“In the language of the Bible God is the Origin of heaven and earth. There is no original power which is opposed to Him. Consequently, in His creation we cannot find any expression of a dualistic principle of origin.”
Cornelius Van Til (CVT)
Christianity & Barthianism — p. 231
R2K does not posit a dualistic principle of origin but it does posit a dualistic principle of rule, wherein the rule of Christ is dualistically split between his right-hand rule and his left-hand rule. This expression of a dualistic principle of ruling ends up turning the Christian faith into a form/matter (nature/grace) Aristotelian faith.
_____
“In the language of the Bible God is the Origin of heaven and earth. There is no original power which is opposed to Him. Consequently, in His creation we cannot find any expression of a dualistic principle of origin.”
CVT
Christianity & Barthianism — p. 231
R2K does not posit a dualistic principle of origin but it does posit a dualistic principle of rule, wherein the rule of Christ is dualistically split between his right-hand rule and his left-hand rule. This expression of a dualistic principle of ruling ends up turning the Christian faith into a form/matter (nature/grace) Aristotelian faith. So, while R2K teaches that God alone is the origin of heaven and earth, it negates that teaching by suggesting that God alone is not the direct ruler of heaven and earth. God has placed a demiurge called “Natural Law” between Himself and man in His ruling over man.
“All apostate philosophy is immanentistic.”
CVT
Christianity & Barthianism All CVT means by this is that philosophy that does not begin and end with the Triune God and His revelation as its transcendent starting point only has the self to start with and because that is true it is immanentistic, which is to say man has a starting point that is not outside of himself but is only in himself. He is his own origin or beginning point of truth.
Christianity & Barthianism All CVT means by this is that philosophy that does not begin and end with the Triune God and His revelation as its transcendent starting point only has the self to start with and because that is true it is immanentistic, which is to say man has a starting point that is not outside of himself but is only in himself. He is his own origin or beginning point of truth.
“The work of his (Barth’s) Christ does not take place directly in history. Barth’s view of Geschichte allows for no transition from wrath to grace.”
CVT
Christianity & Barthianism — p. 224
Geschichte is non-temporal saga history that is not history as we normally understand it. The reason that is does not allow for a transition from wrath to grace is because being non-temporal there is no time and space divine “now” where Tetelestai (It is Finished) is heard.
“All proper human activity is therefore activity within the Kingdom of the Christ.”
CVT
Christianity and Barthianism — p. 228
Van Til would have been waging war against R2K.
“On Barth’s view this simple picture of the Biblical view of sin and its origin by Bavinck, falls away. Barth’s view of revelation as indicating both the fact that God is wholly revealed and wholly hidden leads him to reject the direct confrontation of God and man in history at every point. Barth is particularly outspoken in his rejection of the historicity of the Genesis account of the origin of man and sin.”
CVT
Christianity & Barthianism — p. 217
“If we are to evaluate fairly Barth’s view of Christ, we must ask again where his Christ may be found. One point is plain. It is that according to Barth, Christ cannot be found to be directly identified with anything in history. Christ cannot even be directly identified with Jesus of Nazareth… Moreover, since the revelation of God cannot, according to Barth, be directly identified w/ Jesus of Nazareth, so also the Scriptures cannot be directly identified w/ revelation..”
CVT
Christianity & Barthianism — p. 213
Knowledge of self depends on knowledge of God- and vice versa-first chapter of Calvin’s Institutes. Kierkegaard and Schleiermacher made subjectivity of the individual ultimate, i.e. no objective truth outside of oneself. This obliterates scriptural and natural revelation as objective truth, as now “my truth” and “your truth” are different things depending on how we perceive and deal with the revelation. It is the complete demise of philosophy and theology and logically science, technology, engineering, etc. Of course, people are not consistent with this insane notion, else they would quickly be destroyed.
When Kierkegaard wrote such things as “truth is subjectivity” he was not saying there’s no objective truth outside of himself. I think he was rather just saying that, as a finite creature, exhaustive comprehensive truth was beyond his capacity per Ps. 139:6.
“Eternal essential truth is by no means in itself a paradox; but it becomes paradoxical by virtue of its relationship to an existing individual. p. 183. To assume that this denial that Christianity is a doctrine should imply that Christianity is contentless, is merely a chicane. When the believer exists in his faith his existence acquires tremendous content, but not in the sense of paragraph material. pp. 339-40. To understand what Christianity is, is not the difficulty, but to become and to be a Christian.” p. 497.
Soren Kierkegaard, ‘Concluding Unscientific Postscript’, trans. Swenson & Lowrie
Kierkegaard like all existentialists say everything. They are a ball of contradiction Ron. You can’t just pull a few quotes from them and say …. “See, they’re OK.” The reason this is so is because they were using a dialectic in order to manage their limiting concepts.
_____
“He (Barth) does essentially what Kierkegaard sought to do, namely, insist on the non-logical character of the principle of individuation. In effect both make the sweeping assertion that it is impossible for either God or man to give a rational interpretation of all reality. Both militate against the possibility of an existential system. Following Kierkegaard, Barth insists that brute facts must be really brute.
He (Barth) has become known as a champion of the irrational in theology. But to be such he must also be a champion of rationalism. Each time a philosopher or theologian becomes more irrational than his predecessors, he becomes also more rationalist.”
CVT
The New Modernism — pp. 68
The seeds of postmodernism have been in Western Philosophy since Descartes but we might say that with Hegel, Kierkegaard, and Barth the seeds had become healthy saplings.
There really is no reasoning with moderns — public Intellectuals or man on the street types — who have been saturated in this way of thinking if only because in this way of thinking contradiction is normative. The godless rational has been married to the godless irrational and each and both can be pulled at any time in discussion with both a straight face and condescending aplomb.
Actually, we have come to the point that C. S. Lewis spoke of in his last battle. Like the talking animals who at the end were only making animal noises, so modern man talks but it may as well be the animal noise of a hooting owl or a screeching panther. It means NOTHING. It has no COHERENCY. Its validity lasts only as long as it is declared invalid.
“Eternal essential truth is by no means in itself a paradox; but it becomes paradoxical by virtue of its relationship to an existing individual. p. 183.
SK
Bret responds,
This is meaningless. Truth is not paradoxical EXCEPT when it is paradoxical, and it always is paradoxical when it is held by an existing individual.
SK writes,
To assume that this denial that Christianity is a doctrine should imply that Christianity is contentless, is merely a chicane. When the believer exists in his faith his existence acquires tremendous content, but not in the sense of paragraph material. pp. 339-40.
Bret responds,
But, Soren, the Scriptures are paragraph material. Again, decidedly non-Christian.
SK writes,
To understand what Christianity is, is not the difficulty, but to become and to be a Christian.” p. 497.
Bret responds
Given what Soren says above in the previous quotes I do think understanding what Christianity is, would be difficult given his insistence that Christianity is not paragraphic material.
Soren Kierkegaard has had a great impact on my life in showing me that the Christian life has to be more than having all your doctrine and dogma ducks in a row in order to wrangle with other Christians. He’s not Holy Writ (no man’s words are) — and I prefer his devotional to his philosophical works, — but he’s been very helpful to me and I love the way his mind works and his heart bleeds.
I rejoice that the Lord Christ used SK to bless your life.
God is in the habit of using crooked sticks to draw straight lines.
May the Lord Christ continue to place authors in our lives to conform us to Christ …. even those who are crooked.
We’re all ‘crooked sticks’ with a ‘treasure in earthen vessels’. Here’s a parting insightful excerpt, so typical of S.K., that shows why I hold him in such high regard:
“Precisely by (its dread of guilt) Judaism is further advanced than Hellenism, and in this one can perceive the sympathetic factor in the relation of dread to guilt which Judaism would not relinquish at any price for the sake of acquiring the lighter expressions of Hellenism: fate, luck, misfortune. Therein consists the profound tragedy of Judaism, analogous to the pagan’s relation to the oracle. The Jew has recourse to the sacrifice, but that is of no help to him; for what properly must help him would be that the relation of dread to guilt was annulled, and a real relation posited. Inasmuch as this does not come to pass, the sacrifice becomes ambiguous (a fact which is expressed by its repetition), a further consequence of which would be a pure skepticism with respect to the act of sacrifice itself. … Only with sin is providence posited … Only with sin is atonement posited; and its sacrifice is not repeated. … So long as the actual situation of sin is not posited, the sacrifice of sin must be repeated. (The sacrifice [is] in fact repeated in Catholicism [i.e. in the Mass], although [strangely enough] the absolute perfection of the sacrifice is [claimed to be] recognized.)” pp. 92-3.
Soren Kierkegaard, ‘The Concept of Dread’, trans. Walter Lowrie
Yes…. we are all crooked sticks … but you know as well as I do that some are more crooked than others.
I mean sanctification is a real thing.