those disciples live. It is not a matter of following a few rules. It is a way of life. That is the reason the reference to “commands” here is tied so closely to loving Jesus.” 1 The person identified as the one w
Post a Comment
Read more