Relationship between philosophy and theology
- Thread starter cih1355
- Start date
- Status
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
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...
Thanks to the philosophical learning of Tyndale the merest ploughboy possessed an accurately translated Bible that could be understood.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
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. As far as I know, 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
tia
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
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/ft0308/reviews/grondelski.html
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/ft0308/reviews/grondelski.html
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.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
"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."
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
In honor of John Frame, we can call the distinction "fuzzy".
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 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.
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".
Everyone does Theology, not everyone does it well.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
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.
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.
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
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.
You mean good for the standard view.
Show me.
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.
I admit fuzzy lines but I do not admit no lines.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
Sorry, I know this is a serious philosophical dual, but I just have to give a 
and 
for this one...
Carry on
and for this one...Carry on
rmwilliamsjr
Puritan Board Freshman
i am going to appropriate this for my signature.
it is the best thing i have read here on PB for awhile.....
thanks.
rotgl.
bookslover
Puritan Board Doctor
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 science
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.
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.
caddy
Puritan Board Senior
ChristianTrader
Puritan Board Graduate
Linguists (philologists) and rhetoricians would suggest otherwise.
When I used the term, "philosophy", I meant the study of metaphysics, logic, ethics, and epistemology.
- Status
Similar threads
