New Outline for Body of Divinity 4

THESIS: In order to understand proper theology (and more tentatively the theology of the Church), one must understand the current philosophical, theological, and social climate of the Church.

PROVING MY THESIS: There are roughly three avenues that the church has her influence in the particular existentialism: from the philosopher Søren Kierkegaard.

---

In this installment I want to focus on how the philosophy of Existentialism has affected the Church in its thinking patterns of theology, and ultimately in its effects on the social order.

Kierkegaard's three stories:

1. Philosophy

2. Theology

3. Social influence

This is basically the pattern that Francis Schaeffer follows in his works, but more specifically in The God Who is There. What does the idea of subjectivity and Søren Kierkegaard do for the Christian, why and did he make it so pointedly subjective? A little history lesson before I go is in order. According to Colin Brown, professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller Theological Seminary, Kierkegaard was a very controversial man amid philosophical idealism (Hegel). He was never a fan of the organized church—he even refused to take communion on his deathbed. (His very notion of autonomy and self-analytics is seen in his death bed.) It is no wonder that so many Christians who have no record of studying this man echo his philosophy to the crossing of the "t" and the dotting of the "i."

His idea of knowing God is not as important to him as just the mere thought that God exists. For instance, one need only experience of the story of the Wizard of Oz. The Tin Man's belief that the Wizard existed did not matter whether or not he actually existed, only that he existed in the mind of the Tin Man. Since faith and reason are pitted against each other, it isn't so much how you think about something—in our case, God. It's what you do with that belief: in the case of our three pedestrians, the journey.

Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Iconoclasm - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: "Calvin, Zwingli and others for the sake of saving the Word rejected all art; Luther, with an equal concern for the Word, but far more conservative, would have all the arts to be the servants of the Gospel."

I don't know if I want to agree here, but it seems like the writer here seems to say that Calvin himself left no room for art. I don't believe this is entirely true. Such a statement would make any Calvinist want to side with Luther, if he or she is inclined to the humanities, i.e., the arts. I know for me that I love to study Renaissance art and its impact on history. When I read Calvin's Institutes, Book 1, I didn't get the idea that all pictorial forms are sinful. I think this is just a disingenuous critique of Calvin's interpretation of the Decalogue by calling him a radical, much like Andreas Karlstadt and the peasant wars of Germany.

Vlogging and Its Relationship to Reading

    So here I am, at home bored wondering what to write. I just saw the Logitech QuickCam Pro 9000 and I must say that I was impressed. I just bought it, and I can't wait to open it and begin blogging (or should I say Vlogging). I have so much research done and some research that I am doing. Unfortunately the camera that I current have in my possession is not mine…and currently isn't working with my OS (Vista Business, 64-Bit). There is something of an unrelated point that I am going to bring up here, and that is the very nature of vlogging—again with my philosophical slant. People naturally are not impressed anymore with reading blogs, and there is reason or reasons for that. Most people who don't know how to write or are not experienced in polemics (i.e., dialectical training) have a tendency to equivocate and be misunderstood. This is a very significant problem and poorly evaluated by opponents. For instance, some of my readers tend to misunderstand me when I argue in favor of Christian Theism and, say, not in favor of general theism—much like the debate that took place between Bertrand Russell and Copelstone (a priest), whose definition brought a concession among many atheists and evangelicals (the definition has even defined the debate for many years). Now, the problem isn't that I haven't had training, but that people can be taken the wrong way in their writing. (I don't want to appear like some high-minded intellectual either, having all the sufficient arguments and have some sort of apex in knowledge. I would like to stress, however, that I am confident in my endeavors via my epistemic—much like Cornelius Van Til wrote in a short pamphlet called Why I Believe in God.) The other problem is seen ardently in people's short attention span in logic, reasoning and all other intellectual endeavors. Anything that has a tendency to be somewhat cerebral, people either get lost or have a much easier time looking at the person speak rather than reading a laborious blog. On the other hand, people just don't like reading something really long and would rather see something being pontificated at them. In fact, when the eye does not have the sufficient temerity—for instance, the eye muscles are not that well developed by the due exercise of reading—the person tends to skim the person's ideas and misreads them in the process. In any case, using a webcam will actually be a pragmatic move on my part—though I don't think that my appearance will be that helpful.

    For those of you that have a similar problem with "reading" blogs the way I have described, I highly suggest books on the blogosphere and how to read. I have in my possession one of the best books on reading. It is called How to Read a Book, by Adler Mortimer & Doren. It is par excellence in the intellectual field of reading and mapping out ideas.

^[1] Notice that I do not use the lower case "t" for theism. I want to be very specific when I speak for theism contrasted with those who favor general theism. Among them is William Lane Craig and the said Copelstone.