The Battle for the Historicity of the Bible German I dealism, - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Battle for the Historicity of the Bible

German I dealism, Theological Romanticism (Liberalism/ Existentialism), Biblical Criticism & Postmodern Fascism

Divine Revelation in History = Bible

Divine Revelation/ Testimony in Creation & History

• Ernst Mach ( 1 8 3 8 -1 9 1 6 ) said,

“Every unbiased m ind m ust adm it that the age in w hich the chief developm ent of the science of m echanics took place w as an age

• f predom inantly theological

cast.”

• Medieval Scientists Presum ed God

Created a Rational W orld Ruled by Rational Law s that W ere I ntelligently Designed.

• Alfred W hitehead ( 1 8 6 1 -1 9 4 7 )

said, “Faith in the possibility of science is an unconscious derivative from m edieval theology.”

Modern Science was born in the Christian Middle Ages under Natural Theology

Plato ( 4 2 4 -3 4 7 BC) , Aristotle’s Teacher, criticized the I dea of Verification by Experim entation. Aristotle separated θεωρία from Practical Purposes, and saw it as an End in itself – the Highest Activity of Man. To the Greek Mind, Theoria, or Know ledge, em phasized Contem plation. Erasm us ( 1 4 6 6 -1 5 3 6 ) w as a Catholic Christian hum anist. He said the ancient Greeks had “too m uch piety to search out w ith a profane curiosity the secrets of

• nature. To investigate the

dim ensions, m otions, influences of the stars, or even searching for the hidden causes of things – this is sacrilege.”

Protestant Francis Bacon (1561-1626) Developed Scientific Empiricism

• Francis Bacon coined the

phrase “Know ledge is Pow er.”

• Scientific Know ledge is

based on Action, Process & Change - not Thought or Contem plation.

• Science is thus based on

Reductionism & Stripping aw ay of Thought = Secularization.

• Scientific Know ledge is

based on Repetitive Experim entation and/ or Experience.

A Good Relationship between Science/ Faith & Nature/ Grace was Historically Rare

Medieval Natural Theology was Converted into Deism & Naturalism

• Naturalism w as Born during the

Age of Reason in the Enlightenm ent.

• Naturalism holds there are no

Miracles that can defy Natural Scientific Law s.

• The Natural Law s of Nature

derived from Natural Theology becam e deified under Deism .

• All Supernatural Miracles of Divine

I ntervention are now Outlaw ed and I m possible.

• God is the Creator but Unknow n.
• Deism believed in the Perfectibility
• f Man by the Use of His Reason.
• The Fall of Mankind w as

increasingly I gnored – particularly w ith regard to His Reason.

Hermann Samuel Reimarus 1694-1768

• He w as Germ an Deist w ho began the Skeptical

Search for the Historical Jesus – w hich is a Rom antic Search for the Sim ple Jesus w ithout Theology.

• He believed Jesus prom ised His Follow ers the

Kingdom of God w as im m inent – but w hen it did not m aterialize after He w as crucified the Disciples cunningly postponed it indefinitely – claim ing that Jesus had risen from the Dead & had gone to Heaven.

• He believed there w as a Big Discrepancy

betw een the Historical Jesus that is depicted in the Gospels & the Jesus that is seen in the New Testam ent Epistles – m ost of w hich is Pure Theology attributed to the Historical Jesus.

• He w rote an Deistic Apology called The Rational

W orshiper of God but did not have it published.

• His Radical Skepticism tow ard the Historicity of

the Bible w as not w ell know n until after He died.

Lessing’s German Ditch separated Biblical History from Faith

• Gotthold Ephraim Lessing ( 1 7 2 9 -1 7 8 1 )

w as a Germ an Critic, Philosopher & Dram atist.

• He w as a Lutheran w ho studied

Lutheran Orthodoxy before follow ing the Enlightenm ent & becom ing a Deist.

• He is fam ous for “Lessing’s Ditch”

w hich divides from Faith from History.

• He believed Historical Truth cannot be

used to establish the Necessary Truths

• f Reason, w hich are Universal & not

Particularistic like History.

• He denied the Miraculous Truth of

Biblical History can be used to m ake Truthful Statem ents – since there is no Modern Proof of Miracles in the Bible this am ounts to Reasoning Pow er w ithout Proof.

• He died a Pantheist.
• The Leap of Faith Mentality that

developed in European Religious Thought w as across Lessing’s Ditch.

I mmanuel Kant (1724-1804)

• Kant is the Father of Transcendental I dealism vs.

Berkeley’s Subjective I m m aterial Realism .

• Kant w anted to protect Philosophy & Religion from

being destroyed through Em piricism by lim iting Reason.

• Kant Divided the Subjective Know er from the Object in

a com plicated Schem e that allow ed Autonom ous Reason to prevail over the I m placability of the Real Experiential W orld that often Sullies I dealism .

• Kant view ed both Natural Theology & the Bible & its

History as Heterenom ous – Other Law - as Outside Forces of Legalism that coerce People to subm it & believe rather than use Reason.

• Religion is fine as long as it does not use Rationalistic

Natural Theology to substantiate itself as such Know ledge is beyond Reason & cannot be Objectively Know n.

• Science is good too as long as it does not becom e too

dependent on Natural Theology so that Scientific Em piricism does not devolve into Determ inism so that Man & Nature are reduced to the Level of a Machine.

• Kant’s I dealism rem oved m uch Theological Content

from both Morality & Metaphysics since such Content w as largely presum ed to be unknow able – w hich led to a Radical Secularization of the Bible & further led to an em ptying of the Mind.

• Kant w as Extrem ely Anti-Sem itic as he view ed the Jew s

as an Em pirical Obstacle that needed to be ‘euthanized’ in order to establishm ent a Rational European Order in w hich its Biblical Heteronom y w ould be overcom e.

• Kant w as a W hite Suprem acist.

Only ‘Appearance’

• f is

Subjectively Known – not its Inner Objective Essence

In its most rationalistic form the most consistent ‘spiritualization’ of the New Testament ‘letter’ is Kant’s Religion Within the Limits

• f

Reason Alone. Distinguishing the “pure religion of reason” or “moral faith” from “ecclesiastical faith” based on historical revelation, Kant interprets the whole of Christianity as a gradual advance from a religion of revelation to a religion of reason, by which the Kingdom of God becomes realized as an “ethical state on earth.” Thus, Kant has no scruples in asserting that in the entire known history of the church the present period, i.e., the Enlightenment, is the best one.

Karl Lowith, Meaning in History, p. 245.

Kant’s Progressive/ Eschatological View of History set the stage for Hegel

The I dea of Progress/ Hope in Future History is Essentially a Biblical Concept defined by the Progressive Revelation of the Bible

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe 1749-1832

• Father of Germ an Rom anticism & the

Environm ental Sciences.

• Goethe once opined after com plaining

about Old Testam ent Jew ish Nonsense, “Had Hom er rem ained our Bible how Different a Form w ould Mankind had achieved.”

• Rom antics w anted to redefine Man’s

Relationship w ith Nature against the Dualistic-Mechanistic New tonian Science of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

• Rom anticism becam e fascinated w ith

Biology because it exem plified Holism & Organic I nterdependence.

• Goethe said, “Separateness is the

illusion/ One & m any are the sam e.”

• Rom anticism Em phasized I ndigenous

Nationalism rooted in the soil of the Hom eland to keep itself Pure from outside Heteronom ous Forces.

• Fascism & National Socialism prided itself

in its Holistic W orldview .

• Rom anticism w as filled w ith Anti-Sem itism .

Friedrich Schleiermacher 1768-1834

• He w as the Father of Theological Liberalism but

w as a Strong Nationalist Rom antic during Napoleon’s I nvasion.

• He fused Goethe’s Rom anticism & Kant’s

I dealism w ith J.S. Sem ler’s De-Judaization & Rationalistic Historical Criticism of the Bible.

• He taught Religious Feeling & I ntuition &

Spiritual Experience w as m ore im portant than Doctrinal Creeds – thus a Theological Rom antic.

• He w as defending Religion based on Nature or

his ow n Natural Theology– not Christianity against the Rationalism of the Enlightenm ent.

• He used Enlightenm ent Reason to attack the

Historicity of the Bible and its Theological Doctrines, but w as a Rom antic Mystic of Liberal Theology w hose Teaching is sum m arized by His W ork entitled The Christian Faith.

• Religious Feeling brought Holistic Com m union

w ith God through Experiential Know ledge rather than Theoretical or Theological Know ledge so that Authentic Spiritual Progress m ust get beyond Rational Categories and the Kantian Lim its of Reason.

Schleiermacher’s Later Hermeneutics

• He w as the Father of Modern Herm eneutics & the

Herm eneutical Circle w hich w as Holistically & Rom antically & I dealistically Understood undergirded by Deistic Criticism of the Bible.

• He divided Language from Meaning by lim iting the

Ability of Language to express I tself.

• He then filled in the Lim its of Language w ith Rom antic

I ntuition & Feeling Free from Dogm atism since Language I tself is too Legalistic to Express True Spirituality.

• Language only gave the Appearance of Thought, but did

not express the True Nature of Thought.

• Language w as Both Subjective & Restrictive.
• His Favorite Verse w as 2 Corinthians 3 :6 , “The letter

kills, but the Spirit gives life,” w hich he interpreted to m ean the Biblical Text itself is a Dead Letter Barren of Spiritual Meaning along Kantian I dealistic Lines that the Progress of the I m m anent Spirit of the W orld so that God’s Revelation is based on the Universal History of Man’s Grow ing Spirituality.

• He w anted the I nterpreter to go out of Him self &

transform Him self into the Author so that He can grasp in Full I m m ediacy His Mental Processes into a Holistic Merging of the Minds along Rom antic Mystical Lines.

• Herm eneutics m ust go Through Language, but then

m ust transcend it to get at the True I nner Process of Understanding.

• I n His Rom anticism , He converted Authors of Texts into

Spiritual Artists.

Schleiermacher’s Anti-Judaism

• F.C Baur quipped, none “since Marcion

( 8 5 -1 6 0 ) had show n so m uch antipathy tow ards Judaism as Schleierm acher.”

• He believed the m ore Jew ish the biblical

text, the less valuable it w as.

• He believed Judaism had no connection to

Christianity.

• He believed the Early Christian

Com m unity’s Belief in a com ing Earthly Messianic Kingdom w as a Childish Form of Religion, the Very Last “fruits of Judaism .”

• He believed Judaism w as m erely an

Antiquated Bloodthirsty “religion of punishm ent and recom pense, instead of being a religion that challenges and educates people.”

• He w anted to De-Judaize the Bible aw ay

from Backw ardness, Particularism , Legalism , Judgm entalism , and the Heteronom ous in Contrast to the Progressive, Scientific, Open-Minded, Autonom ous & Free.

• Hegel graduated from Tubingen University in 1 7 9 3 &

after serving in both Jena & Bern Universities becam e Philosophy Professor at the University of Berlin from 1 8 1 8 -1 8 3 0 thanks to Schleierm acher’s Help.

• Hegel com bined Kantian I dealism & Rom anticism ( both

Secular w ith Schelling & Spiritual Schleierm acher) w ith Historicism to create a Progressive Philosophy of History know n as Absolute I dealism .

• Historicism em phasizes that people are children of their
• w n tim es & that Man is a Historical Being rather than

an Eternal One m ade in God’s I m age.

• Hegel I dentified Kant’s Thing in I tself as the W orld

Spirit or Reason that I m m anently & Providentially w orks behind History to advance Mankind into a Greater & Greater Synthesis of Antithetical Movem ents that is transform ing Religion into an advancing Secular Philosophy w here Reconciliation is found in Thought Alone.

• Hegel replaced Christian Eschatology w ith Germ an

Progressive Sem i-Pantheism as a New Philosophy of History.

• Hegel believed Every Culture & Religion & Philosophy

contributed to the Grow th of the W orld Spirit except for Judaism that has been fossilized since the Tim e of Christ.

• Hegel’s Progressive Philosophy of History w as later

used by Germ an Higher Critics to attack the Historicity

• f the Bible.

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel 1770-1831

Ferdinand Christian Bauer 1792-1860

• He w as the Leader of the Tubingen School of Radical

Higher Criticism that not onnly attacked the Historicity

• f the New Testam ent – but also reconstructed it.
• Baur w as a devoted Hegelian w ho borrow ed m uch from

Schleierm acher’s Natural Theology.

• W hile Strauss – Baur’s Form er Student - used Hegel’s

Philosophy of History to Reconstruct the Gospels, Baur w ill use it to Reconstruct the History of Acts and the New Testam ent.

• Baur used J.S. Sem ler’s Division betw een Peter & Paul to

teach the Early Church w as full of Conflict that w as only later reconciled by the Catholic Church.

• He w rote a book entitled Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ

that sharply distinguished Peter’s Jew ish understanding

• f Christianity from Paul’s Gentile orientation along

Hegelian lines.

• Peter’s and Matthew ’s Jew ish Christianity w as the thesis

and Paul’s Gentile Christianity w as the Antithesis that is taken up by Rom ans, Galatians & 1 -2 Corinthians ( the

• nly NT books authored by Paul) .
• The Synthesis becam e a Jew ish-Gentile Catholicism as

he considered the rest of the New Testam ent a form of early Catholicism rather than genuinely w ritten by Paul, John, and Jam es, etc.

• Much of the New Testam ent w as therefore w ritten later

rather than during the 1 st Century as portrayed by the Docum ents them selves.

J.B. Lightfoot 1828-1889 & Sir William Ramsay (1851-1939)

• Lightfoot w as an Anglican Scholar w ho becam e the

Bishop of Durham .

• Lightfoot w orked closely together w ith B.F. W estcott

– both of w hom stood up against the I nfluences of the Enlightenm ent & Germ an Higher Criticism .

• Lightfoot w as the m ost w ell-read an Ancient Church

Historian.

• Lightfoot established 2 Early Dates from 2 Books

w ritten by Church Fathers that destroyed Baur’s Assertion the New Testam ent w as not finished until the 3 rd Century.

• Lightfoot dated the W ritings of Clem ent & I gnatius

to the Close of the First Century w ho had quoted from m uch of the New Testam ent itself.

• Germ an Liberal Theologian/ Historian Adolf Harnack

agreed w ith Lightfoot’s Assessm ent w hich should have put to rest Baur’s W ild Radical Higher Criticism .

• Sir W illiam Ram say’s Archaeological & Historical

Studies confirm ed Acts had to have been w ritten in the 1 st Century.

• Though Ram say w as taught Germ an Higher Criticism

at Tubingen & even initially accepted their Radical Historical View s on the New Testam ent, after he finished his Research he concluded Luke w as the Greatest Historian of the Ancient W orld.

Julius W ellhausen 1 8 4 4 -1 9 1 8

• Albrecht Ritschl ( 1 8 2 2 -8 9 ) replaced Baur’s

Hegelianism w ith a m ore Strict Historicism - yet Hegel’s Progressive View of History rem ained.

• W ellhausen’s JEPD Theory w as developed in 1 8 7 8

to explain the Origins of the Old Testam ent – w hich w as a m ore Com plex Synthesis than Hegel’s Triad.

• J = Jahvistic Docum ent dates to Solom on; E =

Elohistic Docum ent dates to Northern Kingdom ; P = Priestly Docum ent codified Rituals & Form alistic Religion in Leviticus around 5 0 0 B.C.; D = Deuteronom ic Docum ent w hich w as com piled during Josiah’s Reign before the Exile ( 1 Kings 2 2 :1 -2 0 ) in 6 2 0 B.C.

• W ellhausen studied under Ew ald, but attributes

His JEPD Theory to Rom antic & Nationalist Theologian Leberecht de W ette ( 1 7 8 0 -1 8 4 9 ) .

• De W ette characterized Judaism as Degenerate

that devolved from the Pure & Sim ple Original Hebraism into Deuteronom ic Legalism .

• Jew s thus devolved & becam e less Spiritual &

More Materialistic in their History.

• Archaeology finally disproved W ellhausen’s

Speculative Reconstruction in the last 4 0 Years.

Theological Liberalism’s Anti-Semitic Progressive Social Gospel

• Germ an Theological Liberalism under Ritschl’s

Social Gospel deepened Schleierm acher’s Theological Rom anticism & Liberal Nationalism .

• Theological Liberalism invested m uch

Scholarship in the Rabid Attem pt to de-Judaize the New Testam ent – stem m ing from Schleierm acher & Kant.

• They believed Jew ish Historical Particularism &

Exclusivism derived from the Old Testam ent w as keeping Germ an Christianity from becom ing Progressive, Liberal & Universal.

• They believed Protestantism ’s Social Gospel

surpassed Ecclesiastical Christianity to now enter an Ethical-Political Spiritual Age functioning as a Spiritual Pow er in Germ any.

• Leading Liberal Protestants opposed w hat they

considered to be Jew ish Segregation, Backw ard Legalism & Restrictive Cerem onialism as they hindered their Freedom s in Many W ays.

• The Second Reich w as an Anti-Sem itic State

under the Spiritual Pow er of Liberal Protestantism w here Rom anticism & Nationalism and Socialism all m ixed together through the Propagation of the Social Gospel.

Adolf Harnack 1851-1930

• Harnack w as the Most Outstanding

Theological Liberal Scholar in Germ any from the Late 1 8 0 0 ’s until the First W orld W ar.

• His Specialty w as Church History, but he w as

very Active Academ ically & Socially & Politically – a Leader of Germ an Academ ia.

• Harnack said Old Judaism w as a Relic of the

Past that needs to be abandoned for Modern Christianity to prosper in the 2 0 th Century.

• He believed those w ho held onto the Old

Testam ent w ere having a Paralyzing Effect on the Progress of Religion & the Church.

• Harnack said the Old Testam ent w as not Part
• f Christian Scripture.
• Harnack W rote the W ar Speech for the Kaiser

that Kicked off W orld W ar I .

• After Many Theological Liberals Follow ed

Harnack’s Attitudes about the W ar, Karl Barth ( 1 8 8 6 -1 9 6 8 ) revolted against His Teachers.

• Barth sm elled a Rat in Theological Liberalism

& that Rat w as Schleierm acher and his Natural Theology = Theological Rom anticism .

• Nazi Theologians Kittel & Grundm ann

continued His De-Judaization of the Bible.

The Nature Based Existentialist Bridge to Post Modernism from Romanticism

• Germ an Theological Rom anticism / Liberalism died in the Trenches
• f W orld W ar I leaving Secular Rom anticism & Existentialism that

had predated it & grow n alongside it to fill in the Vacuum .

• Rom anticism extolled Feelings, Holism w ith Nature, I ndigenous

Values of Man in his Environm ent, Nationalism , Natural I nstinct & Feelings against Judeo-Christian Melting Pot Universalism & the Cold Rationality & Calculation of the Enlightenm ent’s Glorification

• f Reason at the expense of Life itself.
• Existentialism is a Philosophy that em phasizes W ill, Existence,

Nature, Natural I nstincts & W ill over Essence, Mind, Reason & Rational Thought.

• Germ an Existentialism of the m id 1 8 0 0 ’s is a Hardened Form of the

Germ an Rom anticism of the 1 7 0 0 ’s and early 1 8 0 0 ’s.

• Germ an Existentialism is the Philosophical Bridge betw een Germ an

Rom anticism , National Socialism , Postm odernism & Environm entalism .

• W hile Rom anticism in Am erica w as Anti-Christian ala Thoreau &

Muir – it w as both Anti-Sem itic & Anti-Christian in Germ any ala Goethe, Hum boldt, Schopenhauer, Arndt, Riehl & Nietzsche.

• Rom anticism / Existentialism played a Profound Role in the Rise of

Darw inism that jettisoned the Subject/ Object Distinction of the Medieval & Enlightenm ent Sciences so that Nature now studies Nature = Subject Melds w ith the Object = Scientists are Evolved/ Glorified Anim als of som e sort.

• After W orld W ar I I Nazi Philosopher Martin Heidegger laid the

Foundations for Postm odernism w ith His Em phasis on “Being” that abolishes the Subject in Favor of a Localized I rrational W orld that exhibits or unveils Beauty to Him .

Heidegger’s Postmodernism

• Heidegger follow ed Kant’s & Schleierm acher’s View that W ords &

Concepts are Hindrances to know Reality – or Being.

• Unlike Kant, Heidegger believed w e can get closer to Being – not

through Reason ( w hich Kant show ed w as I m possible) , but by follow ing Schopenahuer/ Nietzshce’s Existentialism – particularly w ith regard to His Dark & Anxious Feelings of Dread & Guilt.

• Heidegger believed w hen w e arrive at the Existential Heart of

Being there w ill be Conflict & Contradiction that cannot be resolved through Reason – but can be dealt w ith through Feelings.

• For Heidegger, Reason is alw ays Full of Contradictions &

Absurdities w henever it attem pts to explore Deep I ssues of Being.

• Heidegger therefore deconstructs Reason by using I rrational

Being to unm ask Reason’s Separation from Reality – w hich is Nothing = Meaning that Reason is I llusory & Not Real.

• Heidegger replaces Reason w ith Anxious Feelings of Dread that

are sim ply allow ed to be in the Face of Being & its inherent Logical Absurdities.

• Heidegger’s Existentialism opened the Door to Postm odernism –

w hich is a m ore evolved Form of Philosophical Fascism & Metaphysical Nihilism .

• Heidegger w anted to annihilate W estern Metaphysics based on

the Judeo-Christian W orldview & Reason.

• Jew ish Existentialist Hannah Arendt had an Affair w ith Heidegger

as a Student in the 1 9 2 0 ’s – after the W ar she forgave Him of His Nazi Sins & rehabilitated Him back into W estern Academ ia.

• W hile m any have cham pioned Jean Paul Satre ( 1 9 0 5 -1 9 8 0 ) as the

Father of Existentialism , Heidegger quipped, “W hen the French w ant to think, they have to think in Germ an.”

• Heideggerian Jacques Derrida ( 1 9 3 0 -2 0 0 4 ) im ported Postm odern

Deconstruction into Herm eneutics.

• Nazi Sym pathizer Paul de Man ( 1 9 1 9 -1 9 8 3 ) & Nazi SS Hans Jauss

( 1 9 2 1 -1 9 9 7 ) w ere instrum ental in developing Postm odern Reader Response Herm eneutical Theories.

Schopenhauer Taught Man Wills Not Knows – Existential Dyslexia

Heidegger’s Hermeneutical/ Metaphysical Holzwege in Sophocles ‘Ode to Man’

• “I n the 1 st phase w e shall set

forth the intrinsic m eaning of the poem , that w hich sustains the edifice of w ords & rises above it.”

• “I n the 2 nd phase w e pass

through the w hole sequence of strophes & antistrophes & delim it the area that is opened up by the poem .”

• “I n the 3 rd phase, w e attem pt

to take our stand in the center

• f the poem , w ith a view to

judging w ho m an is according to this poetic discourse.”

Heidegger’s Fascist Violence Against the Text

• “I f w e content ourselves w ith w hat the poem directly

says, the interpretation is at an end ( 2 nd phase) , but actually it has just begun.”

• “The actual interpretation m ust show w hat does not

stand in the w ords and is nevertheless said.”

• “To accom plish this the exegete m ust use violence.”
• “He m ust seek the essential w here nothing m ore is to

be found by the scientific interpretation that brands as unscientific everything that transcends its lim its.”

• The Exegete cuts dow n som e Trees in order to get

som e Light/ Revelation so that w hat w as concealed in the W oods of the W ords is now opened up ( lebensraum onto the text) to get Som e Exposure on the Poem to set the Stage for the Unveiling ( not Conceptual I nterpretation) of the Artistic Beauty of w hat w as said & not said as the Reader takes His Stand in the Middle of the Poem to enjoy its very Existential Being – just let being be.

• Thus in Heidegger’s Herm eneutics, the Art of

Herm eneutics sw allow s up the Science of Herm eneutics = Heart of Postm odernism & Hollyw ood.

• Heidegger understands Kant’s Unknow able Thing in

I tself as I rrational Being.

Postmodern Multicultural Hermeneutics

Postmodern Madness

• Michel Foucault says, “I ts m eaningless

to speak in the nam e of – or against – Reason, Truth, or Know ledge.”

• Richard Rorty asserted Postm odernism

is not interested in getting “som ething right, that m y sort of philosophy corresponds to the w ay things really are.”

• Stanley Fish says Postm odernism

“relieves m e of the obligation to be right.”

• Jean-Francois Lyotard com plained,

“Reason and pow er are one and the sam e.”

• Yet, Frank Lentricchia says

Postm odernism “seeks not to find the foundation and the contradictions of truth but to exercise pow er for the purpose of social change.”

True Biblical Romanticism & Existentialism

• Going back to the Bible is Biblical Form of Rom anticism as it

hearkens back to the Historical Past to answ er Today’s Spiritual Problem s – Biblically ( Deut 4 :3 2 -4 0 ; Psalm 7 8 ; 2 Pet 3 :1 -2 ; Jude 1 :3 , 1 7 ) .

• God’s W ill is an Existential W ill that is Personal – but not

I rrational & is Text & Historically Based ( Eccl 1 :9 -1 4 : Rom 9 :1 4 -2 1 ; Eph 1 :5 -1 2 ; 1 Cor 1 :1 8 -2 :9 ) .

• Yet, God’s Greatness & Majesty is I ncom prehensible from a

Strict Rational or Theological Point of View – but this does not dem and an I rrational/ Dialetical Approach ala Kierkegaard & Barth to Faith & Truth ( I saiah 4 0 :1 2 -2 6 ; 5 5 :8 -1 1 ; 1 Cor 2 :7 -1 6 ; Rom 1 1 :3 3 -3 6 ) .

• Divine Love, an Em otion, is better than Know ledge – but

Know ledge is never abandoned in the Process ( 1 Cor 8 :1 -3 ; 1 3 :1 -1 3 ; Eph 3 :1 4 -1 9 ; Phil 1 :9 -1 2 ; Col 1 :8 -1 2 ; 2 Pet 1 :2 -8 ) .

• God m ade Man’s Mouth & is the Author of Com m unication &

Language ( Genesis 1 -3 ; Exodus 4 :1 1 -1 2 ; Proverbs 2 :6 ; 8 :1 -1 4 ) .

• Truth in Christianity is rooted in both the Old & New

Testam ents w here God Personally reveals Him self & intervenes into the Historical Process culm inating in the I ncarnation of Christ – all of w hich is described w ith Real W ords & Verbiage ( 1 John 1 :1 -4 ; Luke 1 :1 -4 ; John 1 :1 -1 8 ) .

• Nature itself is another Existential Testim ony of God’s W ill

( Psalm 1 9 :1 -4 ; Acts 1 4 :8 -1 8 ; 1 7 :2 2 -2 9 ; Rom 1 :1 8 -2 5 ) .