Does 'truth for you but not for me' always imply relativism?

[dms1972]

Its sometimes said that relativism is apparent when someone says 'that may be true or truth for you but its not true for me.'

I grant that may sometimes indicate that a person is expressing a relativistic view of truth, but does it always mean that? Could someone not be saying that they have not had an experience of a truth. In which case they might not be denying its truth, but just saying its not yet true in their case.

So laying laying out a series of 'saving facts' and asking a non-christian to assent to them as a way bring them to faith would destroy their integrity as they are not yet truth for them.

 

[Sola1517]

I grant that may sometimes indicate that a person is expressing a relativistic view of truth, but does it always mean that? Could someone not be saying that they have not had an experience of a truth. In which case they might not be denying its truth, but just saying its not yet true in their case.

Either way it's a rejection of God's grace. God wants to make the Gospel true for everyone.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Its sometimes said that relativism is apparent when someone says 'that may be true or truth for you but its not true for me.'

I grant that may sometimes indicate that a person is expressing a relativistic view of truth, but does it always mean that? Could someone not be saying that they have not had an experience of a truth. In which case they might not be denying its truth, but just saying its not yet true in their case.

So laying laying out a series of 'saving facts' and asking a non-christian to assent to them as a way bring them to faith would destroy their integrity as they are not yet truth for them.

In terms of spiritual maturity, some stages of maturity may commonly read a passage a certain way, and other stages yet another. Sometimes the giftings we are given also influence this further.

 

[Radagast]

Does 'truth for you but not for me' always imply relativism?

Yes, pretty much by definition.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Truth for you but not for me, basically says to me. "I'd never believe a lie like that, but you're welcome to"

 

[Sola1517]

Truth for you but not for me, basically says to me. "I'd never believe a lie like that, but you're welcome to"

Which happens all the time.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Which happens all the time.

Cushioning the blow seems more merciful, but when it's important to the other person, beating around the bush hurts more than just being honest.

 

[faroukfarouk]

Which happens all the time.

John 14.6.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

An example of relativism in Christianity is in the concept of being under the law, it is an individual's choice to be under the law instead of being directed by the Holy Spirit. Once someone puts themselves under the law, then the whole law applies to them and only them, but no one else.

 

[dms1972]

It certainly can mean relativism, as I said. But what about in the context of asking people in a state of ignorance to give mental assent to certain scriptural propositions or 'saving facts' before they have come to see for themselves that these things are true. Is there not necessary a period of time for study, reflection for people to come to see something to be true? If conversion hasn't occured how can they assent? Merely giving mental assent to some propositions doesn't mean a person has experiential knowing for instance that Christ died for them.

The reason I asked is that I had read the following (from James D Smart - The Divided mind of Modern Theology) I think he means post-reformation protestant orthodoxy when he says 'Orthodoxy':

"Orthodoxy thought it was bringing men to faith when it presented to them the 'saving facts' - Christ as true God and true man, who came to earth to save sinners, reconcilling them to God by his blood on the cross - and regarded their acceptance of these facts as acceptance of the truth, but actually it was destroying men's integrity in leading them to call something truth that was not truth for them, securing a naive assent largely out of ignorance. Even convinced assent dare not be confused with the faith that justifies. Such assent leads on the one hand to a fleshly security and on the other to uncertainty about personal salvation. It is like Luther in the cloister, struggling to make himself believe more firmly."