The denial of knowledge today

Christ and Culture. How can the problem be solved? According to Niebhur and a the popular doctrine of today it is relativity. The problem of Richard Niebhur's conclusion of Christ and Culture is a problem that the popular religion folks have today. Niebhur, like today's so-called churches (Reformed or not), are relativist. They in their relativistic viewpoint teaches that no one can know anything, They separate faith from knowledge. This seems to be similar to those of the Catholic church. How can you know is the great question of the times. Towards the end of "Christ and Culture", Niebhur says, "In politics, economics, and every other sphere of culture, no less than in medicine, we do the best we can on the basis of what we know about the nature of things and the processes of nature; but that best is always relative to fragmentary social and more fragmentary personal knowledge. (Pg. 234 - 235)" In other words, man has only a fragmentary knowledge of things, therefore how can man know anything at all? How could Niebhur have known about this fragmentary knowledge of things if even his thoughts are fragmentary? He couldn't. He says, "All our faith is fragmentary, though we do not all have the same fragments of faith. The littleness of second-century faith became apparent in its attitude toward the 'world' . . . . When we reason and act in faith and so give our Christian answer, we act on the ground of partial, piecemeal faith, so that there is perhaps a little Christianity in our answer. (Pg. 236)" Because of this concluding remark, Niebhur summarizes, "But from this particular standpoint in social history we necessarily see Christ against a background and hear his words in a context somewhat different from the background and context of our predecessors' experience. Our historical situation with its views and duties is further complicated by the relativity of our situation in society as men and women, parents and children, governors and governed, teachers and learners, manual intellectual workers, etc. We must make our decisions, carry on our reasoning, and gain our experience as particular men in particular times and with particular duties. (Pg. 237)" Therefore, no one can say that this is the answer on the basis of this relativity. However, this is the problem of this answer from Niebhur and those who are like him, they have not even begun to answer the question from a Biblical standpoint.

What is the result of denying knowledge? The result is futile. Number one it leads to post-modernism, the denial that truth can be found. Number two it leads to legalism. Lordship salvation is the result of such. If knowledge is forsaken, then men will put their eggs in a different basket. The result is legalism.
With this said, Niebhur's response has not touched the surface of Scripture I mean at all. For one thing, the Christian faith is founded not on man's own rationality, but on the sure foundation of Scripture alone which is the word of God. Man knows only that which God reveals to Him in the Scriptures. On this basis is faith built upon. Faith, is intellectual assent. Jesus tells us that the Church of God will be built on the confession that Jesus Christ is the messiah. The two principles that the Scriptures contain are the law and gospel. These two are distinct. The one commands the other declares what is done in Christ on the cross for the elect alone. By this we can judge between the lie and the truth. Of course, no one says that our knowledge is perfect. But, it is based on the old gospel truth revealed in Scripture alone. We do not judge our faith based on our experience but rather based on the Scripture. Which Christ do we believe? Is it the false idol Christ or the Christ of the Bible? Those who are sovereign grace believers already have the tools to reply back to these falsehoods.