Reading CVT on Barth

“God’s revelation does indeed take place not behind but in the words of Scripture. But the identification of revelation w/ Scripture is never direct. It is always indirect. No document of history can offer anything more than a witness to primal history.

The ‘witnesses to the resurrection’ still deal with the promise only. As far as ordinary history is concerned, the facts of the gospel story from the virgin birth to the ascension are enshrouded in such mystery as to admit of various interpretations. A true faith will not build its house upon the quick sands of ordinary history.

In all this opposition to the idea of revelation as directly identical with history, Barth is doing, in effect, what Kierkegaard did when he argued that truth is in the Subject.

Barth tells us that a true approach to theology must be existential. But a true existential approach is not possible on the basis of the idea of direct revelation. On the basis of objective or direct revelation, man is not really involved in the question of his relation to God. ‘Where the question is really that pertaining to man, there the subjective is objective.’

Man must meet God, then, not through direct revelation in history but man must meet God by becoming cotemporaneous with God in Urgeschichte.

CVT
Christianity & Barthianism – p. 309

1.) Scripture is not God’s revelation but has the potential of becoming God’s revelation in encounter.

2.) Scripture is a witness to history without being true history (this is Barth’s “Historie.”)

3.) True faith should not and cannot be anchored in the recorded history as penned by the authors of Scripture. The thought here is that if true faith is not anchored in Scripture then when Scripture is proved historically false then faith cannot be affected.

4.) In order for faith to be true faith and to be a genuine faith it must come from within the subject but not as based on an objective outside Historie word.

5.) Man meets God when man projects himself into his own god concept.

___

“When Kierkegaard said that truth is subjective he did not intend this in the individualist and solipsist sense of the word. On the contrary, he intended to overcome subjectivism in the bad sense by speaking of God as the true and ultimate subject. Even so, this God as absolute Subject was only the projection of man as the autonomous subject.”

CVT
Christianity & Barthianism – p. 308

And because that last sentence above is true, even though existential “theology” seeks a God that is only the projection of man as the autonomous subject the end result is individualist and solipsist.
If God can’t be known then the “I-Thou” relationship is reduced to “I-I said Loudly” relationship.

____

CVT critiquing Kant again. Remember, modern scholars are trying to tell us that CVT was Kantian. Does a Kantian critique Kant like this?

“The critical philosophies of Kant and of recent dialecticism are indeed open for the idea of the religious. They make room for God. But always they make room for the kind of God who opens up the future for man as a realm of pure possibility. And always the end result is a monism in which man is absorbed into the God which man himself has projected as his ideal. Thus modern man is still going round in circles of his own consciousness writ large. The God of this religious consciousness, as qualitatively different from man, remains man’s hypostatized and personalized ideal. Like a rocket that needs first to be thrown up into the sky in order then to come with light from above, this God of recent dialecticism is an eject of man’s own consciousness.”

CVT
Christianity & Barthianism – p. 306

___

The idea of Transcendence in Barth’s early theology was that of pure negation.”

CVT
Christianity & Barthianism

Barth’s “God” was so transcendent he couldn’t be reached. Being that transcendent (unreachable) the effect was to make Barth’s God to be totally immanent as man now was in control of how God would be described since the transcendence of God made God unable to describe Himself.
The Liberalism that Barth had been fighting had reduced God to man. Barth’s answer to Liberalism was to absorb man into God.

The end result was not much different except for style points.

Add A Verse To “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus” To Focus On Jesus Priestly Office

Maybe we need to add a verse to our Christmas Hymn “Come Thou Long Expected Jesus” in order to emphasize that the need for a coming Messiah was not only to be the needed King to conquer the strong man and to deliver us from the Kingdom of Darkness to the Kingdom of God’s dear Son, whom He loves, but we also needed a Great High Priest to represent us before the thrice Holy God.

We now sing;

Born thy people to deliver,
born a child and yet a King,
born to reign in us forever,
now thy gracious kingdom bring.
By thine own eternal spirit
rule in all our hearts alone;
by thine all sufficient merit,
raise us to thy glorious throne.

Perhaps we could add;

Born thy people to atone for
born a babe to serve as priest
born to serve as mediator
In thy death is our release
Be our access to the throne
by thy death be thou our peace
let thy prayers now be our own
Thou art God, and King and Priest

The Current Hegelian Dialectic Exposed

The Hegelian dialectic contains a theory of history believed by the Marxist to be the means by which history is manipulated by the Marxists. It presupposes that there is no God and that history is materialistic and can be directed.

I propose that this is the Hegelian dialectic that is being worked on us by the New World Order repeatedly in the context of Color Revolution.

Wash, rinse, and repeat over and over again.

Thesis

Creation and or magnification of crises and problems. Financial panic, war, artificial shortages of basic commodities, gun and violence awareness.

The more problems factored into the equation, the swifter political and socio-economic changes can be accomplished; as in the former Soviet Union.

Antithesis

Use of the media, puppets, and other communication (podcasts Carlson, Owen, Fuentes, etc.) to focus attention to the crises and mobilize the opposition to the problem.

Synthesis

Offers the solution to the artificially created or magnified problems of step one. The sweeping changes succeed only because of the well orchestrated dispensation of social propaganda during the incubation process and ensuing panic period. The masses consent to otherwise intolerable socio-economic reform (Mahmdani in NYC, Katie Wilson in Seattle, Jacob Frey in Minneapolis, etc.) with little or no resistance.

Answering DeYoung’s Six Questions

DeYoung asks;

Question #1: Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism? antisemitism, racism, and Nazism.

That is to say, do you hold to any of the following: (1) a disdain for Jewish people and a belief that a secret cabal of Jews are responsible for a litany of evils in our world, (2) a disdain for non-Whites and a belief in the mental and spiritual inferiority of Blacks, and (3) an appreciation for Adolf Hitler and a belief that Nazis were the misunderstood good guys in World War II? I know I haven’t provided technical definitions for these isms or sought to substantiate my insinuation that all three are sinful and abhorrent. But that’s the point. Most people don’t need a lot of nuance to condemn Kevin  I commend Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson who have called out these destructive sympathies on the right. It should be a simple thing to reject these ideologies and make clear that they have no place in conservatism, in Christianity, or in Christian Nationalism.

Bret responds,

Up until WW II it was a widely embraced consensus that a secret cabal of Jews were responsible for a litany of evils in our world. Men like Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Abraham Kuyper, and Winston Churchill spilled copious measures of ink on the problem of the Bagels. Government officials sent missives back to their respective governments detailing that the Russian Revolution was a Bolshevik Jewish Revolution. Church history is peppered with Church councils having to deal with the problem of the Bagels throughout the centuries. For DeYoung to pretend that our Fathers have not struggled with how to contain the Bagels given their propensity to be responsible for a litany of evils is just DeYoung whistling past the graveyard or it is a case of monumental and decided ignorance of history on DeYoung’s part.

In terms of DeYoung’s (2) above I can only direct him to read Charles Murray’s 1994 “The Bell Curve.” He can find it on PDF if he is interested.

In terms of my attitude towards blacks … it is best summed up by 19th century J. H. Thornwell;

“The Negro is one blood with ourselves — that he has sinned as we have, and that he has has an equal interest with us in the great Redemption. Science, falsely so called, may attempt to exclude him from the brotherhood of humanity…. but the instinctive impulses of our nature combined with the plainest declaration of the Word of God, lead us to recognize in his form and lineaments — his moral, religious, and intellectual nature — the same humanity in which we glory as the image of God. We are not ashamed to call him our brother.”

Dr. James Henley Thornwell

Sermon — Rights and Duties of Masters

In terms of DeYoung’s (3) above, I again accuse the man of historical illiteracy. Keep in mind that folks today who might be reconsidering Hitler might be doing so because they are also reconsidering Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

I for one view Hitler as a villain because I believe it is entirely possible that he was a creation of the same forces that crushed him. I believe he was created in order to be crushed. I don’t believe Hitler was a villain because of his desire to protect Germans from the Communist threat that was promised to pour over Europe. I also believe that the US joined hands with a mass murderer when they held hands with Stalin as allies in WW II and as such I have disdain for that generation of leadership. At least Patton got it right (too late) to note that, “we may have been fighting the wrong enemy (Germany) all along.”

DeYoung here is playing the struggle session card and is expecting folks to jump at his a-historical posturing. Folks can say, “If forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin, I would have chosen Hitler,” without thereby communicating that they are Hitler fans.

I encourage Rev. DeYoung to read Antony’s Sutton;

“Wall Street & The Rise Of Hitler.”

Maybe he will learn something that might be helpful to his ridiculous reading of history.

Which Came First; The Way R2K “Reformed” Chaps “Reason” Or The Way Baptists Reason?

“Is it true that there is “no neutrality” in the cosmos? Here are several thoughts on the “Christ vs. Chaos” mindset:

1. Yes, Christ is Lord. Amen!

2. Yes, all people are called to submit to Christ’s Lordship.

3. At the level of the human person, we really are in either Christ or chaos, then.

4. But this does not follow for institutions and nations and stores and the public square. These entities are nowhere Christianized in the New Testament.

5. Jesus does not teach that Caesar is “neutral,” exactly, but Jesus does teach us to render to Caesar what is due Caesar (Matthew 22:21).

6. So too does Peter tell us to honor the emperor (1 Peter 2) in an era when the emperor was decidedly not Christian.

7. All this means that while the public square isn’t “neutral,” it’s also not savable like the human person is.

8. Nowhere in the NT do governments or stores or schools get saved.

9. We believers seek to influence the public square and the cultural order in a serious way; that’s what being “salt and light” means (Matthew 5:13-14).”

Owen Strachan
Provost – Grace Bible Theological Seminary  (Baptist)

Bret Responds;

1.) For Owen, Christ is Lord except when Christ isn’t Lord. Christ is Lord over the individual but Christ can’t be Lord in any kind of Institution among men where the men in that Institution resolve together to operate that Institution as Christian Men.

2.) For Owen all people are called to submit to Christ’s Lordship until they start to work together in some kind of corporate endeavor. Once you put more than one person together with another person to sell widgets or Lemonade then the requirement to submit to Christ’s Lordship ends.

3.) Agreed, as far as Owen goes here.

4.) First here, note that Owen restricts his Bible to the NT. Quite to the contrary of Owen we note that the Scriptures are comprised of both the OT and NT.

Second, if “institutions and nations and stores and the public square” are not to be Christianized then what is left? Does Owen realize that Mooselimbs, Bagels, and Hindus are not going to reason that “institutions, and nations, and stores and the public square” are not to be Islamicized, Judaized, or Hinduized. So, Owen, like R2K, would argue for a religiously naked public square but will provide no answer to the conundrum that Mooselimbs, and Bagels, and Hindus, and Atheists will pursue with definite conviction a public square, a nation, and Institutions that are beholden to their demon gods?

Frankly, as I have said repeatedly in connection with R2K this kind of reasoning is not just off, it is monumentally stupid and worse yet it is dangerous because if pursued by all Christians as living in a multicultural setting it means the success of Mooselimbs, Bagels, Hindus, etc. to roll Christ off the throne in the public square. It means the persecution of the Christian faith. It means Dhimmitude status.

Look, the hour is late and we no longer can just smile and shake our heads at these R2K/Lutheran/Baptist idiots. Their theology is a theology of absolute abject surrender. It is a theology that is embraced by people who hate their children, hate their neighbors, and worse of all hate their God.

5.) It is true that Jesus said to render unto God the things that are God’s and to render unto Caesar the things are Caesar’s. This, by necessity, means that we, as Christians, must render Caesar and all he claims to God since Caesar is a thing that belongs to God. If Caesar can find anything that is uniquely is and not God’s and I will be sure to render that thing unto Caesar.

6.) It is true, that we are to honor the King. However, that honor due to the King does not exceed our responsibility to honor the King of Kings and so if it is the case that the Emperor becomes in his duties an “Anti-Emperor” then Christians are duty bound to honor the office of Emperor by throwing him out on his keister.

7.) If the public square is not neutral then the public square must be rendered unto Christ as King since the public square belongs to Him. We are sinning if, as Christians, we do not render the public square unto Christ. If Christian men and women render the public square unto Christ, I’ll be glad to let Christ worry about whether or not the public square is salvable.

8.) Christianity has such an effect that when it is introduced into the bloodstream of a nation, public square, or Institution it completely turns that nation, public square, and Institution on its head. See the account in Ephesus recorded in Acts 19:23f. There we see a city fighting against being saved.

9.) It seems that Owen desires Christians to salt and influence the public square much like the seasoning oregano season a tomato dish. Owen can’t envision where the salting and influencing rises to the point to be the dish served and not merely the seasoning.

I suspect that, like R2K, Owen is not postmillennial and so is retrofitting his theology to fit his a-priori eschatology.