R.C. Sproul

They are inconsistent.

They are confused.

Eclecticism is confusion in the final analysis.

I don't know anyone who's really eclectic, who's been able to work in an eclectic framework in a framework of consistency.

And what I mean by eclecticism, of course, is you take a little bit of truth from this system, a little bit of truth from that system, a little bit of truth from another system, a little bit of truth from still another system, and try to live in the tension of this kind of tossed salad, smorgasbord perspective of truth.

Well, what's the basic motivation for that kind of a construction of a worldview?

What is usually behind that kind of perspective?

Exactly.

What we do is that we take from one system what we like.

We take from another system what we like.

We take from another system.

The principle of selectivity is determined by people's desires.

But again, your desires may be fulfilled, but your life and worldview cannot stand up under analysis.

Very, very few people in our modern society are thoroughgoing nihilists.

A nihilist is one who sees all the implications of the statement, there are no absolutes, and operates accordingly.

And so what I'm getting at is this, that people on the grassroots, popular level, who make statements like there are no absolutes, for the most part, will not embrace nihilism.

So our first step in dealing with these people is to try to show them that the statement there are no absolutes must inevitably conclude with nihilism and force them to face the implications of their statement or else abandon that criticism.

Because if there are no absolutes, what else would that mean?

If there are no absolutes, there are no absolutes.

If there are no absolutes, period, then that means, as I mentioned earlier, there can be no such thing as absolute being, only becoming.