Latest / Reformed Thinking / Modern Theology

Transcript

Modern Theology · Reformed Thinking

0:00
Imagine standing in a muddy, freezing trench in 1916.
0:04
The air is, you know, thick with the smell of cordite, and
0:07
there's this yellow cloud of mustard gas just drifting across
0:10
the pulverized landscape of no man's land.
0:13
Right, an absolutely brutal scene.
0:15
Yeah, it really is. Now imagine that for your entire
0:17
life, the absolute smartest theologians and academics in the
0:20
world have been telling you that humanity was inherently good.
0:25
They had basically guaranteed the human society, driven by
0:27
reason and science, was just constantly evolving toward a
0:31
moral utopia. Just this endless upward
0:33
progress. Yeah, but then an artillery hill
0:37
explodes 50 feet away, and in that terrifying, world
0:40
shattering moment, you realize the academics were completely
0:43
wrong. Welcome to reform thinking.
0:45
Glad to be here for this one. Today we're taking on a massive
0:48
multi century timeline, the theological development.
0:51
We're sorting out an era loosely titled Modern Theology.
0:55
We are going to look at how different streams of thought
0:57
evolved from the 17th century all the way through the 20th
0:59
century. And more specifically, we're
1:01
going to examine how that optimistic utopian theology you
1:05
just mentioned crashed into the brutal reality of the real
1:08
world. Yes.
1:10
But to set the stage properly, I think we need to clarify that
1:13
term modern, because if you hear modern and immediately think of
1:19
a smartphone or you know what happened in the news last
1:21
Tuesday, we need to adjust the timeline a bit.
1:24
Right from the scope of church history, which spans multiple
1:27
millennia, the period right after the Reformation all the
1:30
way through the 1900s actually qualifies as a modern shift.
1:34
We are looking at a specific window where the ideas that
1:37
shaped our current culture were really forged.
1:40
So we're talking about a world moving out of an era where
1:42
church and state were totally linked.
1:45
Yeah, moving straight into the Enlightenment, the Industrial
1:47
Revolution, and then the modern secular Age.
1:50
The world changed drastically during this time.
1:52
And if you are listening to this right now and wondering why a
1:56
history lesson about the 1600s matters to your life today,
2:00
listen closely. If you've ever wondered why
2:03
different churches view the Bible, salvation, or even human
2:07
logic so differently today, well, the blueprints for all
2:11
those differences were drawn in the historical arguments we are
2:14
about to unpack. The debates happening right now
2:17
in your local community, or those arguments you see breaking
2:21
out online, they're often just echoes of the 17th, 18th and
2:24
19th centuries. So our mission for this deep
2:26
dives is to trace those echoes back to their origin point.
2:30
We've got a lot of ground to cover.
2:31
We really do. Coming right out of the
2:33
Reformation, early theologians realized they faced a massive
2:36
organizational problem. They had successfully broken
2:39
away from the Roman Catholic system, but they needed a
2:42
comprehensive framework of their own.
2:44
Right, because you can't just be against something, you need your
2:46
own structure. Exactly that.
2:49
They needed a way to understand how God interacts with humanity
2:51
across all of time, from the very beginning of creation in
2:55
Genesis all the way to the end of Revelation.
2:58
They needed to organize the whole biblical narrative without
3:00
relying on the decrees of a Pope.
3:02
Which brings us to our first major concept, Covenant
3:05
theology. This basically became the
3:08
massive organizing principle for the Reform branch of the church.
3:12
But it didn't just, you know, fall out of the sky in a Finnish
3:15
state. Oh no.
3:17
It grew organically. If we map out the roots, this
3:20
system was an outgrowth of the Reformation itself.
3:23
It started through the writings of men like Ulrich Swingley,
3:26
Johann Bollinger and John Calvin.
3:28
Wait, let me jump into those early reformers.
3:30
Did they actually write down a systematic manual of full blown
3:33
covenant theology? No, not at all.
3:35
But their work laid the groundwork.
3:37
They poured the concrete, so to speak.
3:39
Swingley, for instance, began speaking heavily about the
3:42
covenant when he was defending infant baptism against the
3:45
Anabaptists. Oh OK, so it was born out of a
3:47
specific debate. Yeah, and Calvin wrote
3:49
extensively about the unity of the Old and New Testaments.
3:53
That is a core tenet of covenantal thought.
3:55
So Zwingley, Bollinger and Calvin essentially provided the
3:59
raw materials. They logged the timber and
4:01
quarried the stone, but who built the actual house?
4:04
The structure was later systematized by men like
4:07
Johannes Wolibius. He was a Reformed theologian
4:10
from Basel who lived from 1586 to 1629.
4:14
He was really instrumental in organizing Reformed thought into
4:17
a digestible format. And then there's the piercing
4:19
connection, right, William Ames? Yeah, William Ames.
4:21
He lived from 1576 to 1633. Ames took these ideas to England
4:26
and Holland, making them highly practical for the average
4:28
Christian. But the man who truly put the
4:31
whole puzzle together was a pupil of Ames named Johannes
4:33
Kucheis. Kucheis.
4:35
He lived in the mid 1600s. Right from 16 O 3 to 1669, he is
4:39
the one responsible for rigorously systematizing
4:42
covenant theology into a highly organized, comprehensive
4:45
structure. Let's breakdown that specific
4:47
structure because covenant theology involves some primary
4:50
features that operate basically like the load bearing walls of a
4:54
building. The 1st is called the Covenant
4:57
of Works. The Covenant of Works is a
4:59
fascinating mechanism, mainly because it is an implied
5:02
agreement. Wait, implied.
5:04
Yeah, you won't find the exact phrase covenant of works
5:07
explicitly mentioned in the early chapters of Genesis.
5:10
However, covenant theologians argue that the structure of a
5:13
formal agreement is heavily implied in the text.
5:17
OK, I have to challenge that right out of the gate.
5:19
If I'm signing a mortgage or like a legal contract, I want
5:24
the name of the contract explicitly stated at the top of
5:26
the page. How did these theologians
5:29
justify building a massive theological system on a covenant
5:33
that isn't even explicitly named in the text?
5:36
That's a fair question. They justified it by looking at
5:38
the components of the text rather than just searching for a
5:41
specific label. A covenant at its core is an
5:44
agreement between two parties with conditions, promises, and
5:47
penalties. So.
5:48
They looked for those elements and the Genesis account.
5:50
Right when they looked at God's interaction with Adam prior to
5:53
the fall, they saw all those components clearly present.
5:57
God established the terms He promised Adam eternal life for
6:01
obedience during a specific probationary period.
6:04
And the penalty was death if Adam disobeyed by eating from
6:08
the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
6:10
Yes, it was a test with a clear reward and a clear penalty.
6:15
Therefore, it functions just like a covenant, even if the
6:18
label covenant of works was applied later as a theological
6:22
category. And this brings up a concept
6:23
called federal headship, which is absolutely vital to making
6:27
this whole system work. In this cast, Adam wasn't just
6:31
acting as a private, isolated individual in a garden, was he?
6:34
No. Not at all.
6:35
He stood as the federal head of all humanity.
6:37
What that means is that Adam was acting as our legal
6:40
representative. Kind of like a proxy, yeah.
6:42
Had he obeyed the conditions during that probationary period,
6:45
he would have been confirmed in righteousness.
6:47
The benefits of that perfect obedience would have then
6:50
legally passed down to all of humanity.
6:52
But obviously that's not what happened.
6:54
Right. Conversely, because he failed
6:57
the test and fell, Adam's act of disobedience was transmitted to
7:00
all humanity. Because of that one act, all
7:03
people are born in sin and are born under the authority of sin.
7:07
Let's put a concrete analogy on this, because I know the modern
7:10
mind recoils at this idea. Think about a modern political
7:13
ambassador or a head of state. When a nation's leader signs a
7:17
treaty or when they declare war, their single signature legally
7:21
binds the entire nation. That's a really good way to look
7:24
at it. Millions of citizens who never
7:26
signed a document, who might not even agree with the war, are
7:29
suddenly thrust into conflict because their head acted on
7:32
their behalf. But here is the massive pushback
7:35
from the average listener. Is it truly fair that one man's
7:38
failed probation thousands of years ago applies to all of us
7:42
today? I mean, we didn't eat the fruit.
7:44
That is a completely natural reaction.
7:46
It is a question theologians have wrestled with for
7:49
centuries. But if we connect this to the
7:51
bigger picture of covenant theology, what we see is the
7:53
severe legal and relational symmetry of the entire system.
7:57
Symmetry. OK, explain that.
7:58
Just as the ruin came through one representative head, the
8:02
rescue come through another representative head.
8:04
You were talking about the second Adam, Jesus Christ.
8:06
Yes, this leads us directly to the second primary feature, the
8:11
Covenant of Grace. After the fall, humanity was
8:14
completely broken and incapable of keeping the original covenant
8:18
of works, so God entered into another covenant.
8:21
A rescue plan. Right in this new arrangement,
8:24
God, acting entirely out of his abundant mercy, promised eternal
8:28
life to all who would believe in Jesus Christ.
8:31
So to answer the fairness question, if you reject the
8:35
concept of federal headship in the first instance with Adam,
8:38
you lose the legal mechanism for salvation in the second instance
8:42
with Christ. Oh wow, I see.
8:43
It is a perfectly consistent legal framework.
8:46
Ruin came by a representative and rescue comes by a
8:49
representative. That structural symmetry makes a
8:51
lot of sense. You can't have the ambassador
8:53
sign the peace treaty if you don't allow him the authority to
8:55
have declared the war in the first place.
8:58
But there is a third layer to this system, right?
9:00
The Covenant of Grace is actually based on a prior hidden
9:03
agreement. Yes.
9:04
Theologians call this third layer the Covenant of
9:07
Redemption. This is an agreement made in
9:10
eternity past by the members of the Triune God.
9:12
Before time even started. Exactly before the physical
9:16
world was even spoken into existence, the Father delegated
9:19
the Son, who voluntarily agreed to provide salvation for the
9:23
world through his atoning death. So the covenant of grace, the
9:26
promise of salvation that we interact with in historical time
9:31
is basically the real time earthly application of that
9:34
eternal covenant of redemption. We got it.
9:36
And because it is the application of that specific
9:39
eternal agreement between the Father and the Son, the covenant
9:42
of grace is understood by these theologians to be restricted to
9:45
the elect. OK, meaning Christ agreed in
9:47
eternity past to provide salvation for a specific people.
9:51
Right. And the covenant of grace
9:53
applies that specific salvation to them in historical time.
9:56
That is a highly structured, legally rigorous way of viewing
10:00
the biblical text. The Reformed thinkers built an
10:03
airtight legal architecture, but while they were organizing
10:07
salvation history around these legal and relational agreements,
10:11
a completely different ideological progression was
10:14
happening in Germany among the followers of Martin Luther.
10:16
Yeah, the trajectory of Lutheran theology is a wild ride.
10:20
It's swayed radically back and forth between intense academic
10:23
rigidity on one side and pure emotional, subjective experience
10:27
on the other. To understand this swinging
10:30
pendulum, we have to establish the original bedrock of the
10:33
movement. The baseline of Lutheranism
10:36
started with a massive break from the Roman Catholic Church
10:38
in 15-17, and the primary principle that caused that
10:41
explosion was sola scriptura. Sola Scriptura simply means that
10:45
the Bible alone is the reliable authority for Christians.
10:48
It is not the Bible plus the Pope or the Bible plus Church
10:51
tradition. It is the Scriptures alone.
10:53
That was the bedrock truth that drove Luther.
10:56
Yeah, and it continued to be the core truth leading Lutheran
10:59
theology into the 1600s. Added to that authority of
11:02
scripture was there specific view on how a person is saved,
11:05
known as justification. The Augsburg Confession of 1530
11:09
codified this. Right.
11:10
It explained justification as God absolving a guilty man and
11:13
pronouncing him righteous specifically on account of
11:16
someone else's righteousness, namely Christ's.
11:19
Justification in this view is based entirely on the
11:21
meritorious death of Christ alone, which fully atoned for
11:24
sins, and the mechanism for a human being to receive this
11:28
justification was the third major doctrine solified or faith
11:33
alone. Faith alone is the single means
11:36
whereby a person may appropriate salvation and God's
11:39
justification. No works, no penance, just
11:42
faith. So that's the starting line.
11:43
Scripture alone, Christ's merit alone, faith alone.
11:46
It's simple, clear, and totally reliant on God.
11:49
But then, as we move into the 1600's, the pendulum starts to
11:52
swing. It swings hard.
11:54
Following the establishment of Lutheranism, German universities
11:56
started to adopt Neo Aristotelian thought.
11:59
This led to a period known as Protestant scholasticity.
12:02
Let's pause right there. What is Neo Aristotelian thought
12:05
in this context? How does an ancient Greek
12:08
philosopher change the way a local German pastor preaches on
12:11
a Sunday morning? Well, Aristotle was obsessed
12:14
with logic, categorization and philosophical precision.
12:18
Neo Aristotelian thought took those Greek tools of logic and
12:22
applied them to Christian theology.
12:23
So everything had to be categorized.
12:25
Yes, it created a system where every single doctrine had to be
12:29
endlessly categorized, subdivided, and argued with
12:32
intense academic rigor. Theology moved out of the local
12:35
church and into the university lecture hall.
12:37
That sounds incredibly dry. It was the pastor sermon
12:41
suddenly sounded less like a call to trust God and more like
12:44
a dense mathematical proof defending a sub point of a sub
12:47
point. Exhausting and predictably,
12:49
human nature reacted against that cold academic
12:52
scholasticism. A major reaction formed and it
12:55
was called Pietism. The central figure of this
12:57
movement was Philip Jacob Spener, a German pastor and
13:00
royal chaplain who lived from 1635 to 1705.
13:04
What does Spener do? Spener looked around at the
13:06
German universities and churches and realized they had built an
13:09
incredibly precise academic machine, but it had no life in
13:14
it. Beer basically said we are
13:16
losing the heart. We have all the right
13:17
categories, but nobody actually loves God.
13:21
Right. He called the people back to
13:22
individual spiritual experience. He insisted that true
13:26
Christianity required a changed life, personal devotion, and a
13:30
warm, living faith. He wanted to move theology from
13:33
the sterile head back to the beating heart.
13:35
But the pendulum didn't stop at pietism, did it?
13:38
It kept swinging, and in the 18th century we crashed into a
13:41
figure named Christian. Wolf was a German mathematician
13:44
and philosopher who lived from 1679 to 1754, and he led
13:49
Lutheran theology straight off a Cliff into rationalism.
13:52
A mathematician doing theology? That sounds like the recipe for
13:55
a very specific type of framework.
13:56
Exactly. Wolf was a brilliant
13:58
mathematician, and he brought that mindset into theology.
14:02
He claimed that nothing should be acknowledged without rigorous
14:04
proof. He attempted to perfectly
14:06
harmonize faith and human reason.
14:08
He wanted a theology that made as much logical sense as a
14:11
geometry equation. I need to stop the timeline
14:13
here, because this is a staggering mutation.
14:16
We started with Martin Luther fiercely clinging to sola
14:19
scriptura, willing to stand alone against the entire
14:22
political and religious establishment of his day,
14:25
declaring that the Bible alone is the final authority.
14:28
Yeah, that was a starting point. How does a movement that starts
14:31
there end up under Christian Wolf, making human reason the
14:36
supreme judge of truth? This highlights the extreme
14:40
danger of attempting to perfectly harmonize faith and
14:42
reason in the way Wolf did. When you decide that human logic
14:46
must be brought in to validate divine truth, meaning you demand
14:50
mathematical or philosophical proof before you will accept a
14:53
theological claim, the dynamic completely changes.
14:56
Because then logic is in the driver's seat, right?
14:58
Human logic quietly takes the throne.
15:00
If reason is the tool used to judge whether the Bible is true,
15:04
then reason is actually the ultimate authority, not the
15:06
Bible. The consequent of Wolf's attempt
15:09
to harmonize the two was that reason became the final judge of
15:12
what was acceptable. If a biblical miracle didn't
15:15
make logical sense, Reason had the authority to discard it.
15:19
The mechanism of validation flips entirely.
15:22
If I have to validate the Bible with my math, my Mac is my God.
15:26
That is a massive shift, and it sets the stage for a total
15:29
collapse later on. But while this rationalist drift
15:33
was corroding Lutheran circles in Germany, the Calvinistic
15:36
branch of the Reformation was doing the exact opposite.
15:40
Yeah, they were doubling down on defining and defending a highly
15:44
systematic God centered theology.
15:46
This is where we see the intense solidification of Reformed
15:49
theology. And the term Reformed is used
15:51
specifically in church history to distinguish Calvinistic
15:55
doctrine from the Lutheran or Anabaptist streams, right?
15:57
Yes, that's correct. And the absolute bedrock of
16:00
Reformed theology is found in John Calvin's massive work The
16:03
Institutes of the Christian Religion.
16:06
Institutes didn't just stay in Geneva, though.
16:08
They spread like wildfire across the map, sparking different
16:10
confessions of faith across Europe.
16:12
Let's track that geographic spread, because it shows how
16:15
adaptable this airtight system really was.
16:17
Let's start in Switzerland. You had Johann Bulander, who
16:20
succeeded Zwingli in Zurich. Bollinger and others composed
16:23
the first Helvetic confession in 1536, which unified the reformed
16:28
faith of all the Swiss cantons. And then there was a second one,
16:31
right? Yeah, Bollinger wrote The Second
16:32
Helvetic Confession in 1566. What made The Second Helvetic
16:36
Confession so powerful was that it was published in Latin,
16:39
German and French, giving it an international reach.
16:43
That's huge for that era. Absolutely.
16:45
Switzerland also gave us the Heidelberg Catechism in 1563,
16:49
which remains one of the most beloved and widely used
16:52
catechisms in the world today due to its warm personal tone.
16:56
Then the theology crosses the English Channel to Britain.
16:59
Calvin's Institute's gained a massive foothold there,
17:02
particularly among the Puritans and the Independent
17:04
Presbyterians. It even influenced certain
17:07
Anabaptist groups. There were congregations known
17:09
as Particular Baptists. They adopted Reformed theology,
17:12
and the name Particular indicated their adherence to
17:15
Particular Redemption. Which is the belief that Christ
17:18
died specifically and intentionally for the elect.
17:21
Right. But the crowning achievement in
17:23
Britain, without a doubt, was the Westminster Confession of
17:25
Faith. Written in the 1640s, it became
17:28
the defining doctrinal standard for British adherents of the
17:32
Reformed faith. We also have to look at the
17:34
Netherlands. What happens when this rigorous
17:36
sovereign God theology hits the Dutch culture?
17:39
Reformed theology found some of its most brilliant defenders
17:43
among the Dutch. We see this in heavyweight
17:45
thinkers like Herman Bevink, who lived from 1854 to 1921, and
17:50
Abraham Kuiper, who lived from 1837 to 1920.
17:53
Kuiper is a wild historical figure.
17:55
He wasn't just a guy sitting in a dusty library writing logical
17:58
treatises. Not at all.
18:00
Kiper applied reformed theology to every square inch of human
18:03
existence. He founded the Free University
18:05
of Amsterdam. He started a newspaper.
18:07
He formed a political party. And didn't he become Prime
18:10
Minister? He actually became the Prime
18:11
Minister of the Netherlands, yes.
18:13
Think about the weight of that a rigorous Calvinist theologian
18:17
becoming the head of state shows how deeply pervasive these ideas
18:21
were in Dutch society. And from there, this tradition
18:24
crossed the ocean to America and Scotland.
18:26
Yeah, following in that same Reformed tradition were men who
18:29
fought massive intellectual battles.
18:31
In the 20th century. In Scotland, you had James Orr.
18:35
In America, at Princeton Theological Seminary, you had
18:37
brilliant minds like Benjamin B Warfield and Jay Gresham Macon
18:41
and. Later Cornelius Van Till.
18:43
Right Van Till revolutionized how Christians defend the faith
18:46
through presuppositional apologetics.
18:49
But if we want to locate the beating heart of a formed
18:52
theology, the exact moment where it was forced to define itself
18:57
with crystal clarity, we have to go back to the Netherlands in
19:00
the year 1619. We have to look at the Synod of
19:03
Dort. The Synod of Dort was not a
19:05
casual gathering of local pastors.
19:07
It was a massive, high stakes international theological
19:10
summit. It was convened in direct
19:12
response to a theological crisis sparked by a document called the
19:15
Remonstrance. The Remonstrance was essentially
19:18
the doctrinal affirmation of the followers of James Arminius,
19:21
right? Yes, the Armenians presented
19:24
their views, which fundamentally challenge the prevailing
19:27
Calvinistic understanding of how a human being is saved.
19:30
They argued for things like conditional election based on
19:33
foreseen faith and the possibility of resisting God's
19:36
grace. The Reformed thinkers at Dort
19:39
saw this as a fatal compromise of God's sovereignty, so they
19:43
responded by drafting 5 positive statements that summarize the
19:46
Calvinistic system of salvation. These became known as the Five
19:50
Points of Calvinism. Let's walk through the mechanics
19:53
of each one. First is the total depravity of
19:55
man. Yes, let's clarify total
19:57
depravity. Does this mean people are as
19:59
thoroughly evil as they possibly can be at all times?
20:02
I mean, it doesn't mean everyone is basically a serial killer
20:05
waiting to happen. No, it refers to the extent of
20:07
the corruption, not the absolute degree.
20:09
Total depravity means that every single part of human nature, the
20:12
mind, the will, the emotions, the flesh, is corrupted by sin.
20:16
So no part is left untouched. Exactly because the corruption
20:19
is total in its extent, man is completely unable to save
20:22
himself or even initiate a turn toward God on his own.
20:25
He is spiritually dead. Which leads directly to the
20:27
second point, unconditional election to salvation.
20:31
If man is truly totally depraved, God's choice to save
20:35
certain individuals cannot possibly be based on God looking
20:39
down the quarter of time and foreseeing their merit or their
20:42
faith. Because a spiritually dead
20:44
person cannot produce faith. Right.
20:46
Therefore, the choice to save must be completely
20:49
unconditional, resting entirely on God's sovereign will. 3rd is
20:53
limited atonement, sometimes called particular redemption.
20:57
This means Christ's atoning death on the cross was
20:59
specifically intended for the elect only.
21:02
It actually secured their salvation definitively, paying
21:05
for their specific sins, rather than just making salvation a
21:08
vague possibility for everyone if they happen to choose it. 4th
21:11
is irresistible grace. When God chooses to save
21:15
someone, the Holy Spirit's inward call cannot be
21:17
permanently resisted by the human will.
21:19
Right. It will effectively, inevitably
21:21
draw that person to faith, overcoming their natural
21:23
rebellion. And 5th is the perseverance of
21:26
the Saints. Those whom God has elected in
21:28
eternity past, whom Christ has definitively redeemed on the
21:32
cross, and whom the Spirit has effectively called, will be
21:36
preserved by God. They will persevere in faith to
21:39
the very end. They cannot lose their
21:41
salvation. Let's use an analogy to picture
21:44
what happened at the Synod of Dort.
21:46
Imagine a rigorous stress test of a building's architecture.
21:50
Arminianism came along and essentially brought a Wrecking
21:53
Ball against the structural integrity of the Calvinist
21:55
house. They really challenged the
21:57
foundation, yeah. But when challenged, the
21:59
reformed thinkers didn't just patch a hole in the drywall.
22:03
They responded by reinforcing the entire frame with five
22:06
massive, logically interlocking steel pillars.
22:09
That interlocking logic is what makes the reform system so
22:12
incredibly robust. If you look closely at those
22:15
five points, you see how they absolutely depend on each other.
22:18
You cannot remove one without the entire structure collapsing.
22:21
Because they're a package deal. Exactly.
22:23
If humanity is totally depraved and completely unable to choose
22:26
God, then election must be unconditional because there is
22:29
no good in man to base a condition upon.
22:32
And if election is unconditional, then God's grace
22:35
and calling that person must be irresistible.
22:37
Otherwise the totally depraved person would always reject the
22:40
call. And if God's grace is that
22:42
powerful and effective, then the salvation He grants must be
22:46
permanently preserved by Him. It functions as an unbreakable,
22:50
airtight theological system. It is a staggering contrast.
22:54
You have the Reformed thinkers building this airtight,
22:57
logically rigorous system of divine sovereignty, while over
23:00
in the Lutheran and German academic world, the human
23:03
centered rationalism planted by Christian Wolf was starting to
23:06
mutate into something entirely different.
23:08
That rationalism did not stay contained in the universities.
23:11
By the 18th century, heavily pressured by the massive
23:13
cultural shifts of the Enlightenment, it blossomed into
23:16
full scale liberal theology, also known as modernism.
23:19
And this movement radically altered the landscape escape of
23:22
religion in the West. Let's talk about the key
23:26
architects of liberal theology. And we have to start with the
23:29
man normally considered the father of modern religious
23:31
liberalism, A philosopher who altered human history, Immanuel
23:36
Kant. Immanuel Kant lived from 1724 to
23:39
18 O four. He absorbed the Enlightenment,
23:41
deep suspicion of tradition and biblical authority.
23:45
Kant highly acclaimed The merit of Human Reason, but he built an
23:49
epistemological wall. Meaning a wall regarding what we
23:51
can actually know. Yes.
23:53
He denied that there were any valid objective proofs for the
23:56
existence of God. He maintained that man could
23:59
know God only through the exercise of human reason and
24:01
moral duty, cutting off the idea of direct divine revelation.
24:05
Kant essentially said that we cannot know things as they truly
24:08
are in themselves, only as we perceive them.
24:11
That is a massive shift. But then we get Friedrich
24:12
Schleiermacher, who lived from 1768 to 1834.
24:16
And Schleiermacher did something completely different.
24:18
He realized Kant had made religion dry and sterile.
24:21
Right, so he pivoted away from pure reason and brought a new
24:23
feature to theology and emphasis on feeling.
24:26
Schleiermacher was desperately trying to make theology
24:29
compatible with the modern mind. He looked at the rationalists
24:33
and thought they had stripped the beauty out of faith.
24:35
So he taught that religion cannot be identified with rigid
24:38
creeds or doctrines. It's all about internal
24:41
experience for him. Yes.
24:42
Instead, he said, religion should be identified with
24:45
expressions of feeling, whether that is experienced through art,
24:48
literature or deep internal emotion.
24:51
Here's a fascinating insight for the listener.
24:54
Schleiermacher essentially invented the modern spiritual
24:57
but not religious mindset. When you see a dating app bio
25:01
today that says spiritual but not religious, that person is
25:05
just echoing Schleiermacher. He famously defined religion as
25:09
the feeling of absolute dependence.
25:12
Yeah, that's a spot on comparison.
25:13
And based on that highly subjective definition, he had to
25:16
completely redefine sin. If religion is just a feeling of
25:20
absolute dependence on God, then sin is simply a selfish
25:23
preoccupation with this physical world.
25:25
So no more breaking God's law. Right.
25:27
He dismissed the traditional legal categories of sin, sin
25:30
that the covenant theologians had worked so hard to build.
25:33
Sin was no longer breaking God's law.
25:35
It was just a failure to feel dependent.
25:37
Then we have George Hagel living from 1770 to 1831.
25:42
Hagel carried liberal thought in yet another direction for
25:45
bringing a philosophical concept of evolution into history and
25:48
religion. Hagel taught that all of history
25:50
and the progression of human thought is driven by the meeting
25:53
of opposing movements. It is a dialectic.
25:56
Thesis. Antithesis.
25:57
Synthesis. Yes.
25:59
You have a starting idea, which is the thesis.
26:01
It inevitably meets its opposite, the antithesis, and
26:05
the clash and blending of those two creates a new evolved idea,
26:08
the synthesis. This Hegelian philosophy became
26:11
incredibly influential in how scholars began to view the
26:14
Bible. How does a philosophical idea
26:16
about history meaning its opposite cause theologians to
26:19
tear the Bible apart? Because it strongly influenced
26:21
men like Ferdinand C Barr and Julius Wellhausen.
26:24
Barr lived from 1792 to 1860 and Wellhausen lived from 1844 to
26:29
1918. Inspired by Hegel's idea of
26:31
evolutionary history, they applied critical studies to the
26:34
biblical text. This is how higher criticism was
26:36
born. Correct.
26:37
They assumed that the Bible could not be a unified by divine
26:41
revelation. Instead, they looked for the
26:43
thesis and antithesis. They argued that early
26:46
Christianity was a clash between Peter's Jewish faction and
26:49
Paul's Gentile faction, and the New Testament was just the
26:53
resulting synthesis. So Higher Criticism aggressively
26:56
questioned the traditional views concerning the authors of the
26:58
biblical books. They started looking at the
27:01
Bible not as an intact message from God, but as an evolving,
27:05
purely human document created by competing political factions
27:09
over centuries. When you put all these
27:11
architects together, Kant's limits on knowledge,
27:14
Schleiermacher's reliance on feeling, Hegel's evolutionary
27:17
dialectic, and the higher criticism of Bauer and
27:20
Wellhausen, you get a very clear set of tenets for liberal
27:23
theology. First, there is an overarching
27:25
emphasis on human reason and subjective experience.
27:27
So religious beliefs must pass the tests of human reason and
27:31
modern science, yes? Christianity, in their view, had
27:35
to adapt to the modern world or die. 2nd, the Bible is severely
27:39
downgraded. It is no longer an infallible,
27:42
authoritative book of divine truth.
27:44
It is just a historical record of the religious experiences of
27:48
ancient people. It has exemplary value.
27:50
Maybe it shows us good moral examples like loving your
27:52
neighbor. But has no dogmatic value.
27:54
You cannot use it to establish concrete binding doctrine. 3rd
27:58
There is no distinction between the natural and the
28:00
supernatural. The distinction between God and
28:03
nature, man and animals, even Christ and man, is intentionally
28:06
played down. The logical result of erasing
28:09
the line between God and nature is pantheism, the idea that God
28:12
is everything and everything is God.
28:14
I have a major critique here, specifically regarding
28:17
Schleiermacher. If religion is reduced entirely
28:20
to a feeling of absolute dependence, it seems to me that
28:24
it becomes completely subjective.
28:25
It stops being about who God actually is, an objective
28:28
reality, and it becomes entirely about the internal psychological
28:32
state of the individual. I mean, if my feeling changes,
28:34
does God change? That is a very sharp, accurate
28:38
critique. By focusing so heavily on
28:40
internal feeling, liberalism stripped the Christian faith of
28:44
objective truth. It became a theology of human
28:47
experience. The flow then out there.
28:49
Yes, liberalism offered an incredibly optimistic view of
28:52
life. It affirmed the basic goodness
28:54
of humanity and believed human society, guided by science and
28:58
reason, was continually progressing toward perfection.
29:02
But it built a theology with no historical anchor.
29:05
It was floating entirely on the thin air of human reason and
29:08
human feeling. And because it was floating on
29:11
the naive optimism of human goodness, it was incredibly
29:14
fragile. Which brings us back to that
29:16
muddy trench in 1916. It brings us to the shattering
29:20
of that optimism. Liberalism, sunny, optimistic
29:23
view of life, lost its influence violently with the advent of
29:25
World War One. When theologians looked at the
29:27
trenches, the mustard gas, the machine guns and the industrial
29:31
scale slaughter of the Great War, the liberal affirmation of
29:34
the basic goodness of man suddenly looked utterly absurd.
29:37
Yeah, you can't really look at a machine gun mowing down
29:39
thousands of people and say we're progressing toward
29:41
perfection. You can't.
29:43
The theological error of liberalism, with its outright
29:46
denial of deep systemic human sin, was exposed for the fantasy
29:51
it was. Theologians realized they needed
29:54
a system that actually addressed human evil, despair and crisis.
29:58
The old Reformed theologians had a category for total depravity,
30:01
but the liberals had thrown it out.
30:03
So in the wake of the war, a new movement was born.
30:05
Neo Orthodox theology. Neo Orthodoxy means new
30:09
Orthodoxy, but it is vital to note that while it was a new
30:12
movement, it was not orthodox in the historic biblical sense.
30:16
It was, however, a massive, desperate reaction to the
30:19
catastrophic failure of liberalism.
30:21
The key figure who ignited this reaction is Carl Barth, who
30:24
lived from 1886 to 1968. Barth was a Swiss pastor trained
30:28
in the elite schools of liberal theology.
30:30
But as he watched his liberal professor signed documents
30:33
supporting the German war machine in World War One, he
30:36
abandoned liberalism entirely. He gave himself to a serious
30:39
study of the Scriptures, and in 1919 he published his commentary
30:42
on the Epistle to the Romans. That 1919 publication fell like
30:46
a bomb on the theological playground of Europe.
30:49
It is widely considered the beginning of neo orthodoxy and
30:52
the definitive break from liberalism.
30:54
Barth sought to recover the vast distance between God and man
30:57
that liberalism had erased. But Bark didn't build this new
31:01
system in a vacuum. He drew heavily from Surin
31:04
Kierkegaard, a Danish philosopher and theologian who
31:06
lived from 1813 to 1855. Kierkegaard is a fascinating
31:10
precursor to Neo Orthodoxy. He fiercely denounced the cold,
31:14
dead orthodoxy of his native people in Denmark.
31:17
He looked at a society where people gave verbal assent to
31:19
creeds and were automatically considered Christians just
31:22
because they were born into the state church.
31:24
And he despised it. Kierkegaard argued that life is
31:26
not about simply believing a list of doctrines.
31:29
It involves angst, experience and radical commitment.
31:31
In contrast to the liberal emphasis on the imminence of
31:34
God, the idea that God is right here in our feelings and in
31:37
nature, Kierkegaard taught the absolute, terrifying
31:40
transcendence of God. He argued that it is incredibly
31:43
difficult for a finite man to know an infinite God.
31:46
To discover God, a person must take a blind leap of faith.
31:49
Wait. A leap of faith implies stepping
31:52
into the void without evidence. That is a massive shift from the
31:56
Synod of Dort or the Westminster Confession, where faith is
31:59
grounded in the objective truth of Scripture.
32:02
Kierkegaard's theology is often called the theology of despair,
32:05
and it actually marked the birth of existentialism, which makes
32:08
personal subjective experience the ultimate standard of
32:11
reality. Karl Barth followed
32:13
Kierkegaard's lead. He acknowledged A massively
32:16
transcendent God and emphasized a religion of subjective
32:19
experience. Barth taught that because God is
32:22
so entirely transcendent, he cannot be known objectively
32:25
through history or nature. He must be known subjectively
32:29
through a personal crisis experience.
32:31
New Orthodoxy, though, has a wide divergent of theological
32:34
opinions. It wasn't just Barth.
32:36
You had Emil Brunner, who lived from 1889 to 1966.
32:39
He was known for his emphasis on Christology.
32:41
Yes, he denounced the liberal view of Christ as just a good
32:44
moral teacher and taught that a personal encounter with the
32:47
living Christ is absolutely necessary for knowing God.
32:50
Brunner's teaching led to the designation crisis theology
32:53
because he believed God meets man not in calm rationalism but
32:57
in a moment of existential crisis.
32:59
Then you have Reinhold Nieber, who lived from 1892 to 1971.
33:03
As a pastor in the gritty working class areas of Detroit,
33:07
Nieber concentrated heavily on social ethics, applying neo
33:10
orthodox ideas about human sin to systemic human struggles,
33:14
labor disputes and politics. And then we get Rudolf Boltman,
33:17
who lived from 1884 to 1976. Boltman took things in a very
33:22
aggressive, destructive direction.
33:23
He essentially denied the historical reliability of the
33:26
Bible altogether. He suggested the original text
33:29
had been encrusted with the mythical views of the early
33:31
church. Boltman introduced a process
33:33
called demythologizing. He believed modern scientific
33:37
man could not possibly believe in 1st century myths like demons
33:40
walking on water or a physical resurrection.
33:43
So he tried to strip away the myth to find the existential
33:45
core of the message. His aggressive demythologizing
33:49
impacted so many theologians that Boltmanism became
33:52
synonymous with a particular, highly skeptical form of Neo
33:55
Orthodoxy. Let's gather all these voices
33:57
together, Barth, Brunner, Nieber, Boltman and identify the
34:02
core tenets of the Neo Orthodox system.
34:05
First, and this is crucial to understand, they teach that the
34:08
Bible is not Revelation itself, it is only a witness to
34:12
revelation. It is a fallible human document
34:15
that points to God. Therefore, it's not to be
34:17
equated objectively with the Word of God, because they argue
34:20
that the actual revelation of God is an event, not a set of
34:23
words on a page. Second, Jesus Christ is the
34:25
absolute focal point of God's revelation.
34:28
They believe that man meets God strictly in an experiential
34:31
crisis encounter with Jesus Christ, not by reading a
34:34
historical text. 3rd, and this is perhaps the most complex
34:37
mental gymnastics part of their entire system is the division
34:41
between two German words for history, Keshita and history.
34:45
Let's slow down and clarify this critical division because it
34:48
explains how they tried to save faith from science.
34:51
According to Neo Orthodox thinkers, the monumental events
34:54
of Scripture such as Christ's resurrection are termed Keshta.
34:57
Which translates loosely to story or meaningful event, in
35:00
contrast to history, which translates to verifiable
35:03
history. History refers to things that
35:06
are historically verifiable. It is a lower level of
35:09
scripture. The earthbound facts, dates,
35:11
locations, physical bodies and neo Orthodox theologians believe
35:15
this lower level is full of errors that can and have been
35:19
easily discovered by science and higher criticism.
35:22
Kashifta, on the other hand, refers to the transcendent
35:25
experiential truth of God. This higher truth is completely
35:29
unaffected by the truth or error of the earthbound facts.
35:32
It is historically unverifiable and therefore it is the higher
35:35
realm where scientific errors cannot touch it.
35:37
So in their minds, it is completely unimportant whether
35:40
or not the stories of the Bible really took place in physical
35:43
space and time. The fact that many Bible
35:45
accounts might be literal myths does not affect their higher
35:49
spiritual meaning. Correct.
35:50
The final tenet ties us all together.
35:52
God is completely transcendent. He is the Holy Other.
35:55
A massive unbridgeable distinction exists between
35:58
finite man and infinite God, and man can come into fellowship
36:01
with God only through that subjective Kierkegaardian leap
36:04
of faith. OK, if you are listening to this
36:07
on your commute right now and thinking this sounds like a
36:09
massive academic sleight of hand, you are not alone.
36:13
I have to express total frustration with this Keshikta
36:16
versus history split. If an event like the
36:18
resurrection did not literally physically happen in space and
36:21
time. If the stone was not rolled
36:23
away. If the tomb wasn't actually
36:25
empty on a Sunday morning, how can it hold any higher truth?
36:29
It's a very confusing distinction it.
36:31
Looks like they are trying to dodge scientific and historical
36:33
criticism while desperately clinging to the emotional
36:37
comfort of religion. Your frustration is entirely
36:39
justified, and it is the exact critique leveled by historic
36:43
Orthodox theologians against New Orthodoxy.
36:46
Let's thoroughly untack the mechanics of what they did.
36:49
Neo Orthodoxy was trying to rescue God from the wreckage of
36:52
liberalism. Because liberalism had made God
36:54
too small, right? Yes, too small, too human, too
36:57
tied to modern science. When science changed, their
37:01
theology collapsed, so Barth and the others tried to rescue God
37:05
by pushing him as far away from the physical one as possible,
37:08
into a transcendent subjective realm.
37:11
They made him holy Other so that science could never touch him.
37:15
But by building that wall to protect God from science, they
37:18
created a fatal new problem. Exactly.
37:20
By pushing God so far into the transcendent realm, He became
37:24
objectively unknowable. They severed faith from
37:27
historical reality entirely. If the resurrection is just a
37:31
myth that gives us a transcendent feeling of hope,
37:34
then our hope is not grounded in anything real.
37:36
It's just a psychological exercise.
37:37
Right. They tried to save the Christian
37:39
faith, but in doing so they disconnected it from the very
37:41
historical events that the biblical authors claim actually
37:44
happened in time and space. The apostle Paul himself said
37:47
that if Christ is not physically raised, our faith is futile.
37:51
Neo Orthodoxy tried to have the spiritual benefits of the
37:53
resurrection without the physical reality of the empty
37:55
tomb. We have covered a massive amount
37:58
of historical ground today. Let's bring everything back to
38:00
the present and synthesize what we have looked at.
38:03
We started with the reformers and the incredibly robust,
38:07
logically interlocking legal frameworks of covenant theology
38:10
and the Synod of Dort. Then we saw the pendulum swing
38:13
in Germany from strict academic scholasticism to the path driven
38:17
rationalism of Christian Wolf. We watched that rationalism
38:20
bloom into liberalism, where Kant and Schleiermacher reduced
38:24
faith to human reason and subjective feelings.
38:26
And finally, we saw World War One violently shatter that
38:30
liberal optimism, leading to the fractured existential history
38:33
denying theology of neo orthodoxy with Karl Barth and
38:36
Surin Kierkegaard. It is historical theology in
38:39
action, watching humanity wrestle with divine truth.
38:42
The final question for us today is how to evaluate all these
38:45
movements. How do we sift the gold from the
38:47
gravel in church history? The answer brings us back to the
38:50
ultimate unchanging biblical standards, specifically Second
38:53
Timothy 3.114 through 17. The only way to properly
38:57
evaluate the strengths and avoid the disastrous errors of past
39:00
theologians is to hold every single doctrine up to the light
39:04
of Scripture. The Bible is breathed out by
39:06
God. It was given to be profitable to
39:09
equip us, and it remains the final absolute standard of
39:13
truth. Human philosophies will swing
39:15
back and forth, but the Word of God remains steadfast.
39:19
Absolutely. We want to leave you with a
39:20
final challenge to Mull over as you go about your week.
39:24
When you encounter modern debates about faith, science, or
39:27
biblical truth today, whether it's on a video, in a new best
39:30
selling book, or in a conversation at a coffee shop,
39:33
listen closely to the arguments being made.
39:35
Are you truly hearing fresh, modern arguments?
39:38
Or if you listen closely enough, are you just hearing the ghosts
39:40
of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Schleiermacher, and stirring
39:43
Kierkegaard repeating themselves under new names?
39:46
Thank you for joining us on this deep dive.