Thread: Relationship between philosophy and theology

What is the relationship between philosophy and theology? Do you believe that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology?

Originally Posted by cih1355

What is the relationship between philosophy and theology? Do you believe that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology?

Yes, it is the handmaiden of theology. Theology sets the "ground rules" for philosophy. For example, the Trinity. Theology tells us that this is in fact the case, and philosophy can then attempt to explicate it as much as it can. Now if it can't then philosophy must just say, "I can only do so much." It does not have the right to say, "Go back to the drawing board, Theology, because I can't go make but a small amount of sense out of what you are telling me."

CT

My pastor and I were talking just today about how some pagan philosophers actually have some ok ideas, but can give no account for them! When asked "Why is there absolute truth?" etc., their only answer is "common sense" or some other ridiculous answer. Only the Chirstian can say "such and such" is so and base it on a higher authority, the Word of God.

William Cunningham:

“There is certainly no reason why Christians should not be just as well acquainted with literature and philosophy, according to their means and circumstances, as the generality of those around them; and there is no reason why their literary and philosophical knowledge should not exert some influence upon the way in which they expound and defend the truths of revelation. The danger arises only from giving to philosophy a place and influence to which it has no well-founded claim, and especially from employing it in such a way as implies, or leads to, a casting down of the word of God from the place of authority, which it ought ever to occupy. Men who are familiar with philosophical discussions, and who can speculate upon many topics connected with God, and man’s duty and destiny, are very apt to think that they have a means of acquiring certain knowledge of these subjects, which is not open to mere readers of the Bible; they are very apt to over-estimate their privileges in this respect, to imagine that they do not need to restrict themselves to the constant application of the same standard as ordinary men; and at length they too often come to place their own speculations in the position of modifying at least, if not superseding, the informations of Scripture. This was what took place at Alexandria in the course of the third century; and this is what, under a variety of aspects, has been exhibited more or less extensively at all times when practical religion was low, and when literature and philosophy were flourishing. Christianity certainly does not discourage men from bringing all the powers of their minds to bear upon what may be called a philosophical examination of all the objects that come under their cognisance, including equally the material universe, and human beings, individually and collectively. The evils which literature and science may have indicted upon the cause of true religion are to be prevented or cured, not by prohibiting and abandoning literary and philosophical pursuits, but by keeping them in their proper place, and especially by steadily and faithfully applying the great truths that the Bible is the word of God; that all that it contains is true; that it is the only source whence full and certain knowledge concerning God, concerning man’s relation to his Maker, and his duty and destiny, can be derived. So long as these truths are held and faithfully acted upon, literature and philosophy will do no harm to religion; and if it be alleged that an addiction to philosophical pursuits has a tendency to prejudice men against these truths, or to prevent them from fully following them out, even when they professedly admit them, we must deny that this tendency is inherent, and still more, that it is irresistible, and maintain that the temptation (for it is nothing more) may be, and should be, guarded against.” – William Cunningham, Historical Theology, 1:147, 148.

Originally Posted by cih1355

What is the relationship between philosophy and theology? Do you believe that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology?

When I was in seminary, I was required to take what amounted to an "introduction to philosophy" course. On the very first night, the professor (a nationally known man, by the way) told us: "You cannot understand the Bible without philosophy. Philosophy is necessary for a complete understanding of the Scriptures."

I spent the rest of the semester grinding my teeth over that statement. The merest ploughboy with a Bible (as Tyndale would have said) has got more knowledge and understanding than Aristotle.

Philosophy? It is to laugh...

These may be of interest:

http://www.homestead.com/philofrelig...losophyUse.htm

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/...plantinga.html

Originally Posted by bookslover

The merest ploughboy with a Bible (as Tyndale would have said) has got more knowledge and understanding than Aristotle.

Thanks to the philosophical learning of Tyndale the merest ploughboy possessed an accurately translated Bible that could be understood.

Originally Posted by Don

These may be of interest:

http://www.homestead.com/philofrelig...losophyUse.htm

http://philofreligion.homestead.com/...plantinga.html

So you do lurking around even when you do not post much

CT

Originally Posted by bookslover

When I was in seminary, I was required to take what amounted to an "introduction to philosophy" course. On the very first night, the professor (a nationally known man, by the way) told us: "You cannot understand the Bible without philosophy. Philosophy is necessary for a complete understanding of the Scriptures."

I spent the rest of the semester grinding my teeth over that statement. The merest ploughboy with a Bible (as Tyndale would have said) has got more knowledge and understanding than Aristotle.

Philosophy? It is to laugh...

It really comes down to what one means when they use the term "Philosophy."

CT

i had an opportunity to work on a BS in computer and electrical engineering, in the 1990's and took the time to take a handful of grad level philosophy class. afaik, there is almost no real world connection between what i learned there (concentrated on epistemology and philosophy of science) and my theological interests. Partly modern philosophy has really become rather technical, partly because it's roots in theology have long since been "covered over" with several hundred years of purely secular speculation and work. I've read a few of A.Plantinga's, Richard Swinburne's, Keith Ward's, and i will certainly, given the time, read much more. But i really don't know how to relate most if not all of what i've learned there to issues of reformed theology that i encounter. Perhaps there are those here that can point a way to do this integration.

tia

True

Augustine says we believe in order to understand. I find it enlightening that a brilliant philosopher such as Anthony Flew can finally see the logic of theism, but still cannot come to Christ because we know that it Christ Himself that draws us to the one true God. J. Budziszewski has expounded on the them of "common sense" in his book:
What We Can’t Not Know: A Guide


http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/...rondelski.html

Originally Posted by Jeff_Bartel

My pastor and I were talking just today about how some pagan philosophers actually have some ok ideas, but can give no account for them! When asked "Why is there absolute truth?" etc., their only answer is "common sense" or some other ridiculous answer. Only the Chirstian can say "such and such" is so and base it on a higher authority, the Word of God.

"Faith alone" is for many a Protestant the ground, not only of salvation, but ultimately also of knowledge. "Reason is the devil's whore," Luther tells us, and it "must be deluded, blinded, and destroyed."

Originally Posted by bookslover

When I was in seminary, I was required to take what amounted to an "introduction to philosophy" course. On the very first night, the professor (a nationally known man, by the way) told us: "You cannot understand the Bible without philosophy. Philosophy is necessary for a complete understanding of the Scriptures."

I spent the rest of the semester grinding my teeth over that statement. The merest ploughboy with a Bible (as Tyndale would have said) has got more knowledge and understanding than Aristotle.

Philosophy? It is to laugh...

Originally Posted by paul manata

there's no real sharp separation.

In honor of John Frame, we can call the distinction "fuzzy".

when you do theology you're thinking about God, how we know God, and how we should live.

Just in that sentence I pointed out how we're doing the three big areas of philosophy.

Well try this analogy, I drive from point A to point B today, in a Z06 Corvette; tomorrow you drive the same road from point A to point B. Does that imply that you also drove a Z06?

Also Thales is credited with the being the first philosopher, however people had been doing Theology and religion far before him.

In addition, a few weeks ago I finished a philosophy of religion book where Philosophy of Religion and Apologetics were differentiated. Philosophy of Religion is concerned with making sense out of natural revelation/natural theology etc; while apologetics incorporates special revelation.

Van Til said he was doing the same thing in philosophy that others were doing in theology. He just wanted to learn how to talk to the philosophers, so he learned their language.

Van Til has to right to define and use terms as he pleased, however let us not start to think that because he used it one way, then that the standard view.

A "handmaiden" suggests that one can use or not use philosophy if one so chooses.

I think you took the analogy to the breaking point. Perhaps you would prefer "soldier/servant etc."? The main point is that one is the master while one is the slave. One is the general while one receives and attempts to follow out the orders. etc. The lesser has no right to talk back and say, "Well that just don't make any sense, I want different orders".

I'm suggesting that you're doing philosophy when doing theology, and vice versa.

There's no sharp distinction between the two.

Everyone does philosophy, not everyone does it well.

Everyone does Theology, not everyone does it well.

I think the difficulty comes in when some think themselves good at the one, and then think themselves good at the other on that account. Our times are replete with philosophy-minded people who think themselves authoritative on theology, or vice versa.

I agree with Hermonta, that we need to define what we mean by philosophy. There are at least three basic meanings of it. In a very general sense, that it is a love of wisdom, there can be no distinction from theology. In the sense of a discipline of thought, there certainly is a distinction; the axioms and theses that one builds his philosophical structure upon does not have to be Christianity, because judgments of right and wrong bases are deemed subjective. Lastly, in the sense of Aristotle's well-known saying, thatwhether one philosophizes or does not philosophize, everyone philosophizes, there are as many philosophies as there are thinkers, and right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

In the strictest sense, to philosophize is to think rightly. And that takes a proper theological (read: authoritative) base. Darwin's worst nightmare was that maybe he was right. For if he was right, then he had no basis to tell right from wrong, and therefore couldn't know that he was right. He had no way to win the debate: if he won he lost, and if he lost he lost. That's the conundrum of philosophy without true theology. What if there is no God? Then who is to say "This is how it is", as over against, "It is our considered opinion, having weighed all the facts of the case known to us, that this is how it is"? As soon as someone says, "There is no God" he begs the question. Surely there must be someone out there with a simple enough factual mind to ask, "What are you talking about?" if it were a true statement.

So in the strictest sense philosophy is the handmaiden of theology, and not the other way around. In the other senses we see attempts at putting theology at the feet of philosophy. But theology has nothing to do with our philosophical conclusions; theology is revelation from God. Our philosophical conclusions have to line up with God's revelation of Himself, which in the very nature of the case has to be true.

Well, that's what I think, anyways.

Originally Posted by paul manata

okay..



Disanalogous.

Try this analogy: I say, "and you." Tomorrow, you say, "et tu." One the third day, she says, "und Sie." Question, were we all saying the same thing while using different language?

Saying it there is not a nice neat line separating is not that same thing as saying there is no difference. Saying we are going at the same goal does not imply that we are going at it the same way.

Uh yeah, I know. Thanks for the history lesson, though. Guess on my view this means people were doing philosophy long before Thales. Now, at best I'll grant you that autonomous philosophy started with the greeks.

And it would seem that your view is an attempt to redefine the terms without telling us that the terms are being redefined. Or put another way, where did you get the keys to the definitions? It might be helpful to just say philosophy2 or something. Or you can just call it what it had been called Theology and Philosophy is a different project.

Good for them/you.

You mean good for the standard view.

I don't.

Show me.

Begs the question against my view. How do you talk back to yourself?

There is nothing begged that you have not already admitted. Everyone admits that something changed when Thales etc came along. You have to defend the position that nothing in fact changed so that Philosophy and Theology are the same thing.

Perfect illustration of the "vice versa" of my position.

I admit fuzzy lines but I do not admit no lines.

Sorry, I know this is a serious philosophical dual, but I just have to give a and for this one...


Carry on

Originally Posted by paul manata

Anyway, since you think I'm usually about 6 months behind you, why waste the time typing back and forth when you can just wait 6 months and I'll agree with you?

Originally Posted by paul manata

didn't say "there was no difference."



Taken a Framean definition of theology, then we'd see that philosophy is but one aspect of that definition. One way of "applying" the Word of God to our situation. Or, one way of applying the norm, situation, and existential.



Haven't read the poll which admits this is "the standard view." Most people would include Plantinga as an authorotative spokesman for "the standard view." I assume most people would include Moreland in "the standard view." But, they both apply special revelation to questions of the Philosophy of Religion. Indeed, that has been one of Plantinga's aims.



Show you that I don't think Van Til's definitions of things "is the standard or authortative view" on matters? That's odd, Why request a thing like that? My say-so isn't good enough? And, how would one even go about "showing" a thing like that. Since my word wasn't good enough I don't think an argument would do any better.



Never said they were *the same.* It usualy heps conversations when a interlocutor tries to understand his conversation partner. At any rate, it's a bit of a non sequitur to claim that "something changed with Thales" to the conclusion "Philosophy *started* with Thales." Care to justify the leap in logic?



Good, so do I.

Anyway, since you think I'm usually about 6 months behind you, why waste the time typing back and forth when you can just wait 6 months and I'll agree with you?

i am going to appropriate this for my signature.
it is the best thing i have read here on PB for awhile.....
thanks.
rotgl.

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Thanks to the philosophical learning of Tyndale the merest ploughboy possessed an accurately translated Bible that could be understood.

Whatever training Tyndale may have had in philosophy (formal or otherwise), I'm sure it made little or no contribution to his skills as a translator of the Greek New Testament.

Theology is the queen of sciences and philosophy is her handmaid.

Every man is a theologian and every man is a philosopher. A reprobate will always fail as a theologian because he does not know God and does not seek His glory. A pagan can discover true axioms and develope logical theses based on his observations even though he does not intentionally glorify God by his philosophical efforts.

Well said...

Originally Posted by yeutter

Every man is a theologian and every man is a philosopher. A reprobate will always fail as a theologian because he does not know God and does not seek His glory. A pagan can discover true axioms and develope logical theses based on his observations even though he does not intentionally glorify God by his philosophical efforts.

Originally Posted by paul manata

Anyway, since you think I'm usually about 6 months behind you, why waste the time typing back and forth when you can just wait 6 months and I'll agree with you?

Same reason I witness, because God uses means

I'll get back to the rest later.

CT

Originally Posted by bookslover

Whatever training Tyndale may have had in philosophy (formal or otherwise), I'm sure it made little or no contribution to his skills as a translator of the Greek New Testament.

Linguists (philologists) and rhetoricians would suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by ChristianTrader

It really comes down to what one means when they use the term "Philosophy."

CT

When I used the term, "philosophy", I meant the study of metaphysics, logic, ethics, and epistemology.

Are there any metaphysical or epistemological theories that are neither affirmed nor denied by the Bible? If so, should one believe them?