My Stance on Egalitarianism vs. Complementarianism

Complementarianism vs. Egalitarianism



      Within the biblical text, I see a lot of information which points to a role-distinction between men and women.  Even understanding the biblical culture, I believe that God's word reveals a distinction between the roles of men and women.  By no means am I saying that men are any less than women, nor women less than man.  The Bible reveals that men and women were created equally before God, because both are image bearers of God.  Therefore, the essential worth of man and woman is the same. 

      However, this equality before God does not mean that men and women were meant to take on the same roles.  Our worth does not depend on the roles we take.  With this in mind, I believe in a complementarian teaching of role distinctions.  Again, it is not because I believe that men are superior to women.  I believe it makes sense that God differentiated the roles of men and women. 

      Also, my complementarian view of role-distinctions does not mean that women cannot serve in leadership positions in the church.  The main distinction is that women are not to serve as elders (a biblical term for what we call pastors).  I am not saying that there were never or never will be women pastors, or that their ministry will never glorify God.  There are many I know of who have made a positive impact for Christ.  However, by my understanding, this should not be the norm, and it usurps the role-distinctions created by God. 

      Similarly, in a marriage relationship, I believe that the husband is the head of the family as Christ is the head of the church.  This does not mean that every woman's roles is to simply be a submissive wife, because I understand that marriage is not right for everyone.  Therefore, a woman who does not marry is not any less significant than a woman who does marry. 

      From all of this, my complementarian views are more focused on the relationship between a man and woman within marriage and the roles of men and women within certain leadership positions in the church. The following link describes the different perspectives between egalitarians and complementarians.  As I have mentioned earlier, I tend towards the side of the complementarians for similar reasons listed in the document from the link. 
     

Here is the link: http://www.cbmw.org/resources/articles/summaries-of-the-egalitarian-and-complementarian-positions

About Open Theism and The God Who Plays Dice

A Book on the Openness of God
by Gregory Boyd



      Open Theism places an emphasis on the philosophy of libertarian freedom.  In order to be free, there can be no restraints which limit our decisions.  As free moral agents, our decisions should be free of influence (whether it be from without or within).  If we are influenced to choose something, then we did not, in truth, freely make that decision.  With this in mind, Open Theism tries to build its theological anthropology and theology proper on the "need" of libertarian freedom. 

      Because of their strong emphasis on libertarian freedom, Open Theists view a god who knows the future as an impossibility.  They would say that if God knew the future, then man cannot necessarily held responsible to his actions, because the future is fixed.  Therefore, man did not have the ability to make a free choice.  Gregory Boyd, an intellectual leader of Open Theism, promotes the idea that even though God does not know the future, he knows every single possible outcome and plans accordingly. 

      Boyd, along with a branch of Open Theism theologians, believes that there are some things that God makes happen.  However, Boyd is not clear as to what these things actually are and admits the haziness our Open Theism's understanding of what God actually enforces.  No matter which way it is taken, Open Theism does limit the sovereignty of God. 

    Intellectually, the idea behind Open Theism is very pleasing and comfortable.  Even though it is relevant, is it truly substantive?  I believe that Open Theism falls apart based on its theological foundation of anthropology and theology proper.  True libertarian freedom does not work in this world.  Our actions are highly influenced by the things around us.  With this in mind, we could make excuses all day for our present situation.  Then, is it truly our fault how we lived?  Should we blame Adam, or Eve?  Should God hold really us responsible?

     When we look at everything together, it seems that a compatibilist view of freedom is more in order.  Rather than a God who merely hopes, we have a God who is in control and knows the very future.  He is not bound by time, but sees the whole of history from the eternity past to eternity future.   Because of all of this, I believe the orthodox teaching of God's sovereignty and man's freedom proves itself to be the best explanation. 




Sites/Videos about Open Theism:


For Open Theism:

This video is Part I. of a lecture Gregory Boyd gave concerning Open Theism.  I strongly recommend watching the full series of 13 videos.  They are easily found on YouTube under "Gregory Boyd on Open Theism."  I did not put them all on here because of the issue of space.  



I promise that I am not stereotyping, but this video is pretty amusing while it explains some of the basics of Open Theism.  By no means am I trying to present Open Theism as uneducated or anti-intellectual.  This is meant more for enjoyment...

Against Open Theism:

http://carm.org/what-is-open-theism

http://carm.org/open-theismOLD



What is Pannenberg's Eschatological Idea of Resurrection?

Wolfhart Pannenberg

      Wolfhart Pannenberg is known by many as a theologian of the Theology of Hope.  He is also a German Lutheran.  During his years in college, Pannenberg studied both philosophy and theology at universities including Gottingen, Basel, and Heidelberg.  One of Pannenberg's teachers was actually Karl Barth. 

      Pannenberg holds a very strong view of history.  He believes that history itself reveals God's action in the past and gives hope for the future action of God.  Philosophy and science seem to have a large impact on Pannenberg's theology.  One example is that Pannenberg stresses creation of doctrine by strong historical evidence and analysis which points towards the Kingdom of God in the future .  History is eschatological in the way that the climax of history is the Kingdom of God.  Therefore, history can point us in the direction of God and give hope towards his Kingdom. 

      In order to understand Pannenberg's eschatological idea of the resurrection, we need this understanding of Pannenberg's view of history.  Jesus, according to Pannenberg, is a very eschatological figure.  Pannenberg claims that Jesus' historical resurrection confirms the hope of the future Kingdom of God.  By this, Jesus is confirmed as the one who is to lead us to the Kingdom of God.  Jesus' resurrection provides a foundation and evidence for the hope of our future resurrection.

      The experience of the resurrection is in the future.  Thus Christ's resurrection provides us hope, but does not make our own future resurrection real.  It is in the future that the general resurrection will become real and we will see that it was true all along.  Events in the future are confirmed by their occurrence which reveals that they were true all along.  Therefore, we do not experience our own resurrection with Christ now, but after it happens it will be as if it always was. 

      Pannenberg's views of history and its eschatological nature of revealing God and the path towards the Kingdom of God are very interesting.  His view of the resurrection is sometimes hard to follow.  Much of what one needs to know in order to make sense of Pannenberg's view on resurrection is his understanding of history and its beginning and ending (or at least climactic continuation). 


Here are some interesting sites and videos concerning Pannenberg: 



This is a lecture Pannenberg gave in regards to Frank Tipler's book The Physics of Immortality.  Pannenberg discusses resurrection in this.
http://129.81.170.14/~tipler/tipler/tipler3.html

These following videos are very interesting.  However, the second one does not finish the lecture.  I cannot find the next clip in the series though...sorry. 



The Importance of Vatican II

Peter and the Keys to the Kingdom

     

      The very controversy behind Vatican II represents the tremendous importance it has in the Roman Catholic Church and Christianity in general.  According to David L. Smith, "the Second Vatican Council...was an intentional effort to renew the church and redefine Catholic dogma." (1)  At the heart of the council was a desire to be more relevant and open to humanity while still maintaining the Roman Catholic tradition. 

      In a very real sense, Vatican II softened some of the traditional Roman Catholic dogmas.  One such change brought by Vatican II is that people can actually be Christians outside of the Catholic Church.  Before Vatican II, both Protestant and Eastern Orthodox were considered among the lost.  This second council encouraged the view that people can follow Christ outside of the Catholic Church as opposed to the traditional view that the Roman Catholic Church is the mediator of salvation. 

      Another dogma which changed within Catholicism was the Roman Catholic doctrine of the nature of the Church.  The Second Vatican Council urged a change from the understanding that only the pope and clergy represented the Church to a view which included all Christ followers as part of Christ's Church.  With this, laity were encouraged to take part in ministry.  This is reminiscent of the biblical teaching of the priesthood of believers.

      Along with these changes for the good, Vatican II also brought about some changes for the worse.  Rethinking the doctrine of the inerrancy of Scripture, the council affirmed that the Bible is inerrant to the extent of the passages which deal with salvation.  Instead of holding to a firm view of the inerrancy of Scripture, the council reveals a similar tangent as Liberal Protestantism with its doctrine of limited inerrancy. 

      One of the stickiest topics debated about surrounding Vatican II is the council's tendency towards universalism.  Norman L. Geisler wrote that though many commentators believe the council recognized non-Christian religions as ways of salvation, traditional scholars disagree, "believing that this line of interpretation reflects more the presuppositions of the individual thinkers than the direct teaching of the council." (2)  Smith, who is mentioned earlier, promotes the idea that Vatican II truly does teach universalism. (3)  This reminds us that we need to be careful when we take stances on issues of which certainty is elusive. No matter the case, if the council promotes universalism, then it follows in the path of Liberal Protestantism and is found theologically lacking within Christianity.

     Much of the changes brought about within Vatican II illustrate a swing from rational view of theology to an religious experience view of doctrine where experience is most apt to describe truth.  It is a change from a strong hold on the transcendence of God to the immanence of God.  As we have seen in the past, this swing of the pendulum can be both good and incredibly dangerous at the same time.  One has the potential to incredibly deepen one's relationship with God, but also risks making theology relevant over containing essential substance and truth.

      Vatican II is so important, because it made some drastic changes within the realm of Roman Catholicism.  These changes not only affect the Catholic Church, but the Church in general. Some of these changes were for the good, and some were for the worse.  In this we can give glory to God for the good and strongly uphold and affirm orthodoxy in those areas which are found lacking. 


Sources:

(1) David L. Smith, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends & Discerning Directions in Today's Theological Landscape, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 87.

(2) Norman L. Geisler and Ralph E. MacKenzie, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 470.

(3) David L. Smith, A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends & Discerning Directions in Today's Theological Landscape, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992), 90.

My Opinion on the Emerging Church Movement

       Over the past fifty years, postmodernism has found itself in the forefront of western philosophy.    For the purposes of this article, I will mainly be talking about postmodernism in the United States.   Many see truth as relative and that true objective truth does not exist.  Postmodernism affects most areas of life, even the church. 

       Within the church is a movement usually associated with postmodernism called the emerging church.  Here, the emerging church is not to be confused with the Emergent church.  The Emergent church is actually an organized body under the overarching movement of the emerging church. 

       Though there are many who align themselves with the emerging church, the emerging church is by no means any sort of organization.  Rather, it is an umbrella capturing a truly diverse mix of people and churches.  One central fact about the emerging church is that it is a reaction to postmodernism and rigid orthodoxy. 

      In Christianity Today, Scot McKnight names five areas which characterize the emerging church (of which he confesses to participate).  McKnight categorizes the emerging church as: 1) provocative, 2) postmodern, 3) praxis-oriented, 4) post-evangelical, and 5) political.  Within each of these categorizes, there are many different approaches from individuals and churches alike. Because of the diversity within the emerging church, I find it hard to give it an approving or disapproving vote. 

       One thing evangelicals can learn from this movement is the importance of relationships and how we live our lives.  Even though the emergent church reveals this importance, it generally fails to see the real importance of belief.  We can also glean from the idea of holistic ministry where we minister to not only the spirit, but to the physical, emotional, relational, and other needs of people.  This promotes a more effective method of ministry, because it ministers to the whole person.  These are just some of the many positive things evangelicals should take into consideration about the emerging church movement. 

       It would be nice if the emerging church only promoted good things.  However, there are strands within the emerging church which teach the wrong things.  For instance, some have taken on the idea of a full postmodern philosophy which leads to religious pluralism.  Others live out the social gospel above the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  The emerging church finds it is easy to fall into a belief that how we live is more important than how we believe.  Again, these are just some of the negative teachings and doings of the emerging church. 

      Thinking about the emerging church movement, makes me think about Forest Gump.  The emerging church is like a box of chocolates, you never know what your going to get.  There are just too many different groups of people and individuals within the emerging church to make a generalization about whether the movement is good or bad overall.


I highly recommend reading the article titled "Five Streams of the Emerging Church" by Scot McKnight on the Christianity Today website.  The URL is: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/february/11.35.html



Here are some videos about the emerging church movement:

John Piper Argues Against the Emerging Church (I think he may be generalizing a bit too much.)

     

This video is an interesting one which argues against the emerging church movement as well.  The speaker may be misquoting people or not providing the proper context.  However, it is interesting to hear his arguements against the emerging church. 

Here are some videos from Mark Driscoll about the emerging church movement.  I tend to like Mark Driscoll's presentation better, because he seems to look at the movement dialectically and break the movement into sub-movements to explain some things more accurately. 

The New Perspective on Paul

Paul

      The new perspective on Paul is really a new perspective of Paul's writings on justification and justification by faith rather than works of the law.  As a reaction to antisemitism in the 1970s, E.P. Sanders argued for a new perspective on the Judaism of Paul's time in his book titled, Paul and Palestinian Judaism. From this reaction against antisemitism came the foundation for the new interpretation of Paul's teachings on justification by faith. 

      First of all, Sanders claims that works of the law such as observing the Sabbath, circumcision, eating kosher, and etc. were thought of as markers which set apart Israel as God's covenant people.  Therefore, works of the law do not mean self-righteousness or meritorious works of righteousness as some may proclaim.  Second to this, faith is viewed as the new marker which sets apart God's people from those people who are without God.  Faith is merely what distinguishes God's people from everyone else. 

      This new perspective on Paul limits the doctrine of justification by faith.  Instead of taking a balanced approach and seeing "works of the law" as referring to both that which distinguished God's covenant people and things people were doing to try to earn divine favor, the new perspective limits "works of the law" to solely that which distinguishes God's covenant people.  In light of this new interpretation of "works of the law," the new perspective on Paul limits the meaning of faith as well by making it to be only that which distinguishes God's people.  Faith is the new distinguishing marker for both Jews and Gentiles of who is a member of God's people.  By this, justification takes on so much of a community oriented approach that individual justification takes the back seat.  Thus the new perspective of Paul leads to a view of justification where the importance of personal individualistic faith is diminished in importance. 

      I like the cultural connections the new perspective of Paul brings to light.  However, the new perspective limits too many things, just as a solely works based righteousness view of "works of the law" does ill in limiting the definition of  "works of the law."  There needs to be some balance.  The Bible reveals the Jewish people as striving to fulfill the law in order to gain favor and standing with God, just as it reveals the "works of the law" as a distinguishing marker of Israel as God's covenant people.  Because these are both biblical, they need to be incorporated in an integrated systematic understanding of justification.  The same thing goes for the issue of faith.  It is both a distinguishing marker of God's people as a whole which incorporates both Jew and Gentile, but alsoindividuals are justified by grace through faith apart from meritorious works.

      We cannot lose sight of the importance of individual justification by faith rather than by works.  Because the Bible reveals both sides of the coin on justification and the "works of the law," we cannot sit back and say it is only one sided.  To do so would lose the richness of the meaning behind Paul's teaching.  Thus we need to have a balanced approach when interpreting Paul's teachings on justification, the works of the law, and faith. 


Sources:

My information on the New Perspective on Paul came from the following article from Christianity Today.


Simon Gathercole, "What Did Paul Really Mean?," Christianity Today, 2007, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/august/13.22.html.  Accessed on November 23, 2011. 

    

The Inerrancy of Scripture

The Bible

      The inerrancy of the Bible is a much debated topic in Christian theology today.  Much of the debate stems from the emergence of Higher Criticism in the nineteenth century.  People claim that the Bible is erroneous and contains many issues that cripple the Bible as the inerrant word of God.  Inerrancy is a very important doctrine, because a lot of Christians view the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God.  If the Scriptures are fallible, then there is no reason that the Bible should be used as the foundational revelation of God to man.

      I hold to the inerrancy of the Scriptures.  The reason why I believe in this is because I believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible.  Because the Bible is inspired by God, it contains his authority. For more on the topic of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, please read my article titled, SOLA SCRIPTURA: AN OVERVIEW OF THE TOPIC OF BIBLICAL AUTHORITY located in my September 2011 posts. 

      The post I just mentioned is a concept study I did on the topic of biblical authority.  In it I explain my position on the inspiration and authority of the Bible.  With this information in mind, I will lay my convictions of the inerrancy of the Bible. 

      As the authoritative word of God, the Bible--in its original manuscripts--is without error in what it says when interpreted properly.  First of all, I believe that the Bible is true in what it asserts and affirms, not necessarily in what it reports.  For instance, the Bible contains accounts where ungodly men and women report things that are not true.  In this case, the assertion of what was said is true, but the actual statement said by the ungodly person is not true.  Second, when interpreting the Bible, people need to look at the proper contexts of the passage and find the meaning which best fits within these contexts.
 
      Also, the Bible needs to be read and understood according to its purpose.  For example, there is an approximation of Pi in 1 Kings 7:23-26.  If one were to calculate Pi from this, one would find the value to be erroneous.  However, was the intent of the author to give an exact numerical analysis Pi, or was this section mainly intended to be an estimate?  Naturally, this passage is dealing with an nontechnical estimate and should be interpreted this way.  From this example I stress that the biblical text should be read through a natural interpretation which looks at the central purpose and context of the biblical passages in question. 

     Though the validity of some passages may not be scientifically resolved, it is because we do not have enough information to make conclusive statements about them.  Even though there exist some of these minor problems which would be cleared with more information, the Bible is inerrant in and of itself.  Problems that arise are usually problems of interpretation or lack of information.  These should not be used to deny the inerrancy and authority of the Scriptures. 

    

Here are some good links:

Reformed Declaration of the Inerrancy of the Bible:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/documents/icbi.html

Pi in the Bible?:

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/pseudosc/pibible.htm

The Importance of the Charismatic Movement

An Illustration of the Holy Spirit Descending at Pentecost



      The charismatic movement started during the years of World War II.  During this time there was a resurgence of interest in spirituality and the supernatural.  Similar to the pentecostal movement, the charismatic movement emphasizes the Holy Spirit.  However, the charismatic movement is not restricted to several denominations, but is rather a movement across the Christian denominations. 

      This is one of the most important features of the charismatic movement.  Its emphasis on Spirit filled living did not make people separate from their denominations, but rather encourages them to live Spirit filled lives within their denominations.  As such the charismatic movement is very  interdenominational.  What makes this significant is that movements of theology within the church usually cause more of an impetus for separation rather than fellowship and collaboration.  Rather than forcing separation, the charismatic movement welcomes all who are born of Christ across all denominations. 

      Beyond this unity of the Spirit, the charismatic movement encourages everyone to live out their faith by the power of the Holy Spirit who works within them.  Spiritual gifts are emphasized as the empowerment towards service for the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ.  People are actually called to worship holistically.  We are not called to only worship with mental assent, but with the whole of our being.  The charismatic movement reminds us that it is about our whole person.  God wants everything of us, not just our minds. 

      Overall, the charismatic movement encourages people to live their lives fully devoted to God through the guidance and empowerment of the Spirit.  It does not seek to crush denominational walls, but to unite Christians in this world for the glorification of Christ.  The charismatic movement is by no means perfect.  There are definitely some flaws within the movement.  However, its importance lies in that it leads Christians to see their unity in the Spirit of God without having to break down denominational differences, and encourages Christians to live Spirit filled lives for the glory of God. 

Fundamentalism

A Societal Response to Fundamentalism



      Fundamentalism came on the scene of the early twentieth century as a reaction to liberal theology.  In both its offense and defense, fundamentalism aims to preserve conservative biblical Christianity and Christian doctrine.  Central to fundamentalism are these five doctrines: 1) the innerancy and infallibility of the Bible; 2) the virgin birth and deity of Jesus; 3) the substitutionary atonement; 4) the literal, physical resurrection of Jesus Christ; 5) the literal, physical return of Christ.*  These are all good doctrines. Standing up for these five doctrines is very admirable.

     Throughout the past century, fundamentalism impacted society by standing up for morality and urging fellow fundamentalists to engage in political activism.  Within the United States, fundamentalists have impacted the political realm by their support of ultra conservative politicians such as Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.  Currently, one of the most important political/moral battles fundamentalists face is the issue of abortion.  No matter what fundamentalists combat politically, they promote the Judeo-Christian foundation of morality. 

      There are a lot of things within fundamentalism that I agree with.  I agree with the  five main doctrines, standing up for morality, and preserving conservative Christian orthodoxy.  However, there are many negative sides that make me wary of associating myself with the title of "fundamentalist."  First of all, fundamentalism is known for its strong reactionary nature and exclusivity.  Fundamentalists have the tendency of separating and denying fellowship with anyone who does not agree with everything they believe.  This belief elitism divides the Church of Christ, and damages fellowship.

       Calling oneself a fundamentalist carries a lot of harmful and unnecessary connotations.  For instance, most people think fundamentalists are uneducated and unintelligent.  Fundamentalism also brings up images of riots and hate crimes like those of the congregation of Westboro Baptist Church and the radical fundamentalist Muslims. 

      Even though there are a lot of admirable things about true Christian fundamentalism, there is so much that disfigures the the name of fundamentalism.  Because of this, orthodox Christianity may be hindered by association with fundamentalism.  Therefore, we should seek to use different names to describe a conservative orthodox Christianity.  There is too much to lose by connecting ourselves to religious fundamentalism. 

    
Sources:

* David L. Smith.  A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends and Discerning Directions in Today's Theological Landscape. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992. pp. 22. 

The Barmen Declaration

A Banner of the Confessing Church

    

    With the rise of Nazism in Germany, there came a Pro-Nazism movement within the church called the "German Christians."  In an attempt to stand against Nazism and its evils, the confessing church called a synod in Barmen, Germany.  During this synod, members of the Reformed church and Lutheran church came together to re-articulate tenants of the faith which were abused by Nazism.

    The resultant document of the Barmen synod was the Barmen Declaration.  Karl Barth was the principle formulator of the Barmen Declaration.  At the center of the declaration are six theses backed by scripture.  One goal of setting these six theses was to ground the truth of the faith and give a rule for judging the false teachings (especially found in Nazism).

      Within the Barmen Declaration, the confessing church denies the right of the state to take power over every aspect of human life, and also denies the right of the church to take power in the state.  This outline of separation of church and state struck a strong chord against Nazism which mixed the two together.  The Barmen Declaration really came about as a reaction against Nazism.  During the time this declaration did not resonate with the majority.  This is noted by the considerable amount of followers of Hitler's evil regime. 

      Even though the Barmen Declaration did not express the thoughts of the majority, it is a document that stood against evil and stood for the foundations of the Christian faith.  The confessing church's attempt to thwart acceptance of Nazism is absolutely admirable.  It is often most difficult to stand for what is right when everyone else is against you.  May we always stand for the truth of God and live accordingly. 



Here is a link to the six theses followed by some commentary: 
http://www.ucc.org/beliefs/barmen-declaration.html


This is another link to the full Barmen Declaration:
http://creeds.net/reformed/barmen.htm

The Importance of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    

     Many present day theologians count Dietrich Bonhoeffer as a Neo-Orthodox theologian.  Though he did not write a systematic theology, it is relatively easy to see Karl Barth greatly influenced Bonhoeffer's theology. Like Barth, Bonhoeffer disregarded religion and  placed a personal existential encounter of God through Christ as what matters most. (1) 
     Bonhoeffer stressed that faith without obedience is not really faith.  Whenever one has faith, one's life is marked by obedience.  Otherwise, there is no reason for faith.  Along with this, Bonhoeffer believed that Christians needed to be active in reconciling the world to God.  This meant the eradicating of evil at whatever costs. 
     Even though Bonhoeffer did not produce a ton of theological writings, what makes him important was his amazing dedication to a life of action.  He did not only believe what he believed, but his belief drove his actions.  This is the point of theology: application.  Without the application of theology, theology is nothing more than words on paper. 
     Many know Bonhoeffer as a man who stood against the terrible regime of Nazism in Germany.  Bonhoeffer not only spoke and wrote against Hitler and his regime, but he also involved himself in an attempt to murder Hitler.  Though using murder as a means of a good outcome is not right, Bonhoeffer's dedication to reconciling the world to God had no bounds.  He truly lived as he believed.  That in itself is a most admiral quality. 


Sources:

1)  Smith, David L. A Handbook of Contemporary Theology: Tracing Trends and Discerning Direction in Today's Theological Landscape. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1992. pp. 35-36.

Barth's Theology

A Sketch of Karl Barth



      After studying classical liberal theology, Barth's theology was absolutely amazing and refreshing.  Barth's dialectical method of theology is very intriguing.  For Barth, the dialectical method of theology is the balancing of saying that we can know fully objective things of God and saying that he is so transcendent that we cannot possibly know anything about him.  These two extremes known as dogma and self criticism are balanced by a dialectical approach to theology. 
       One thing I love about Barth's theology is that it is totally Christ centered.  Barth stressed that Jesus is the image of God made flesh, the ultimate revelation of God to man.  In Christ alone does man find reconciliation with God.  Though Barth had such a wonderful view of Christ, his theology on the atonement drifted towards universal election. 
      Barth's focus on God's sovereignty also gives me great joy.  We cannot know God or speak of God unless it is by His grace.  This is so true.  It is only by God's grace that we can know him and speak of Him.  Taking this further, Barth pressed the idea that we can never speak of God unless God speaks through us.   When God speaks through us, he is unveiling himself through the veil of human language.  This is so interesting to me.  I mostly agree with Barth here, but I do believe that we can say some objective things about God even though they may not be fully understood. 
      God veils and unveils himself to us in the Word of God.  For Barth, this is not actually the Bible.  Barth breaks the Word of God into three components:  the Word Proclaimed, the Word Written, and the Word Revealed.  The Bible fits inside the Word written.  The Word Proclaimed is when people preach.  Finally, the Word Proclaimed refers to Jesus.  Though Barth had such a great view of the Bible, he did not directly associate it with the Word of God. 
      Though Barth's theology does not directly regard the Bible as the Word of God, I agree with a lot of Barth's theology. I think he did a great job of providing a dialectical method of theology.  Barth properly attributes a division between creator and created.  At the center of Barth's theology, his Christology is absolutely beautiful.  Whenever I read or read of Barth's theology, I find myself greatly engaged and fascinated.  He was a truly remarkable theologian. 

The Basic Idea Behind Process Theology

      At the very foundation of process theology is the idea that everything is in constant change and that the supernatural does not occur in created order.  Nothing in the universe is the same from one second to the next.  All life is bound by change.  This idea of constant change leads to the process theology idea that God must be changing.  Process theology lends to God as a character who evolves with history.  Therefore, God is bound to a relationship with creation. 
      Since God needs relationship to be who he is, or more so who he is becoming, creation is therefore eternal.  It is not that God created the universe out of nothing, but that he was always involved in a relationship with creation because creation and evolution define him. 
      In process theology, God is not fully sovereign nor all knowing, because man has ultimate free will.  Process theologians believe in the ultimate power of free will, which leads to the idea that God does not really know what is going to happen, but merely leaves control to humanity.  Also, God is not in control of the future anymore.  In this God is bound to time, human choice, and the natural universe.
      Process theology thus limits God and the biblical understanding of God.  A central presupposition to process theology is the philosophy of naturalism.  Instead of a God who is in control, who created in vast foreknowledge, process theology promotes a God who has good intentions for creation, but merely leaves control to his creation.  By process theology, how God's creation changes affects and changes God himself.
     


Here are some interesting videos from the perspective of a person who adheres to Process Theology:

My Evaluation of Higher Criticism

Higher Criticism



      The Enlightenment and the dawn of the age of science really changed how people viewed the world and reality.  Epistemology became founded upon man's ability to reason and natural law.  Gradually, reason and scientific enquiry became the main source of truth.  Along with this, Christianity adapted to the times and became modern by judging its beliefs in light of modern scientific knowledge and reason.  During this time, people began to view the Word of God not as the truly inspired inerrant word given by God, but as a fallible human document needing subjection to man's intellectual reason and judgement. 
      This way of viewing the Bible is known as higher criticism.  Those who use this method of analyzing the Bible generally adhere to naturalism.   In their attempt reconcile the Bible with modern reason and philosophy, people who use higher criticism have made the Bible into a human and fallible book which needs to be scrutinized under modern cultural presuppositions, namely naturalism and the infallible reason of man. 
      Because of this view of the Bible, I must diverge from a view of higher criticism.  As a Christian, the Bible is God's written word to mankind and the authority over the believer.  Without an objective revelation source, Christianity loses validity because it then becomes a matter of personal religious experience rather than known objective truth which has bearing on people's lives.  Therefore, Christianity without the Bible is not Christianity.  Christ is the highest most pure revelation of God to man, but the Bible is the objective Word of God which has authority over the faith. 
      It is the Bible that reveals Christ to us through the work of the Holy Spirit.  I believe this is why God gave us the Bible, so that we would actually have objective revelation which holds us accountable.  God is not a God of confusion, He is a God of perspicuity and truth.  When man thinks he can subject God to his own rational judgment, he needs to step back and understand his own finiteness.  God is not put into a box understood in terms of modern scientific "truth."  This is why I believe Higher Criticism is defunct, because in an attempt to scrutinize and understand God and the Bible, higher critics have forgotten that God is beyond everything we can know and as Christians we are called to a faith in God which seeks understanding.  Without the Bible, we are not Christian. 


      I believe the Bible is the Word of God, because I believe what it teaches, and the Holy Spirit convicts me so.  When I attempt to understand what the Bible is saying, I follow the guidance of the Holy Spirit in faith.  Anselm put it in a great way for us to understand.  Christian epistemology should be faith seeking understanding. 

Liberation Theology

Jesus the Liberator

   

  

      Liberation theology is actually the title of a list of theologies that all deal with a central feature: the liberation of individuals and the striving for a utopian society.  Mainly found in third world countries, liberation theology is similar to the social gospel movement in the United States.  Though there are many forms of liberation theology, every form promotes liberation--whether it is liberation from poverty, or from social inequality. 
      Within liberation theology there are some great elements that the church can glean.  One element is a passion for the downtrodden, the weary, the oppressed, the orphan, the widow, the poor.  As Christians we are called to live out our faith and reach out to those who are in need.  Another aspect is theology needs to be applied.  What good is theology if it does not do anything other than satsify the mind? 
      Even though these positive influences exist, liberation theology has some serious lackings as a "Christian" theology.  In a paper I was reading about liberation theology from a person who follows liberation theology, I found that liberation theology views the Bible metaphorically.  (I am including a link to this paper at the end.)  For liberation theologians, creation is essentially good.  Sin is not an offense against God, but merely an act against a fellow human, as found in the case of Cain and Abel. Therefore, man does not really need a savior.  This alone is disturbing.  The Bible is quite clear about man's sinful nature and need of a savior.  Apart from Christ, we can do nothing. 
      With their lax notion of sin, liberation theology views Jesus Christ as mainly a liberator from sinful societal structures.  Some of these theologies see him as a model and others believe that his liberation is sacramental.  Because liberation theology views man as essentially good, it believes that we can change society and someday develop a utopia. 
      Liberation theology truly is a mixed bag of good and bad fruit.  In its attempt to bring about a changed utopian society, it lost sight of the natural interpretation of the Bible, the inherent sinfulness of man, the most definite need of a savior, Christ's atoning work on the cross, the spiritual needs of people above and beyond the physical needs, and others.  As such, liberation theology looks like a nice wonderful apple, but when one bites into it, the apple turns rancid as the rottenness is found within.  Though liberation theology is appealing on the outside, it is not based solidly on God's word and thus is found lacking. 




Here is the link to the article I read...

http://www.socinian.org/liberty.html

My Opinion on the Jesus Seminar

      The Jesus Seminar is an association of modern liberal biblical scholars which presuposes a naturalistic worldview with disregard for supernatural occurences.  Because of their strong naturalistic understanding, the Scriptures are seen not as an inspired inerrant text, but rather as only a metaphor, albeit the right metaphor. Steeped in higher criticism, the Jesus Seminar attempted to determine in the Scriptures what Jesus most likely said.  The product of this is a bible with a color coded text which reveals what the Jesus Seminar decided Christ must have said and that which he surely did not say.
      I do not agree with the Jesus Seminar in what they do, because I do not hold to a naturalistic viewpoint.  The Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God which is the foundational revelation through which Christian theology is based. Human reason and religious experience is not good enough as revelation, because it is subjective and changing as we are not God. Whenever I see miracles occur in the Bible, I believe that an actual miracle took place.  Christianity rests on Jesus' divinity, His atoning work on the cross, and His physical resurrection.  Without this truth, Christianity is void.
      Also, I do not even attempt to believe that I am the highest source of understanding when it comes to theology; God is.  Therefore, by my limited ability to fully understand the intricasies of God and all He is, I lend myself to faith.  In no way am I saying that faith is unreasonable.  On the contrary, faith is reasonable, but I simply admit that I do not have the full capacities to reason everything and put it in a box.  God has done a work in me, that I may believe in Him, but this belief does not stop with an empty faith, it is faith that seeks understanding.
      Overall, the Jesus Seminar misses the mark of true theology.  In their attempt to reconcile the Bible with human reason and naturalism, they have turned the Word of God into the Metaphor of God.  For the Jesus Seminar there is a great divide in the importance of objective truth over metaphorical truth.  Without a strong biblical grounding, the Jesus Seminar promotes religious experience governed by modern philosophy and understanding as the foundation for knowing God. 

The following video is a good short clip on the Jesus Seminar by William Lane Craig.

Classical Liberal Theology

      Born out of the Age of Reason, classical liberalism is a political ideology focused on the rights of individuals.  John Locke is a significant contributor to the development of classical liberalism.   There are ten main tenets within classical liberalism: 1) Liberty, 2) Individualism, 3) Skepticism of Power, 4) Rule of Law, 5) Civil Society, 6) Spontaneous Order, 7) Free Markets, 8) Toleration, 9) Peace, and 10) Limited Government.  For more detailed information on these tenets, please watch the following video.

      Another product of the Enlightenment was classical liberal theology.  Classical liberal theology really started with Friedrich Schleiermacher.  Central to classical liberal theology is that Christian theology must agree with modern philosophy and scientific knowledge.  Here, man is the arbiter of truth through his innate ability to reason.  When faith and reason clash, reason must win and faith needs to be reconstructed.  Highly important to note is that the foundation of classical liberal theology does not reside in revelation given in the Bible, but in religious experience. 

    One aspect of classical liberal theology is to reconstruct traditional Christian beliefs in light of modern knowledge and philosophy.  In other words, Christianity needs to be relevant to the modern culture.  By becoming relevant, classical liberal theology lays down a foundation of religious experience which leads away from the authority of the Bible.

     Because classical liberation finds its foundation in religious experience, this leads to the right of individuals to criticize and reconstruct traditional beliefs.  In a sense, God becomes who we perceive is the most appealing and philosophically satisfying being.  It is not that God revealed himself to us in an objective way, but that he reveals himself through the subjective faculties of individual experience.         

      Morality is a main focus in classical liberal theology.  A branch off of classical liberal theology is the social gospel.  People's physical and socio-economical statuses become of great concern rather than the true spiritual needs of man found in the Bible.

      Before classical liberal theology, a traditional belief in Christianity was the gap between man and God given by the transcendence of the eternal infinite holy God and the sinfulness of the finite human beings, which Jesus Christ ultimately bridged by making atonement for mankind on the cross at Calvary.  During the Enlightenment, theologians like Schleriermacher drifted towards the idea of the immanence of God.  This is why religious experience became the foundation for classical liberal theology. 

   Classical liberal theology finds its basis in religious experience rather than the Scriptures.  Therefore, as classical liberal theology made Christianity more relevant and believable, classical liberal theology destroyed the biblical basis of Christianity.  Rather than an inspired text, the Bible is on the level of any other literature and should be read as such.  Classical liberal theologians would probably note that though the Bible is not inspired, it still contains some truths that reveal characteristics of God and how he worked in history.

Sources:

For the first paragraph, my source is the video.

The second part of the paper mainly used the following source:

Stanley J. Grenz and Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology: God and the World in a Transitional Age, (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1993), 51-53. 

My Personal Evaluation of Schleiermacher

      Without application, theology is not useful.  If Christianity is only expressed in terms that revealed truth in a different time to a different culture, then it is bankrupt.  Only when the truths of Christianity are applied in the modern context will Christian theology be fruitful.  However, the ultimate overarching truths of Christianity should not be hampered by some idea of the "authority" of man's subjective and emotional/spiritual experiences of God. 
      First and foremost, I agree with Friedrich Schleiermacher that theology must be relevant to its times.  However, this is where Schleiermacher and I diverge, our personal experience and trust in our own reason should not be authoritative over Christianity theology.  We must start with some solid authority.  This authority is the Word of God. 
      God's word reveals that mankind is sinful and that everyone is bound to sin.  Only through Christ is someone freed from their bondage and forgiven.  This sin, and sin nature, affects man's experiences and ability to reason.  Therefore, man's reason and experiences should not be looked to as the supreme authority.  This is why God gave us His word, in order that we may come to know Him and have a standard for truth. 
      Schleiermacher's largest failure was not that he emphasized man's experience of God, but rather that he destroyed any trace of biblical authority, placing the authority of man over God.  I agree with Schleiermacher's push to make people see that knowledge without experience, and a faith lived, is dead.  Most of all, I am saddened by the effect Schleiermacher's theology has today.  In our postmodern world, there is no view of the God who is.  Modern liberal theology basically makes man god, in that man is--through his experience--the arbiter of truth. 

Schleiermacher and His Importance in Christian Theology

A Statue of Friedrich Schleiermacher

     



       Often known as the father of modern (or liberal) Protestantism, Friedrich Schleiermacher spearheaded the movement of Christian theology to liberalism in the mid-eighteenth to the early nineteenth century.  Schleiermacher made an incredible impact on the theology of his day.  The mark Schleiermacher made still lasts today.  Before getting to know about what Schleiermacher did, it is important to look at the background of his life. 
       Reformed theology was a main influence on Schleiermacher while growing up, because Schleiermacher's father was a Reformed chaplain.  When Schleiermacher came of age, his father sent him to a Moravian seminary.  At the Moravian seminary, Schleiermacher found himself in a world of the pietist movement.  This introduced Schleiermacher to the idea of personal religious experience.
    While Schleiermacher studied at the Moravian seminary, he began to question doctrines he once believed.  Doubt led Schleiermacher to express his feelings and concerns to his father in letter form.  Schleiermacher's father basically told Schleiermacher that if he kept on this course, Schleiermacher was headed straight to Hell.  At this point in Schleiermacher's life, there is a great turn in his theology. 
      After his studies at the Moravian seminary, Schleiermacher studied theology at the University of Halle.  During his studies, Schleiermacher came into contact with Higher Criticism and rational theology.  The University of Halle pushed its students to place theology after philosophy.  Philosophy was to lead the course of theology.  The Enlightenment made reason the basis for theology and epistemology.  Man's reason became central to understanding truth.  Therefore, it makes sense that Schleiermacher was introduced to philosophy as the foundation which theology must find its roots. 
     While Schleiermacher studied at the University of Halle, he came to accept Kant's epistemology.  Because of Schleiermacher's doubts and intellectual struggles with orthodox Christianity, the Enlightenment principle of reason and Kant's epistemology appealed greatly to Schleiermacher.  Schleiermacher felt as if he was intellectually stimulated by reason and personal experience.  Schleiermacher finished schooling at the University of Halle and became a professor at the University of Berlin. 
      With his intellect fulfilled, Schleiermacher saw that there were two main theatres that criticized Christianity: the men of the Enlightenment, and the Romanticists.  Schleiermacher felt it was his duty to save Christianity from these critics and show that Christianity was the best religion.  In an attempt to make Christianity relevant to the modern times, Schleiermacher wrote a systematic theology titled, The Christian Faith.  By making Christianity relevant to his culture and time, Schleiermacher changed Christianity and Christian theology to something that appealed to the people of the Enlightenment and the Romanticists.  For Schleiermacher, he was not destroying Christianity, but rather saving it.  This makes sense, especially knowing that Schleiermacher followed Kant's epistemology. 
       To Schleiermacher, Christianity is not about believing, faith, doctrines, morality, or ultimately about God, it is about one's personal experience with God.  Reiterated, Christianity is not necessarily about truth, but rather one's experience with God.  Schleiermacher believed that true religion is the feeling of absolute dependence.  Everyone feels God, and God is sensed in all religions.  Schleiermacher would say that though all religions reveal God, Christianity is the best way of connecting with God.  At some point, everyone comes to a realization of their total absolute dependence on God.
       In Schleiermacher's book, On Religion, Schleiermacher argues for a more experiential Christianity.  It is not to the Scriptures that one runs to find truth and experience God through His truth, but rather it is man's personal subjective experience with God that truly matters.  From On Religion, Schleiermacher basically says, "religion's essence is neither thinking nor acting, but intuition and feeling, wishes to intuit the universe."  For Schleiermacher Christianity is all about feeling.
      As one sees Schleiermacher's main source of revelation about God, it is not too long of a stretch to see what Schleiermacher did with Christianity's core theological beliefs.  Theology becomes speaking of one's experiences/encounters with God.  Theology is not about stating truths, but rather about articulating and clarifying religious experiences. 
      Christ is central to Christianity, but what does Schleiermacher do with Christology?  For Schleiermacher, Jesus Christ is merely the man, or human, who had the greatest "God consciousness."  As such, Christ can become a medium through which his "God consciousness" is shared with others.  Though, by no means is Christi the only mediator.  This comes directly from Schleiermacher's book, On Religion, "[Christ] never maintained He was the only mediator, the only one in whom His idea actualized itself."  Sure, Christ must have known that there were others like Buddha, and Gandhi, and Zoroaster, and...  Christ is not any different from them in kind, nature, or being, just in degree.  This is what Schleiermacher believed. 
      Sin, for Schleiermacher, is merely God forgetfulness which offends God.  Therefore, redemption gives us the effect of "gaining victory over the sensuous impulses and ordering human consciousness in such a way that pain and melancholy give way to a new sense of equilibrium and joy, a new attunement of the soul in its relation to God and the world." (Christian Faith, 722)  It is not really about the penal-substitutionary sacrifice Jesus made so that we could be restored to our original relationship with God.  Rather than this, it is focused on experience and the feelings of man.  To Schleiermacher, redemption is not an objective historical event, but is rather the experience that takes place inside one's being when he/she realizes his/her total dependence. 
      Overall, Schleiermacher led Christian theology into a totally new arena.  No longer was there objective truth, but religion became focused on man's subjective experience with God.  In making Christianity relevant, Schleiermacher lost the validity of the Christian faith, because he based Christianity on the authority of man's subjective experience of God.  As a natural consequence of this, Schleiermacher downplayed the doctrine of sin and elevated man and man's experience to the center of theology. 

      Schleiermacher's works influenced his time greatly.  The impact Schleiermacher made was so great that liberal theology is still prominent throughout Western Civilization.  While making Christianity relevant, Schleiermacher and his works formed the fountainhead for modern liberal theology which holds the image of man and man's experience at the peak of religion rather than God.  

For More Information, Please See:

  http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/schleiermacher/

Why is Soren Kierkegaard Important?

Soren Kierkegaard

  

       Soren Kierkegaard was an amazing philosopher moved by the philosophy of his time and the situation with Christianity.  Many know Kierkegaard as the father of existentialism.  Though this term carries differing connotations, I hope to clarify Kierkegaard's meaning of existentialism.   Kierkegaard reacted to philosophies of his day, including Hegel and Hegel's reaction to Kant. Along with this, Kierkegaard wanted to reveal to Christianity the dilapidation of its status quo and present path. 
      To begin to understand Kierkegaard, it is important to understand some background information.  Kierkegaard was born on May 5, 1813 in Copenhagen.  During Kierkegaard's life, his father made an impact on how Kierkegaard saw life.  Michael Kierkeggard, Soren's father, led a very depressed life--always looking for God to strike him down, because of Michael Kierkegaard's past.  This melancholy and outlook of doom seemed to pass on to Soren Kierkegaard.  Kierkegaard's father died when Kierkegaard was only 25 years old. 
      By 1840, Kierkegaard finished schooling in theology.  At this time in his life, Kierkegaard began to live a life estranged from the norm of his cultural context, devoting his time to the development of his religious experience and the publication of articles of philosophy and theological matters.  A significant amount of Kierkegaard's works were polemical in nature.  In the arena of philosophy, Kierkegaard mainly wrangled with Hegelian philosophy. 
      Georg Hegel promoted the idea that history is summed as: thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  Known as Hegel's dialectic, this riled Kierkegaard to the core of his being.  Hegel's dialectic assumed that history and life are linearly easy to understand; they are cut and dry.  Kierkegaard attacked Hegel's position by writing how messy life truly is.  One cannot explain everything solely thesis, antithesis, and synthesis!  That is preposterous. 
      As noted earlier, many regard Kierkegaard as the father of existentialism.  What exactly is meant by existentialism?  Today, many take this to be the postmodern viewpoint of the subjectivity of truth--meaning that my truth may be different than your truth, yet it is nonetheless truth.  This is not what Kierkegaard believed.  When on looks at Kierkegaard's writing, he believed in absolute truth.  People see truth objectively, but it needs to also be experienced in one's own life.  This is what he meant, that though truth is objective, it is important that the objective truth is experienced within. 
      Kierkegaard saw the course of the church, mainly talking about the Danish church, as on a wrong heading.  The rudder of the church, though aimed straight, led the church down a non-Christian path.  One thing that Kierkegaard said was, "In a world where everyone is Christian, no one is Christian."  The church, and people within the church, were not living out the Christian life.  For Kierkegaard, the idea of a path in life where one must exercise faith and make choices based on faith was central to the vitality of the Christian life.  If one did not make choices and step out in faith, he or she was not truly living out the faith, but rather living a life of complacency where one did not have to truly live.  The church was not producing true Christians, but rather mindless people who followed blindly and were not required to live.  To Kierkegaard, people are most fully human when they make choices.  Christians are most fully Christians when they have to make decisions based on faith in their lives to walk with God. 
      There are three categories Kierkegaard built to explain the existence of people: the Aesthetic, the Ethical, and the Religious.  The aesthetics are those who look for the good in life.  These are the people who live seeking pleasure in every moment.  A characteristic of this category is that the aesthetics are amoral, meaning that they do not have morals, but merely want to experience life.  The ethical includes everyone who begins to question the difference between right and wrong.  People in this category try to live a good life and know right from wrong.  By Kierkegaard's understanding, most people fall in this category.  The final category is the religious.  People who fall in the religious category are people who move away from asking what is right and wrong to pushing "the end" as the most important thing.  This category views God's ethics as not based on the ethics of humans, but that His ethics are above humanity's ethics.  Therefore, sometimes humans may not understand the reason why things happen, but must step forward in a "leap of faith." 
      As one surveys all of this, one sees how important Kierkegaard was to philosophy and theology of his time.  Not only was Kierkegaard an important character of the past, but he says a lot that is important for theologians and philosophers of today.  Kierkegaard's stress of the personal individual walk characterized by choices and leaps of faith is a powerful idea for today where much of modern Protestantism needs to hear a similar message as to the one Kierkegaard gave the Danish church.  Christians in the mainline churches are not required to live lives that walk by faith, and Kierkegaard's message is vital for today's American Christians.  Kierkegaard provided a foundation in philosphy and the Christian faith that is vital and totally applicable for today. 

"In a world where everyone is Christian, no one is Christian."

"Is reason then alone baptized, are the passions pagans?"

For More Information on Kierkegaard, Please Visit:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kierkegaard/

Hegel and His Beliefs Concerning History

Georg W.F. Hegel

    


      Georg W.F. Hegel was a German philosopher of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century.  Kantian philosophy championed philosophy of the time when Hegel became prominent.  Following after Kant, a lot of Hegel's philosophy responded to the foundation Kant built.  Where Kant pushed God's transcendence, Hegel took to the opposite that God is immanent and knowable.  Kant's statement that things cannot be known in themselves, building a wall between knowing and being, pushed Hegel to argue that everything is actually known in itself. 
      Hegel viewed God as weltgeist.  The weltgeist (world-spirit, or world-mind) is in everything and in every move of history.  This view of God is a form of panentheism.  In Hegel's view of the weltgeist, God evolves alongside human culture.  Hegel taught that God needs humans to become a self-realization by people's discovery of God. 
      A very important idea within Hegel's philosophy is his dialectic of history.  History is summed up by thesis, antithesis, and synthesis.  In Hegel's philosophy these three processes move humanity and history to a climax where there is true freedom and a full actualization of the weltgeist.  An example of Hegel's view of history is: Parmenides, a Greek philosopher, taught that everything is in constant change (thesis); Heraclitus, another Greek philosopher, taught that the world is made up of one unchangeable thing (antithesis); Plato taught that the world is made up of unchangeable forms represented by changing images/copies (synthesis). 
      Hegel understood history as a very simple thing which followed his dialectic quite well.  This dialectic is still used today by some historians.  At the center of Hegel's dialectic, Hegel believed that thesis, antithesis, and synthesis worked together to create a more free and perfect world.  Hegel believed that history would climax in perfection with the weltgeist fully realized and fully actualized in the minds of man.  Perfect harmony and freedom would result from history's natural path.


Here are some good lectures:

This is an introduction to Hegel's ideas.

This lecture deals with Hegel's view of the weltgeist and history.

This lecture deals with Hegel's dialectic of history.



Immanuel Kant's Contribution to Philosophy and Theology

Immanuel Kant

    

      During the Enlightenment, people studying epistemology took two very different and incompatible approaches: the rationalist viewed that only rational reflection provided valid truth, whereas the empiricist believed experience and the human senses were the only ways to determine truth.  Both of these views held high the view of man's ability to reason and determine truth by his own perfect means.  By looking at these two philosophies of truth, one can see that neither one provides anything applicable to real life by itself.  As a result of this dichotomy, Immanuel Kant took both approaches and brought them together into one. 
     Kant formulated a synthetic a priori view of epistemology.  There is knowledge without relying upon experience to govern truth.  Kant broke knowledge into two categories: physical, and noumenal.  The physical realm of knowledge is experiential and reasonable.  However, the noumenal realm is unknowable.  When one is in the physical realm, reason and experience provide paths to knowledge. 
      Physical knowledge is not absolutely objective under Kant's view truth.  Kant argued that everyone experiences through categories.  Nothing is known in itself; things are only known through categories by which one filters experiences.  By this view of knowledge, knowledge itself of the physical realm is very subjective.  Since things cannot be known in themselves, one can only articulate his or her perception.  Kantian philosophy brought Sociology and philosophy the idea of a "worldview."
      Though Kant believed that noumena is real, he said that noumena is not experienced.  In Kant's philosophy there is a dichotomy between the physical (or phenomenal) and noumenal realm.  For Kant, God is real, but no one can experience him (or her for that matter).  Since no one can experience God, no one can really know God.  However, God is still important. From experience of the phenomenal and reason one can come to some sort of understanding of God.  Kant's view of the noumenal realm led to a moralistic view of religion.  Knowledge derived from the physical realm gives insight into how a proper life, a spiritually moral life, is lived. 
       As a result of Kant's view of noumena, Kant developed a theory of morality called the categorical imperative.  The categorical imperative is a method of determining whether an action is morally permissible.  In this, Kant argued that one should act in a such a way that if their action became a universal law, then it would be constructive and good.  Kant's categorical imperative became the framework of his moralistic view of religion. 
       What does all of this mean, and what is its impact?  Kant effectively brought two different philosophies of truth and knowledge into one.  Out of Kant's philosophy came the idea of worldviews, which is still used today.  Kantian philosophy came as a dynamic progression of its Enlightenment predecessors, and paved the way for modern philosophy.  In regards to theology, Kant affirmed man's experience and rationality as the center for understanding spiritual morality.  God is not a personal being who is known, rather he is impersonal.  Kant's philosophy leads to deism. 
      Kant's impact on philosophy and theology is incredible.  The impact Kant made during the Enlightenment still affects philosophy and religion today.  Because of Kant, truth became viewed as personally subjective and religion focused on morality.  This leads to deism and liberal theology based on experience.  Studying Kant reveals the evolution of theological and philosophical thought.  Knowing what Kant believed gives insight into why modern liberal theology and philosophy are the way they are today. 


More on Kant Found At:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/#ForUniLawNat