“In days of pressure from so many new theologies and the resurgence of old faiths, it is a battle with the enemy to maintain the uniqueness of the Christian truths as one seeks to present the Saviour to an unbelieving society. “God is dead” is the tenet of the majority, and by life and lip it is the duty of the believer to show that Jesus is very much alive, and is still fulfilling the promise made by Isaiah [61: 12] so long ago. God give us grace not to sink into the quagmire of humanism, but to remain firm and alive in him, for Jesus says, “Today, this scripture has been fulfilled in your hearing.” (Alan Redpath, The Life of Victory, 19)
Read this after our recent street outreaches during which quite a few people said they don’t believe in God and that there is no afterlife. Oftentimes they’re just fed up with (state) religion, but inside there is still an understanding that there must be more to life after all. I was encouraged by this devotion from Redpath to “maintain the uniqueness of the Christian truths”.
I’d like to link the first quote to the following one from N.L.Geisler: “The objectivity of truth that Christianity embraces is based on the premise that meaning is objective. This objectivity in meaning is rejected by much of contemporary linguistics; the prevailing conventionalist theory of meaning is a form of semantical relativism. However, in addition to being an overreaction to platonic essentialism, conventionalism is self-defeating, for, as we have seen, the very theory of conventionalism that “all meaning is relative” is itself a nonrelative statement. “All meaning is relative” is a meaningful statement intended to apply to all meaningful statements; it is a nonconventional statement claiming that all statement are conventional. As such, it self-destructs, for in the very process of expressing itself it implies a theory of meaning that is contrary to the one it claims is true of all meaningful statements. The usages of symbols and words do change, but the meaning properly expressed by them does not.” (Systematic Theology, Vol 1, 108)