Relative and absolute

[Oatmeal]

Relative and absolute

Where do the terms "relative" and "absolute" come from?  Are they terms that are accepted (once they are understood) by theologians in general or are they terms coined by Ray?

Thanks

Oatmeal

[Dave in Tenn]

Relative and Absolute are words which have meaning outside of Theology.  Since they are English words, they are not in Scripture, but may be translated (with a degree of accuracy) from Scripture.  Obviously Ray didn't coin the terms.  It's probable that Ray uses the words to describe or explain Scripture.  A 'seperate doctrine' based on the words wouldn't be something I've encountered yet at B-T.  It would be helpful to see where he used the words to know why he used them.

[mharrell08]

Relative and absolute

Where do the terms "relative" and "absolute" come from?  Are they terms that are accepted (once they are understood) by theologians in general or are they terms coined by Ray?

Thanks

Oatmeal

Hello Oatmeal,

I think when Ray uses these two terms, he is referencing the 'relative' as being from man's point of view and uses the 'absolute' from God's point of view.

It would depend on which theologians, based on their doctrinal beliefs, as to whether or not they accept the relative being from man's perspective and the absolute being from God's.

Here is an excerpt from Ray's 2nd Letter to Dr. Kennedy (http://bible-truths.com/kennedy2.htm):

RELATIVE VS. ABSOLUTE

If a theologian can't see the "absolute" versus the "relative" in Scripture, he is in no position to teach anyone.

A little boys asks: "Why did God say in Gen. 3:9: 'Where art thou [Adam]?' Mommy says that God knows everything." (I Jn 3:20). You say, "Of course God knew where Adam was. Adam sinned. Adam felt bad. He thought he could hide from God. God was condescending to man's level. It was for Adam's benefit that God asked, 'Where art thou Adam?'" You say, "That's not a problem. That's easy to understand and answer. It's stupid to think that God didn't know where Adam was."

And, of course, we have Scriptural proof that God knew where Adam was because "He [God] knows all" (I Jn 3:20)

Neither did our Lord ask questions out of ignorance:

"Believe ye that I am able to do this?" (Matt. 9:28)

"Who is my mother, and who are my brethren?" (Matt. 12:48)

"How many loaves have ye?" (Matt. 15:34)

"Whom do men say that I the Son of man am?" (Matt. 116:13)

Christ asked dozens of questions during His ministry. But He already knew all the answers:

" ... because of His knowing ALL men ... " (Matt. 21:27).

Christ even answered questions by asking questions. The Pharisees asked why His disciples transgressed the "traditions." Our Lord knew how to "answer a fool according to his folly" (Prov. 26:5) by asking: "Wherefore are you also transgressing the precept of God because of your tradition?" (Mat. 15:3)

This brings up another apparent contradiction, however, because Prov. 26:4 says: "answer not a fool according to his folly ... " Our Lord knew how to do that as well: "Neither am I telling you by what authority I am doing these things." (Mat. 21:27). These two scriptures in Proverbs should teach us to never pit one verse of Scripture against another. Verse 4 and 5 do not contradict. They are both true.

So if it's stupid to think that God didn't really know where Adam was, a relative statement condescending to man's level, isn't it then, likewise, stupid to believe that God contradicts Himself in the following verses:



THE RELATIVE:                                                                                                                         THE ABSOLUTE:

" ... seek, and ye shall find ... " (Mat. 7:7)                                                          "Not one is seeking out God" (Rom. 3:11)
"God changed His mind" (Ex. 32:14)                                                                         "God is not a man Who changes His mind" (I Sam. 15:29)
" ... choose you this day whom ye will serve." (Josh. 24:15)                                      "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you ... " (Jn. 15:16)
" ... whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God ... " (I Jn. 3:10)                          "All is of God" (II Cor. 5:18)
"Zechariah was just before God" (Lk. 1:5) (Comparing him to the corrupt priests)             "Not one is just" (Rom. 3:10) (Comparing man with God)


One is the "relative" the other is the "absolute." One is from man's point of view, comparing men with men, the other is from God's point of view. One shows how a thing is perceived while the other shows how it actually is. One is for minors while the other is for the mature.

Both Scriptures are true. The relative is true and the absolute is true. They do not contradict. However, one really is "relative" while the other is "absolute."

Theologians are always taking Scriptures that speak of the relative, from man's point of view, and insist that these verses are absolute. By doing this they commit a double sin. Because then they insist that these relative truths actually nullify God's absolute declarations. They won't admit to this in their own words, but this is what they do when they retain the "relative" at the expense of rejecting the "absolute."

Even theologians admit that their free will theory is limited. So they have invented "limited free will." They use analogies like a cow on a tether or a fly in a jar or a lion in a cage. Their freedom is limited to the confines of their restraints, but within those confines they are nonetheless, free. Is this true? Is there such a thing as "limited" free will? Or is this just more theological double-talk?

Only in religion do simple words lose their meaning. Let's look at Webster's Twentieth Century Dictionary: Page 963, "limited, a. Restricted." Page 682, "free, a. without restriction." So here then is what theologians want us to believe: Man has a will that is restricted without restriction.

Man does not have "limited" free will. Otherwise God would have "limited" sovereignty. Man has no free will and God has total sovereignty. Theologians try to make high what is low and try to bring low what is high. These teachings do not glorify God.

Somebody has been taking William James too seriously. God is not sitting around waiting to see what man will do through his "free will" so that He can then figure out what to do about it. Rather than conclude from the "wisdom of the world" that man has a free will (and thus deny the sovereignty of God), we must conclude that since God is sovereign, man can not and does not have a free will. This is logical, sensible, and lawful. It is Scriptural and it glorifies God.

Theologians condemn scientists for their inability to see beyond the "relative" in our universe. Surely these scientists must see that a God must be behind everything. However, except for rare persons like Dr. Einstein, they can't.


Sorry if this is redundant to the question you are asking but hope it can shed some light on the topic.


Marques

[Deborah-Leigh]

Oatmeal the understanding of Relative v/s Absolute is SO important that I believe it should be entered in with the Twelve God Given Truths to Understanding His Word ~ But then so should the entire LOF series and everything else Ray has written. 

After I first came across the insight, kindly referenced for us by Marques, I was so thrilled. It opened up huge territories of Truth and Understanding just by simple application of the vast Wisdom it contains.

You might want to visit some of the many points of discussion that emerged when this topic was posted in:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2319.msg18559.html#msg18559
Re: Relative v/s Absolute 4 November 2006

Also on the same topic see discussions at:
http://forums.bible-truths.com/index.php/topic,2735.msg20432.html#msg20432

Only the Mind and Spirit of Christ can elevate us away from our literal relative thinking into Gods heightened Spiritual Sovereign thoughts and ways.

Arc