October 21, 2005 5:37 PM Kant’s analysis of the Baptist (Christian?) slogan of: accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior.

The order is proper, Lord and only then Savior. While we must believe (theoretically) that Jesus had to do in order for us to believe we have a second chance and could become morally perfect, in a practical sense we cannot believe that he would die for us unless we were dedicated to following him as Lord, as determined to do his will as our own. And so psychologically, I suppose you could say, a man cannot believe that he has been forgiven of his sins and given a new lease on life unless he is a changed man, and who is dedicated to a life that would make such forgiveness meaningful and efficacious. It is not possible to conceive of a man who is dedicated to evil to be willing to believe that someone would die for him, for it would be so senseless and vain, dying in order that evil might continue unabated. That is an inconceivable notion to a rational person. Therefore it is only by virtue of my commitment to the good that I can believe that I have been given a second chance in the forgiveness of all my past sins. And so it would not be possible to accept Jesus as Savior and then as Lord, for that would imply no commitment at all on the part of someone, much like the Japanese couple who would waylay innocent passerby's and talk them into a quick baptism, taking the text quiet literally and without regard for moral intent.

And so while we hear the story of the death of Jesus for all sinners and take heart, we cannot believe that he actually died for us until we are first committed to making a second chance efficacious, i.e., to follow him as Lord. Theoretically we must believe that Jesus died for us, in order to even hope, and practically we must believe in our commitment to following him as Lord in order to believe that he actually died for us.

This is incomplete: since he died for all he died for me.

This is complete: since he died for all he must have died for me (theoretically), and since I am committed to his lordship, I can know (believe) that he died for me (practically).

While it is logical to say: since he died for all he must have died for me; it is only credible to me to say: since I am now committed to him, I can believe that he died for me and so can accept him also as Savior.

I have to believe that Jesus died for my sins. And yet I cannot believe this for me personally except that I am committed to following him as Lord, for otherwise it would not make any sense. And so because i accept him as Lord I can also accept him as Savior.


And so the slogan is well conceived, Herr Kant would conclude. They can even be conceived of as simultaneous in time, where the logical order doesn’t matter, but the Lordship always is presupposed in order for the belief in a personal salvation to arise in someone’s mind. And so practically speaking it is necessary for the belief in the personal salvation, this precedence of the lordship.


5:56 Idea concerning the Muslims. Let’s present Jesus according to his impact on sincerity, and let’s find him proclaiming the universal religion and establishing the (invisible) church of Christ as the precursor to the universal kingdom of God on earth.

He will show that the only thing that is pleasing to God is a morally right heart (and where the actions follow merely incidentally, as it were), and that this is his command, that we love him and each other, and this is our only duty. This is the true religion, the religion which justifies the division of time into BC and AD.

He will call all of the morally right heart to join together for a mutual onslaught against the forces of evil which well up quite naturally in our dealings with each other (a notion which must first be developed, of course), and promise them nothing but pain, but then promised them joy in the anticipation of a happy end to their efforts.

Now any sort of church and of any sort of faith (accepting certain facts) can arise to unite such kindred spirits in a visible church. What will distinguish the true church will be the dedication to the pure (invisible) church of Jesus alone, even if for a while statues and creeds are utilized for a solidarity with people who are helped by these stories. “We are marching to Pretoria!” And so the truth of the stories is not in question, but rather the importance of a belief in the story as opposed to a heart attuned to love and mercy, to the second chance. This must finally be recognized as what “really counts” and not the belief per se in the stories, as true as they may be thought by many members of that church.

Essentially we are speaking of members of a particular church as all being Christian-in-heart and some or most or all being Christian-in-faith. They would all be invited at the common table of those who seek to follow Jesus (and not necessarily only those who believe that he was resurrected from the dead). They can come, believe that their sins are forgiven (after their own rededication), and rise to a new life without necessarily believing that Jesus rose from the dead. That joy would be reserved for the believers alone. The believers (in his resurrection) among them.

If you read Paul as Kant will have done, you will see that the only requirement for participation at the table was a sincere intention to serve as servants and friends of Jesus, and that it was anticipated that they would “be blessed” with the faith that he also rose from the dead thus proving his claim to a skeptical world (but only through his intimates). But that would not be a requirement, but a consequence. “Those who are not against us are for us.” Those who share our desire to love are with us.


6:14 PM Back to the Muslims. I think there are two approaches which can be used here. One is the dogmatic attack via the story of Joseph Smith. And the other is the more intelligent realization of Islam as a religious antique, just like Judaism and all the rest. The usefulness of such antiques vanished upon the proclamation of the true religion of Jesus, the religion of rationality in humans, the religion that is seated within.

The gentile Christian came into existence via Paul, and so his fact cannot be disputed. Therefore he exists upon any proclamation, and I proclaim it herewith myself. The gentile Christian had one goal, to manifest the spirit of Jesus in his every condition, and was not encumbered with the least statute or the least dogma or facts. If he believed in the resurrection, then he was seized with joy at the realization that the Living Lord was directing his good deeds. But he is still one with all in the heart, as Christians-in-heart.

And so we can seek to dismiss Islam as a relic of the past, conjured up by an ignorant but understanding people, as was done countless times before. We can instead justify the Paulian as Jesus’ hope for the world, and where nothing else is needed.

In a word: There are two very good reasons for rejecting Islam. In the first place Joseph Smith tells a much more convincing tale. Much more. And secondly: both Islam and Mormonism are antique cults that have been dispatched by the true religion of Kant's Jesus. The true church of Jesus, in its visible form, is best represented, morally, by the Gentile Christian of Paul, for here neither statutes nor historical stories stand in the way of a true union of hearts.