Farewell to my Readers

Trevor,

When arbitrating through worldviews, the appropriate method is one that is “transcendental” in nature. That is, rather than look for evidence for a worldview (which is somewhat misguided), we assume the worldview for the sake of argument, and engage in an “internal critique,” or, test the integrity of the worldview on its own terms, as it applies to the known world. Of course, for a worldview to be true, it must be consistent through and through. Further than that, those things which regulate the worldview must come from somewhere that itself is consistent, and immutable. What “gives rise” to any particular worldview must be such that nothing other than that worldview can be a possible outcome, particularly if it is contrary, in any sense.

When we argue for the Christian worldview, we argue from the Impossibility of the Contrary. Since Christianity is the truth given to us by the Creator of the Universe, it must therefore be the only thing rightly called “true.” Anything else that purports to be “true,” if it is not Christianity, will inevitably result in contradiction, or “Impossibility.” This is most clearly seen in light of arguments brought against Christianity. Any worldview (which is definitionally absolute) which is “sufficient” is therefore *the* truth, as there cannot be competing “absolutes” that are contradictory. In other words, once Christianity is understood to be sufficient, all other worldviews are consigned to “false.”

Granted, there are “expressions” of Christianity that do not take the entire Bible into account. And that is precisely the difference. Any expression of Christianity that does *not* take the entire Bible into account is an incorrect expression. Ultimately, therefore, it will and does lead to contradiction. With regard to the Bible, it’s an all or nothing deal. The clearest, most consistent expression of Christianity will be a Reformed, Calvinistic, Covenantal, Trinitarian Christianity.

All that said, you need to determine whether you are not putting off embracing Christianity simply because there are competing religions. You don’t need to know every way in which every other religion is false, in order to know that Christianity is true. Do you wait to see every *wrong* answer to 1 + 1 before you settle on “2″ being the *right* answer? No, in fact, since you understand that “2″ is the right answer, that makes it easier to decide which answers are wrong. And this is what I challenge you with. Take Christianity, in its entirety, for the sake of argument. As Augustine and Anselm have said, “Believe in order to understand.”

Don’t worry about being called or considered “closed-minded” if you only accept one truth. No one calls you that for only accepting “2″ as the right answer to “1 + 1,” right?

Well, hope this helped!

Regards,
Matthias

Reply