I am glad to see this was more than a philosophy exercise; just making sure.
I was thinking about the question as it relates between the two men and the fruit and as it relates from the creation to the Creator. To begin, the use of the english language is a deceptive narrative and inherently provokes a biased judgment from the reader. That is to say, "apple" = [i]apple[/i] and not "orange". To properly state a question of relativism we must eliminate this definition,
ie. "apple" = [i]banana[/i] and "orange" = [i]banana[/i]
Or, better yet, to recognize a false reference point is being provoked, namely, the [i]name[/i] given to the fruit rather than the fruit itself.
ie. "the apple" = [i]the fruit[/i] and "der apfel" = [i]the fruit[/i]
So now who is right and who is wrong? Is english the only correct language? Or, is german not also viable?
In this way we have two different languages, or names, being used; when we consider the english and german language have both been equated to indicate that particular fruit, we quickly come to recognize the point of reference. The objective reference is the fruit itself and not the language being used to identify it. Hence the common rebuttal, just because I call a fish a dog, or say I can fly, does not make it so.
[b]Romans 1
18.[/b] For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
[b]19.[/b] Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
[b]20.[/b] For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
[b]21.[/b] Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
[b]22.[/b] Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
[b]23.[/b] And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
[b]24.[/b] Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
[b]25.[/b] Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
. . .
[b]32.[/b] Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
[b]Isaiah 44
8. [/b]\tFear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.
[b]9. [/b]\tThey that make a graven image are all of them vanity; and their delectable things shall not profit; and they are their own witnesses; they see not, nor know; that they may be ashamed.
[b]10.[/b]\tWho hath formed a god, or molten a graven image that is profitable for nothing?
[b]11.[/b] \tBehold, all his fellows shall be ashamed: and the workmen, they are of men: let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, and they shall be ashamed together.
[b]12.[/b] \tThe smith with the tongs both worketh in the coals, and fashioneth it with hammers, and worketh it with the strength of his arms: yea, he is hungry, and his strength faileth: he drinketh no water, and is faint.
[b]13.[/b] \tThe carpenter stretcheth out his rule; he marketh it out with a line; he fitteth it with planes, and he marketh it out with the compass, and maketh it after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man; that it may remain in the house.
[b]14.[/b] \tHe heweth him down cedars, and taketh the cypress and the oak, which he strengtheneth for himself among the trees of the forest: he planteth an ash, and the rain doth nourish it.
[b]15.[/b] \tThen shall it be for a man to burn: for he will take thereof, and warm himself; yea, he kindleth it, and baketh bread; yea, he maketh a god, and worshippeth it; he maketh it a graven image, and falleth down thereto.
[b]16.[/b] \tHe burneth part thereof in the fire; with part thereof he eateth flesh; he roasteth roast, and is satisfied: yea, he warmeth himself, and saith, Aha, I am warm, I have seen the fire:
[b]17.[/b] \tAnd the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
[b]18.[/b] \tThey have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand.
[b]19.[/b] \tAnd none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree?
[b]20.[/b] \tHe feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?
Therefore, the question arises, when we speak of "God" do we not all identify and define and equate the same object of reference? No. We speak of the only true God who has manifested himself by the revelation of Christ Jesus and the eternal Spirit. They speak of their vain imaginations: "who changed the truth of God into a lie" and "they glorified him not as God" but worshipped him as something else. They worshipped and idolized the creation and not the Creator,
ie. "God" = [i]Creator[/i] and "God" = [i]creation[/i]
Thus we come to two different definitions, wherefore we know that one is absolute verity and the other is absolute vanity. The relativism occurs when we begin to take "the invisible things of him from the creation of the world [that] are clearly seen" of God and describe and relate those attributes to another object which is NOT God; confusion then arises because the injunction is littered with truth, as a poison is covered with sweet chocolate. To wit, "this is chocolate" (or the true God), however, the object in reference is "poison" (a god created by vain imagination).
That is the deceitfulness of language, we may very well be describing the nature and characteristics of an "apple" and yet all the while the object of reference is a [i]banana[/i] (or false god). My point being, relativism is not a substantiation of truth but is a progressive reasoning of truth, and therein consists the "glass ceiling" between reason and revelation.
I find the following explanation by R. L. Dabney, taken from his book [i]Evangelical Eloquence[/i], to be accurate in this point:
[b]Lecture xii. Sources of Argument.[/b]
[i]excerpt pg. 186-190[/i]
You will observe, if you examine the lists of the sources of arguments which I recited from other authorites, that they are all virtually included in the seven which I have now explained -- self-conscioussness, intuition, deduction, sensation, experience, induction and testimony. And the last five all owe their authority to the first two. Conviction of the understanding is always traced ultimately to self-conscioussness, or to some intuition, or to some union of the two. But while these are the primary sources, any truths of which the mind has, through them, become convinced, may in turn become secondary sources. Of these, some will be found more proximate and some more remote. Their practical value as sources of argument in preaching may not be according to their nearness to primitive judgments, but will rather be decided by their nature and their range of application.
Now, for the preacher, the chief of these secondary sources is the testimony of the sacred Scriptures. Their authority as our rule of faith is inferred immediately from their inspired character; for if God is perfect truth, as must be assumed, or else all search for truth anywhere is preposterous, and if the Bible is God's word, then it is infallible, and of course authoritative over the soul. But is the inspiration of the Bible self-evident to its readers? I answer, it is not immediately self-evident -- that is to say, the proposition, "The Bible is inspired," is not axiomatic -- but it is readily found to be true upon bringing the internal and external evidences of it under the light of our self-consciousness, our mental and our moral intuitions. This is but saying that God, in revealing himself to man, has clothed his revelation with an amount of reasonable and moral evidence adapted to the creature's nature, and sufficient, when inspected, to produce a perfect conviction. Thereupon the word of God assumes its place as of plenary authority over the soul in the department of which it profess to teach, that of our religious beliefs, duties and redemption.
Let me here request your attention to two vital remarks. One is, that the fullest and most submissive faith is supremely reasonable. This is demonstrated by the fact that the postulate from which the authority of the Word over the soul inevitably arises (this, namely, that the Bible is inspired) has been irresistably commended to the reason itself. Hence it is simply impossible there should be any competition between right reason and true faith. This is the Protestant, or, in other words, the Bible system. It does not demand the reception of the Scriptures as God's word in advance of rational evidence that it is such, upon the pretended authority of the Church, or on any such illogical pretext. But it presents to the reason and conscience credentials which triumphantly establish the claims of revelation, and then it places the Bible on the throne of the soul as authoritative witness for God -- authoritative because proved true. The enlightened reason now delights to bow implicitly to it, and in doing so it find the highest consistency with its own nature.
The other statement is this: [b]Intelligent faith is still not rationalistic, in the vicious sense of that term[/b]. The basis of faith is not human speculation, but God's infallibility. It may be asked, "Did we not just now require the Scriptures to submit its claims of infallibility to our reason?" I answer, No; the point is only a verbal fallacy. If a trope must be suggested, it would be far more correct to say that the Scriptures impose their irresistable evidences upon the reason. The Scriptures exercise all that authority which their own intrinsic truth confers; thus reason does not confer, but receives. [b]Here, then, is the radical difference [u]between intelligent faith and rationalism[/u][/b]. Faith makes reason [u]the recipient[/u] of revealed light; rationalism makes it the source. Faith begins by recognizing, on reasonable grounds, the infallibility of the Word, and thenceforward bows to it implicitly. Rationalism denies that infallibility, and calls the Word in question at every step, [u]making reason the source and measure of authority[/u] in every doctrine. In the true believer the reason receives the teachings of the Word as the eye receives the light of the sun. There are certain actions with the eye with reference to the light, the raising of the lid, the direction of the axis, the refraction of the rays. But these actions are merely receptive. The light is from the sun, not from the eye. So the light in the soul is from the Word; the actions of the reason touching it are only receptive, not productive; the authority which the reason recognizes is that of God, and not its own.
You now perceive that when once the inspiration of the Scriptures is established, they become practically the great storehouse of proofs for pulpit argument. Their teachings, though not so primary in the order of analysis as those of the self-consciousness and the intuitions, are far more extensive and useful; for even these primitive faculties are not always infallibile: the Word is always so. [b]They, unaided, can discern but a very few religious facts and verities, [u]and none of these few are saving truths[/u][/b]. Revelation discloses all those secrets of the divine mind which are necessary for salvation. When we begin to reason from first truths to moral and theological conclusions, such are the darkness of mind and conscience and the perversion of will produced by sin, our deductions have but little value, save as they are confirmed by revelation. The Bible is, therefore, for the preacher, the great armoury of weapons of conviction.
This examination of the sources of mental conviction has now led us to two principles, which need no further proof after the enunciation. These I give you as the foundation of all rules for pulpit argument:
1. In every resort to reasoning, recur as closely as possible to the primary sources of conviction, self-consciousness and intuitions.
2. Rely mainly on the testimony of the Word.
-- [b]end quote[/b] --
I find these statements to be an incredible insight. Rationalism can not furnish one with "the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus" ([b]2 Timothy 3:15[/b]), hence, God has bid us to "not lean upon our own understanding" but to trust in the Lord with all our hearts, for he alone is Savior. Just as Peter declared, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God." Wherefore Jesus replied to him, "Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven."
Truly, salvation is revelation, and not rationalization. Once we equip ourselves with this knowledge and appropriate our evangelism accordingly we shall put aside all relativism and handle "the great armoury of weapons of conviction," the word of God which pierces to the very thoughts and intents of the heart, as it is fitted to the nature of fallen man, and is able to quicken the condemnation of the conscience and awaken a dead soul by the power of the Holy Spirit.
