Maybe a strange question at a strange moment, but can you tell me where to find more about John Wesleys inclusivism?

Bram

So, back to the truth question:

“What do you mean by more true than others? Give me an example.”

I mean several things by that. Some things are more accurate than others. Some things are more specific than others. Some things are more objectively true than other things. This is so for the Bible as well as life in general.

Moreover, this relative nature of truth can cut in several directions depending on one’s perspective, making something simultaneously more true than another from one perspective and less true than another from a different perspective.

So, for example, Genesis 1 & 2 represent a classic near-eastern creation myth. That makes it less true from a factual standpoint than scientific understandings of how the world developed over time (i.e. the world was not created in six days). This is partly because it is simply a different genre of literature than scientific literature and is meant to convey a different kind of knowledge altogether. The Jews understood this, as did the early church Fathers, none of whom believed the world was actually created in six 24-hour days. Not even they – living 2000 years ago – were naive enough to believe that such a myth was factual.

But, as a myth, it is more true than scientific literature in the sense that it communicates essential theological (and therefore ontological, sociological, moral, and ethical) content. In fact, I would argue that myth, story, folktales, poetry, fiction, etc. (which is what the Bible is) all have the power to communicate far more “truth” than the presentation of empirical data. Moreover, the theological content communicated by the Genesis myth is vastly superior to other creation myths found around the world (and far superior, in my opinion, to the truth communicated by strict evolution as well), making it more true than those other bodies of literature from the same mythical genre.

All genres and knowledge disciplines are limited (including science), because humans are limited. All human forms of communication are limited by time, space, and culture. Hence, however objectively we might attempt to communicate revelation from God, the moment we inscribe it – whether on paper, stone, or through oral heritage – the truth becomes entrapped by sign, symbol, and culture and becomes dependent on other signs, symbols, and cultural artifacts for meaning.

Therefore, all attempts to communicate truth are dependent and relative. The practical outworking of this is that some things are more true than others.

You asked for an example, so here you go:

“Shall”

This is from the Bible. Is it true?

There are a lot of good people on my mom’s side of the family, the sad thing is they don’t know Jesus as their personal Lord and Savior. Some of them believe in God. According to your theology do you believe that people who believe in God but don’t have a relationship will go to Heaven. I believe Jesus is the only way. Haven’t you heard stories of people in Near East and other cultures in those underevangelized countries coming to Jesus because God reveals his son in dreams?

I do, however, think we have to make a decision to follow Christ as our King in order to enter into the life of the Kingdom of God, here and now, that Christ inaugurated 2000 years ago. THAT is what is meant in scripture by “eternal life” or “the Kingdom of God,” or, “the Kingdom of heaven.” That is “salvation.” If we want salvation here and now, turning to Christ is the only way to be delivered into the Kingdom of God.
Let me know of you need more clarity on that, or if you’re ready to move on to the question about truth.

I agree the kingdom has been inauguated but it is not all there yet. In the past the theology has been inauguated but not yet consumated.

I am now ready to move on to the question about truth.