The Orthodox Study Bible: Light

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

From the Bible's Glossary by the Reverend John W. Morris, PhD.

Light

According to the text under review, the Bible frequently defines light as a symbol of God and that which is good. (802). This light is contrasted to darkness that overcomes sin and death. (802).

Further, in the New Testament, followers of Jesus Christ are considered lights shining in the world. (802). This demonstrates the brightness of God, the Gospel and the Kingdom of God, in contrast to fallen creation and the present corrupted realm.

Theologian, Boice notes that Christians are to change the world as the light. (687). The Church and the Kingdom of God, is to contrast the darkness of the world system is this present realm. (687).

In Jesus Christ, we are the light of the world. (687).

Via Oxford, Browning explains that light is a powerful (biblical, my add) symbol mentioned at the beginning in Genesis 1. (228). Light is connected to concepts of goodness and truth. (228).

Browning lists Revelation 22: 5.

Revelation 22:5 New American Standard Bible (NASB) 5 And there will no longer be any night; and they [a]will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever. Footnotes: Revelation 22:5 Lit do not have
---

God is by nature Spirit (John 4: 24) according to Jesus Christ within the Gospel of John. I therefore, do not reason that God should be defined as God as light, in scientific terms....

Again from Oxford, but the Dictionary of Science:

Light is 'The form of electromagnetic radiation to which the human eye is sensitive and on which our visual awareness of the universe and it contents relies.' (476).

Electromagnetic radiation is considered a form of energy. Energy is the capacity for doing work. Entropy from page 292.

I can agree with the symbolic definitions provided for light and God as light. In non-material reality, a spiritual reality, God may very reasonably, biblically and theologically, appear as light to persons.

In regard to Revelation 22: 5, as my theology reasons that Revelation 21-22 describes a physical new heaven and new earth in a restored universe; It seems to me that 22: 5 is likely figurative literal, as in there will be a literal sun in our solar system. A literal, physical universe of matter, energy and light.
As well as time and space.

As I have noted Mounce, does for example, opine that Revelation does use figurative literal language.

On page 369, in regard to John's vision of the new heaven and new earth (369).

Quote:

'Interpreters understand these figures with varying degrees of literalness.' (369).

Mounce offers no figurative explanation for 22: 5. (388). But, if one favours a quite plain literal interpretation of 'the everlasting light of the glory of God' (388), I reason the new heaven and new earth, shall operate on radically different scientific rules than does our present realm.

I can grant that the restored universe may be significantly different, although still physical and that God indeed, is light, in the biblical sense described, even while acknowledging varying possible degrees of literalness.

BOICE, JAMES, MONTGOMERY (1981) Foundations of the Christian Faith, Downers Grove, IVP Press.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Oxford Dictionary of Science, (2010), Sixth Edition, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.

Brief on two sermons: Apostasy-Pelagianism

Summer in British Columbia: trekerarth

Two more fine sermons from Grace Baptist Church and Pastor Michael Phillips

The Apostasy May 23 2004

Cited

If Apostasy is deserting God at any time, The Apostasy is a worldwide deserting of God just before the Second Coming of Christ. That's the doctrine.

Cited

Revelation 20:7-10....(In regards to, my add).

Continued with Citation...

I agree with much of this: Satan will run amok near the end of time. He will deceive the nations as he once did. He will be arrested and sent to hell by the Returning King. But what does this have to do with the Apostasy of the Church? John explicitly tells us that Satan misleads the nations, not the Church. 

The imagery of a Surrounded City or a Besieged Camp seems to teach persecution from the outside-and not corruption from the inside.
---

Agreed.

Cited

II Thessalonians 2:1-12 Two things precede the Second Coming, vv.3-4. Before the Lord comes again, there will be (1) a falling away, and (2) The Man of Sin will be revealed.

Cited

I think the Man of Sin is a real man, flesh and blood, like you and me, only possessed by the devil.
---

Pastor Phillips does not indicate this is 'Man of Sin' is 'the antichrist' (the Antichrist)..

In other sermons he reasons that there are biblically many, from the New Testament era to now, that opposed and will oppose Christ as 'an antichrist'. However, I must admit here, that if biblically, there is one key antichrist, perhaps the Antichrist; then the lawless one in 2 Thessalonians is certainty a significant and key, candidate.

This event is also as I have noted in other articles, futurist and not preterist in the New Testament text. Nor, as history tells us, did  the events in 2 Thessalonians 2 occur within the New Testament era..

2 Thessalonians 2: 7-8

New American Standard Bible

7 For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only he who now restrains will do so until he is taken out of the way. 8 Then that lawless one will be revealed whom the Lord will slay with the breath of His mouth and bring to an end by the appearance of His [f]coming; f 2 Thessalonians 2:8 Or presence

Jesus Christ literally destroys the lawless one at this point, in some context to do with breath from his mouth. It appears quite literal language, as Jesus Christ as the God-man would be quite capable of destroying an opponent that way. It is a future event.
---

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Pelagianism November 17 2002

Cited

In regard to Pelagius Cited In other words, he believed in man's free will. The term itself is not always understood. 

All Christians (nearly all of us at any rate) believe that man's will is free-in a certain way. God does not force us to do things against our own wishes. On this point, both St. Augustine and John Calvin would agree with Pelagius. 

But Pelagius meant far more than this. He believed that man's will is neutral or equally free to choose God or Satan, good or bad, heaven or hell.

Cited

Salvation by grace doesn't mean God endows us with everything necessary to save ourselves (that's what Pelagius said). It means God saves us! Jesus Christ is not our helper, He is our Savior! We are not saved by our good works, but by the Grace of God.
---

Corrupted human nature (Genesis 1-3, Romans, Ephesians as examples) cancels out any legitimate, biblical theology of a neutral human nature. Presently, human nature is fallen/corrupted/sinful and needs regeneration (John 3, Titus 3) via the Holy Spirit in the Gospel, to begin the work of sanctification in salvation. Competed at the resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

My MPhil and PhD theses work, and my website work, within a Reformed theological tradition, and within philosophy of religion, is not pelagian, which would be within incompatibilism. An extreme form of incompatibilism.

Instead I hold to compatibilism. Note that my British theses work heavily depended on philosophical terminology, as I have noted my work was as much philosophy of religion as it was Reformed theology.

I remain unapologetic! All truth is God's truth!

Indeterminism is equated with incompatibilism which states that God, or any other being, cannot cause by force or coercion any human action, nor can any action be simultaneously willed by God or any other being, for the human action to remain significantly free. Also known as libertarian free will.

Or at least libertarian free will is within incompatibilism.

Philosophically, compatibilism would agree with incompatibilism that God or any other being cannot cause by force or coercion any significantly free human action, for which there would be significant moral accountability, but contrary to incompatibilism reasons that God can simultaneously will significantly free human actions for which there is significant human, moral accountability.

J.S. Feinberg explains that compatibilism does not allow for coercion or force, but holds that God, or some outside force, can simultaneously determine with the use of persuasion, that an action will or will not take place. Feinberg (1986: 24). Feinberg writes that certain nonconstraining conditions could strongly influence actions, in conjunction with human free will performing these actions. Feinberg (1994: 60). With this viewpoint, there will be no contradiction in stating that God would create human beings who were significantly free, unconstrained, and yet committed actions that God willed. Feinberg (2001: 637).
---

AUGUSTINE (400-416)(1987)(2004) On the Trinity, Translated by Reverend Arthur West Haddan, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series One, Volume 3, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia. 

AUGUSTINE (421)(1998) Enchiridion, Translated by J.F. Shaw, Denver, The Catholic Encyclopedia.

AUGUSTINE (426)(1958) The City of God, Translated by Gerald G. Walsh, Garden City, New York, Image Books.

AUGUSTINE (427)(1997) On Christian Doctrine, Translated by D.W. Robertson Jr., Upper Saddle River, N.J., Prentice Hall.

AUGUSTINE (427b)(1997) On Christian Teaching, Translated by R.P.H. Green, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book II, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1539)(1998) The Institutes of the Christian Religion, Book IV, Translated by Henry Beveridge, Grand Rapids, The Christian Classic Ethereal Library, Wheaton College. http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/institutes.html

CALVIN, JOHN (1540)(1973) Romans and Thessalonians, Translated by Ross Mackenzie, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

CALVIN, JOHN (1550)(1978) Concerning Scandals, Translated by John W. Fraser, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CALVIN, JOHN (1552)(1995) Acts, Translated by Watermark, Nottingham, Crossway Books. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1553)(1952) Job, Translated by Leroy Nixon, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House. 

CALVIN, JOHN (1554)(1965) Genesis, Translated by John King, Edinburgh, The Banner of Truth Trust.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1729)(2006) Sovereignty of God, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1731-1733)(2006) Law of Nature, New Haven, Connecticut, Jonathan Edwards Center, Yale University.

EDWARDS, JONATHAN (1754)(2006) Freedom of the Will, Flower Mound, Texas. Jonathanedwards.com.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (2003) What Does God Know and When Does He Know It?, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House. 

FEINBERG, JOHN.S. (2001) No One Like Him, John S. Feinberg (gen.ed.), Wheaton, Illinois, Crossway Books.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Divine Omnipotence and Human Freedom’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY (1955) ‘Theology and Falsification’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, London, SCM, in Paul Edwards and Arthur Pap (eds.), A Modern Introduction To Philosophy, New York, The Free Press.

FLEW, ANTONY (1983)(1996) ‘The Falsification Challenge’, in Antony Flew and A. MacIntrye (eds.), New Essays in Philosophical Theology, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

FLEW, ANTONY, R.M. HARE, AND BASIL MITCHELL (1996) ‘The Debate on the Rationality of Religious Belief’, in L.P. Pojman (ed.), Philosophy, The Quest for Truth, New York, Wadsworth Publishing Company.

FLEW, ANTONY AND A.MACINTRYE (1999) ‘Philosophy of Religion’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Ltd.

GEIVETT, R. DOUGLAS (1993) Evil and the Evidence for God, Philadelphia, Temple University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1989) God, Time, and Knowledge, Ithaca, Cornell University Press. 

HASKER, WILLIAM (1993) ‘C. Robert Mesle, John Hick’s Theodicy: A Process Humanist Critique’, in Philosophy of Religion, Volume 34, Number 1, pp. 55-56. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Philosophy of Religion.

HASKER, WILLIAM (1994) ‘Can Philosophy Defend Theology?’, in Faith and Philosophy, Volume 11, Number 2, April, pp. 272-278. Wilmore, Kentucky, Asbury College.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2000) ‘The Problem of Evil in Process Theism and Classical Free Will Theism’, in Process Studies, Volume. 29, Number 2, Fall-Winter, pp. 194-208. Claremont, California, Religion Online. http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?title=3019

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Counterfactuals and Evil’, in Philosophia Christi, Volume 5, Number 1, pp. 235-249. La Mirada, California, Biola University.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2003) ‘Is Free-Will Theism Religiously Inadequate? A Reply to Ciocchi’, in Religious Studies, Volume 39, Number 4, December, pp. 431-440. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

HASKER, WILLIAM (2007) ‘Peter van Inwagen, The Problem of Evil’, in Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews, Notre Dame, Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. http://ndpr.nd.edu/review.cfm?id=9064

MACKIE, J.L. (1955)(1996) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in Mind, in Michael Peterson, William Hasker, Bruce Reichenbach, and David Basinger (eds.), Philosophy of Religion, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

MACKIE, J.L. (1971)(1977)(2002) ‘Evil and Omnipotence’, in The Philosophy of Religion, in Alvin C. Plantinga, God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1977)(2002) God, Freedom, and Evil, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (1982) The Nature of Necessity, Oxford, Clarendon Press.

PLANTINGA, ALVIN C. (2000) Warranted Christian Belief, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

23 Celsius on a winter day/The myth of the given

That temperature is for Maple Ridge, not Vancouver at the time of writing, this afternoon.

That is 74 degrees Fahrenheit for what is technically still the end of winter in this region.

So, I have been spending more time outside on work breaks...
---

The myth of the given 

This is another new philosophical term for me.

Also known as the given (158).

In defining the given, secular philosopher, Blackburn writes that this is connected to foundationalism. (158). This idea is that foundationational epistemology (the study of learning and knowledge) and knowledge is based on certain accepted experienced and learned foundations. (145). Often knowledge is considered to be found from empiricism (senses) and rationalism (reason) as intellectual approaches. (145). One approach might be favoured over the other. (145).

Under The myth of the given entry (re: name adapted by Sellars), it is stated that this is a widely rejected view that sense experience (the senses-based, empiricism approach) gives persons and society points of certainty in knowledge that therefore serve as foundation for the whole of empirical knowledge and science. (253).

In other words, Sellars' critique is generally accepted as correct.

The Oxford Reference

Cited

myth of the given...

Name adopted by Sellars for the now widely-rejected view that sense experience gives us peculiar points of certainty, suitable to serve as foundations for the whole of empirical knowledge and science. The idea that empiricism, particularly in the hands of Locke and Hume, confuses moments of physical or causal impact on the senses with the arrival of individual ‘sense data’ in the mind, was a central criticism of it levelled by the British Idealists, especially Green and Joachim. See foundationalism, protocol statements, sense data. 

Information philosopher

Cited

In his most famous work, Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Sellars criticized the notion that perceptions of sense-data give immediate knowledge that can serve as the foundation of all empirical knowledge. He called this the "Myth of the Given." Sellar's criticism is similar to Immanuel Kant's idea that "intuitions/perceptions without concepts are blind" (Anschaungen ohne Begriffe sind blind), or as we might symmetrize the Kantian chiasmos, "concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."

Quoting, Sellars:

VIII. DOES EMPIRICAL KNOWLEDGE HAVE A FOUNDATION? 

32. One of the forms taken by the Myth of the Given is the idea that there is, indeed must be, a structure of particular matter of fact such that (a) each fact can not only be noninferentially known to be the case, but presupposes no other knowledge either of particular matter of fact, or of general truths; and (b) such that the noninferential knowledge of facts belonging to this structure constitutes the ultimate court of appeals for all factual claims -- particular and general -- about the world. It is important to note that I characterized the knowledge of fact belonging to this stratum as not only noninferential, but as presupposing no knowledge of other matter of fact, whether particular or general. It might be thought that this is a redundancy, that knowledge (not belief or conviction, but knowledge) which logically presupposes knowledge of other facts must be inferential. This, however, as I hope to show, is itself an episode in the Myth. (page 164). 
---

Non-inferential claims would not use inference and would not claim that an argument is true or provable. In other words, they are loose claims made.

This is quite complex topic for which like Blackburn, I am only dealing with non-exhaustively, however...

To presuppose that no other knowledge can be factual or true, other than non-inferential is problematic. I reason that knowledge can be obtained through the use of both empirical evidence, including science/scientific, and as well through disciplines within rationalism such philosophy (philosophy of religion), theology, psychology, biblical studies and others.

Both empirical knowledge and rational knowledge can be adapted over time with new premises and conclusions that are internally and externally superior to ones previously accepted. I therefore have very carefully accepted views within my worldview and these always need to be supported superior premises and conclusions that remain internally and externally more reasonable that counter premises and conclusions. I would not coin them 'given' (s). Of course I have faith and philosophy. Divinely guided, reasonable faith and philosophy.

I certainty rely on empirical data, and scientific data, but I realize that science does adapt to new data. In regard to empirical data, which Sellar's deals with in his critique, his critique seems reasonable.

Premises arising from the necessary/of necessity (philosophy of religion), the first cause (philosophy of religion), God, the creator (Hebrew Bible), God, the creator and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (New Testament), The Trinity (Theology) and the Bible in context, are viewed as accepted by this writer, but they are maintained by reasonable certainty.

See Kant in this website's archives.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

HICK, JOHN (1999) ‘Life after Death’, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1998) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen W. Wood, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1781)(1787)(1929)(2006) Critique of Pure Reason, Translated by Norman Kemp Smith, London, Macmillan.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1997) Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Mary Gregor (ed.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1788)(1898)(2006) The Critique of Practical Reason, Translated by Thomas Kingsmill Abbott, London, Longmans, Green, and Co.

KANT, IMMANUEL (1791)(2001) ‘On The Miscarriage of All Philosophical Trials in Theodicy’, in Religion and Rational Theology, Translated by George di Giovanni and Allen Wood, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

SELLARS, WILFRID (1995) Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind, Edited in Hypertext by Andrew Chrucky, http://selfpace.uconn.edu/class/percep/SellarsEmpPhilMind.pdf

Liberalism (sermon)

Fraser River

June 20 2003

Sermon

Grace Baptist Church: Michael Phillips on Liberalism

Cited

The Enlightenment was a supposed flowering of knowledge in Europe, beginning in 1687. Its big idea was Reason (which is often capitalized). The thinkers of that time thought that Reason was the measure of all things. If it is not reasonable to them, it is not be true!

Cited

By rejecting all authority (but their own) and ignoring tradition, the Thinkers soon found many things wrong with the authority of Scripture, the Divinity of Christ, the Fall of Man, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Judgment, Heaven and Hell. What Christians always took for God's Word became little more than a collection of primitive religious hopes with a good deal of fairy tale mixed in.
---

Some edited previous work of mine on the Enlightenment...

Colin Brown described the Enlightenment as follows: The Age of Enlightenment (German Die Aufklarung) covers roughly the eighteenth century. It is sometimes identified with the Age of Reason, but the latter term covers both the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Although the Enlightenment had some of its roots in seventeenth century rationalism, the ideas which characterize the Enlightenment went far beyond the rationalism of Descartes, Spinoza, and the thinkers of their time. Brown (1996: 355).

From Brown’s idea, the roots of the Enlightenment started with philosophers like Descartes, but went beyond those men.

David A. Pailin, of Manchester University, stated: The Enlightenment’s criticism of the authority of tradition led to increasing secularization in attitudes and ideas. Nature is seen as an ordered whole rather than as a stage for divine interventions and supernatural happenings. So far as religious beliefs are concerned, claims to revelation are acceptable only when they are rationally justified and their contents subject to reason’s judgement. Biblical stories and accepted doctrines are not immune from criticism.

Works like Bayle’s Historical and Critical Dictionary and Voltaire’s Philosophical Dictionary highlight the faults of revered figures and the questionability of standard doctrines. Historical and literary investigations into the Bible develop. Reports about miracles, especially that of the resurrection, give rise to considerable discussion. There is great hostility to priestcraft and suspicion of ecclesiastical pretensions to guide human understanding. Pailin (1999: 180). David Pailin’s comments demonstrate some of the modern assumptions made by philosophers of religion concerning Christianity.

As Pailin pointed out, revelation and ecclesiastical pretensions would often face great hostility philosophically. I agree with the Enlightenment approach to review Christian claims through reason, but it appears that more faith is put in the Enlightenment critics of Christianity than in the people who wrote the original work. Enlightenment thinking is committed to ". . . reason as the proper tool and final authority for determining issues." Pailin (1999: 179).

Enlightenment thinking has human reason as the final authority, whereas traditional Christianity uses human reason, but it assumes that human nature is fallen and God must reveal himself to that reason. Enlightenment thinking, in my view, rests on the faulty idea that finite man should be able to be the final judge regarding ideas about God. Enlightenment era thinking, which is still prominent in liberal circles today, believes that man has the ability to reason out who God is, whereas traditional Christianity believes that God must reveal himself in order for human beings to come to some understanding of who he is.

The Enlightenment puts greater emphasis on the human mind comprehending God, whereas traditional Christianity puts emphasis on Scripture inspired by God, which must teach human beings about God.

Two problems *non-exhaustively) come to mind concerning the human mind’s ability to know God.

First, the human mind is finite, God is infinite. It could be said that human beings could only understand God in a limited way. This is not to say that the limited human understanding was in error or without logic, but simply limited. For this reason, I think in this relationship God would have to take the initiative in presenting himself to humanity for greater understanding, and this would lead to revelation.

Second, there is significant evidence in Scripture and everyday life, that humanity is imperfect and sinful, and in a spiritual condition where they would have to be transformed in order to have a relationship with God. I am not saying that human beings cannot understand things about God without revelation, but I am stating that revelation is required for a changed spirit which could lead to a relationship with God. I, therefore, do not think that human reason outside of revelation should be our final authority in theology.

Back to the sermon, and a key liberal exemplar mentioned...

SCHLEIRMACHER 

(Schleiermacher, my correction)
 
The best known man of this kind is Friedrich Schleirmacher. He was a German theologian, born in 1768. His father was a Reformed pastor and he studied at a Moravian university. This is a good combination! He learned Calvinism at home and got the disciplines of prayer and devotional reading in school. With his great learning, sincerity, and personality, he might have become a Giant of the Faith. 

But he didn't. He became a Giant of Unbelief. 

He accepted the doctrines of the Enlightenment and looked for a way of integrating them into the Christian Faith. He found one. He said the scholarship of his day was true, but it did not affect Christianity in the least because Christianity is not about objective truth, but about devotional feelings. He tried to rebuild the Faith on the foundation of feelings.

From my PhD: Theodicy and Practical Theology (UWTSD, 2010)

Schleiermacher’s approach redefines Christian religion as a unique element of human experience, not located in the intellectual and moral aspects of persons as these produce indirect knowledge concerning God only. God is instead experienced through feeling. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213). The infinite God is experienced through human experience with the finite world. Schleiermacher (1821)(1928)(1976: 212-213). Not primarily from rational and doctrinal concepts. 

Therefore, Schleiermacher, unlike many traditional and Reformed approaches with the omnipotence of God is not primarily concerned with a dogma and doctrine concerning the omnipotence of God, but is instead focused on how God is experienced by persons, and this would include God’s attribute of omnipotence. I personally still favour a doctrinal approach.

Phillips states in the sermon...

But, setting that aside, I want to show you their technique. It was not right, but it was extremely clever and highly effective. What the old Liberals mostly did was to downplay doctrine. They didn't come out and deny it-most of the time-but they said it wasn't important or that unity, service, and love are more important than doctrine.
---

Agreed. This still goes on today within many liberal denominations and churches.

BROWN, C. (1996) The Enlightenment, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

PAILIN, D.A. (1999) Enlightenment, in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.