Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
Do you see philosophy as an important approach in understanding God, scripture and the like.
Philosophy! It's part in theology?
- Thread starter Scott Bushey
- Start date
- Status
The Bible is a book of Philosophy and Psychology. It is a book of Wisdom and the Soul. Ergo. . . Philosphy and Psychology are good things when they align with and explain the scriptures.
All lies have to have an element of the truth to make them believable.
[Edited on 6-30-2003 by Visigoth]
All lies have to have an element of the truth to make them believable.
[Edited on 6-30-2003 by Visigoth]
C. Matthew McMahon
Christian Preacher
Every time we think, act, talk, move, etc. we engage in philosophical abstractions we take for granted. For instance, the law of non-contradiction is one of the basic philosophical laws of universe. We are engaged in it every time we talk, post, speak, think, etc. Without it, it would be impossible to communicate. Philosophy, since it is a manner of reasoning, is evident all through the bible. It is impossible to do without it. However, because of our current day aversion to logistical thinking and philosophical thought as a country, we often tend to see philosophy as bad, or something that detracts from the Scriptures. Jesus himself, though, is the eternal Logic of God. How we would divorce philosophy and its categories, or logistical abstractions of thought are beyond me.
We need FIXATO to make us a "logic smiley face." What woudl it look like?
We need FIXATO to make us a "logic smiley face." What woudl it look like?
luvroftheWord
Puritan Board Sophomore
Read John Frame's "The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God". He shows how integral philosophy really is to our study of the SCriptures and Christian living.
Sancta-fixation
Inactive User
Scott wrote,
Do you see philosophy as an important approach in understanding God, scripture and the like?
I am not sure that I see it as a legitimate [b:c9bc734c06]approach[/b:c9bc734c06], but I am not sure we can escape our worldview either, when approaching a text; we can be humble and let the text shape it, but we cannot do away with it. Nor should we, each of our experiences allow, each us to approach the text from a diffrent direction and better grasp its mulifaceted beauty. Isn't that why we have a forum like this, so that each of our worldview's made up of our experience and knowledge, can help shape the worldviews of others?
With that said, let me clarify "approach." Certainly we can let philosophy and reason help us determine the extent to which a doctrine can be applied, such as "thou shall not murder" to do not commit suicide, a certain amount of reflection took place, under the supervision of reason, and the grace of God to come up with that interpretation. But Isogesis can come easily if we are set into a particular philosophical system.
Hope that was clear, and I read you correctly.
Do you see philosophy as an important approach in understanding God, scripture and the like?
I am not sure that I see it as a legitimate [b:c9bc734c06]approach[/b:c9bc734c06], but I am not sure we can escape our worldview either, when approaching a text; we can be humble and let the text shape it, but we cannot do away with it. Nor should we, each of our experiences allow, each us to approach the text from a diffrent direction and better grasp its mulifaceted beauty. Isn't that why we have a forum like this, so that each of our worldview's made up of our experience and knowledge, can help shape the worldviews of others?
With that said, let me clarify "approach." Certainly we can let philosophy and reason help us determine the extent to which a doctrine can be applied, such as "thou shall not murder" to do not commit suicide, a certain amount of reflection took place, under the supervision of reason, and the grace of God to come up with that interpretation. But Isogesis can come easily if we are set into a particular philosophical system.
Hope that was clear, and I read you correctly.
Bladestunner316
Puritan Board Doctor
I hope this is clear and is something Ive come accross in my own thought. Is this and what i think.
That man has 2 distinct but yet intrtwined belief and thought sytems.
1. is what he adheres to so for us christians would be sola scriptora(the Holy Bible) or like mormons the BOM and Muslims the Quran.
2. Is when you take away what any man adheres to he will have his own view and beliefs of what God and etc are.
Now hopefully as Christians progress in our faith would have what we adhere to that being Gods word and what we believe to be the truth according to our heart so to speak would be so intertwined that you could not tell the difference between either.
hope this makes sense
bladestunner316:wr48:
That man has 2 distinct but yet intrtwined belief and thought sytems.
1. is what he adheres to so for us christians would be sola scriptora(the Holy Bible) or like mormons the BOM and Muslims the Quran.
2. Is when you take away what any man adheres to he will have his own view and beliefs of what God and etc are.
Now hopefully as Christians progress in our faith would have what we adhere to that being Gods word and what we believe to be the truth according to our heart so to speak would be so intertwined that you could not tell the difference between either.
hope this makes sense
bladestunner316:wr48:
I see the Scriptures as an important approach in understanding philosophy. Everyone has a philosophy of some sort, even if it hasn't been formulated and thought out. An understanding of philosophy as formulated by the world's philosophers isn't necessary but it is useful in understanding why people think the way they do. But the Bible gives us great insights into why man thinks and does as he does; philosophy gives us the details as to why he will not submit to the Word and will of God.
I think men like Francis Schaeffer and R.C. Sproul are Christian philosophers. Their writings are surely most helpful in understanding God, the Scriptures, and the like.
I think men like Francis Schaeffer and R.C. Sproul are Christian philosophers. Their writings are surely most helpful in understanding God, the Scriptures, and the like.
[quote:82005b5333][i:82005b5333]Originally posted by sundoulos[/i:82005b5333]
I think men like Francis Schaeffer and R.C. Sproul are Christian philosophers. Their writings are surely most helpful in understanding God, the Scriptures, and the like. [/quote:82005b5333]
Agreed. If I recall correctly, Sproul's first teaching jobs were not in theology but in philosophy. He is well-versed in philosophy and I believe it has helped make him and extremely effective Reformed apologist.
I think men like Francis Schaeffer and R.C. Sproul are Christian philosophers. Their writings are surely most helpful in understanding God, the Scriptures, and the like. [/quote:82005b5333]
Agreed. If I recall correctly, Sproul's first teaching jobs were not in theology but in philosophy. He is well-versed in philosophy and I believe it has helped make him and extremely effective Reformed apologist.
philosophy in apologetics
I have come to suspect the heart of the clash between evidentialists and presuppositionalists is that evidentialists on a practical function basis are Thomists or stand with Reid in the Scottish Common Sence tradition.
Because Evidentialists are a reaction against "enlightenment" thought they spend a lot of time standing athwart the path of "progress" crying halt.
Presuppostionalists tend on a practical basis to work out of a Post Hume, post Kantian philosphical tradition.
I have come to suspect the heart of the clash between evidentialists and presuppositionalists is that evidentialists on a practical function basis are Thomists or stand with Reid in the Scottish Common Sence tradition.
Because Evidentialists are a reaction against "enlightenment" thought they spend a lot of time standing athwart the path of "progress" crying halt.
Presuppostionalists tend on a practical basis to work out of a Post Hume, post Kantian philosphical tradition.
Saiph
Puritan Board Junior
Hey Paul:
I was thinking
. . .
Could the defenition of presuppositional best be explained as [i:d28b6a4077]covenantal a priori[/i:d28b6a4077] ? ?
Everyone is either in the "covenant of grace," or the "covenant of reprobation". Therefore one's knowledge of God is either an attempt to know Him more deeply, or ignore Him more consistently
(which becomes a double condemnation).
What do you think ??
Am I smokin rope ? ?
I was thinking
. . . Could the defenition of presuppositional best be explained as [i:d28b6a4077]covenantal a priori[/i:d28b6a4077] ? ?
Everyone is either in the "covenant of grace," or the "covenant of reprobation". Therefore one's knowledge of God is either an attempt to know Him more deeply, or ignore Him more consistently
(which becomes a double condemnation).
What do you think ??
Am I smokin rope ? ?
- Status
