Arguments for Philosophy - practical & scriptural

  • Thread starter Thread starter Larry_B
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Larry_B

Guest
My brother left the faith many years ago. He would describe himself as a bible believing Christian. He attends a Calvary Chapel service mostly but does attend other Christian services as well. We occasionally engage in conversations about the faith. He latest issue seems to be philosophy. I know Paul addresses philosophy in Collosians 2: 7-9. One translation uses “hollow and deceptive philosophy”. My brother says Paul here is rejecting philosophy in this case. I believe we can say Paul is rejecting “hollow and deceptive philosophy” and not all philosophies (IE: kind a like not all repitition is to be rejected but only "vain repitition) . I have heard Peter Kreeft on a previous broadcast on CA Live and this was quite helpful. I am certain there are many practical reasons for the use of philosophy. What arguments would you propose? Also, are there Scriptural Apologetics as well that can be utilized to support the use of a good philosophy. I am now researching this topic myself but I would appreciate as always any additional info on the subject from my fellow forum users.

God Bless,

Larry
 
The first two principles of philosophy are the statements:
“I am.” and
“I can know.”

If your brother rejects those principles, then there’s not much use in arguing with him. But if he accepts them, then he accepts at least two philosophical presuppositions.
 
Colossians 1:12-20 is Paul using philosophy to explain the faith.

Further, the scripture that you quoted has the shade of meaning in the greek according to Strong’s Numbers (a protestant source) of refering to Jewish sophistry. Sophistry was a form of “philosophy” that was really about convincing people through rhetoric instead of actually using reason. Socrates is constantly doing battle against the sophists (and stoics) in the dialogues of Plato.
 
In a sense, it’s almost impossible to coherently argue against philosophy; since such arguments depend on various philosophical assumptions. Moreover, philosophy does seem rather inoccuous. I might not agree on the fundamental principles of philosophy previously mentioned (I don’t mean to say that I disagree with the, just that it’s a little trickier than all that to say just what philosophy is), but to some extent it’s just the attempt to understand. Of course, it ends up asking questions like “What does it mean to understand something?” but that’s the beauty of it all.
 
Larry B:
My brother left the faith many years ago. He would describe himself as a bible believing Christian. He attends a Calvary Chapel service mostly but does attend other Christian services as well. We occasionally engage in conversations about the faith. He latest issue seems to be philosophy. I know Paul addresses philosophy in Collosians 2: 7-9. One translation uses “hollow and deceptive philosophy”. My brother says Paul here is rejecting philosophy in this case. I believe we can say Paul is rejecting “hollow and deceptive philosophy” and not all philosophies (IE: kind a like not all repitition is to be rejected but only "vain repitition) . I have heard Peter Kreeft on a previous broadcast on CA Live and this was quite helpful. I am certain there are many practical reasons for the use of philosophy. What arguments would you propose? Also, are there Scriptural Apologetics as well that can be utilized to support the use of a good philosophy. I am now researching this topic myself but I would appreciate as always any additional info on the subject from my fellow forum users.

God Bless,

Larry
Click to expand...
My guess is that you need to keep this REAL SIMPLE. Your argument that it is hollow and deceptive philosophy is entirely accurate - I wouldnt go much deeper than that.
One other thought is that theology is a branch of philosophy: that is to say that you cant believe in theology apart from acknowledging philosophy. That would be a bit of a wake up for him I think. As an earlier poster said - if he rejects “I am” and “I can know” you might as well save your breath and go onto something more easily debateable, like - how do you know that whats in the bible is the word of God?

Phil
 
There is an old expression:

Philosophy is the handmaid of Theology.

The concepts of philosophy are employed to convey
theological realities…such as trans-substantiation.

Philosophy deals with:

ontology ----------> investigates the nature of “being.”
[theological “application” = the Hypostatic Union]

epistemology--------> deals with “knowing.”
-what can we know?
-with what certainty can we know what we “know”

ethics

*aesthetics -------->*of what does the “beautiful” consist

Philosophy means, literally: a love of wisdom

It attempts to answer the question:

What can human beings know?

A person of faith might phrase it:
What can human beings know, unaided by - revelation.

I have a great respect for philosophy, for if it teaches no
other thing, hopefully it teaches how to reason - in a
clear, precise and logical fashion.

Best,

reen12
 
Acts 17:18ff

Paul meets a group of Epicureans [that’s a Greek school of philosophy]. He preaches to them, and tells them that the God they found ineffable in their philosophizing was the very same God that he preached.

Paul engaged philosophers on their own terms, and many of them followed Paul that day. More shocking is that Paul did not mention Jesus by name during his speech.

A protestant in the audience that day would have declared Paul - dare I say - a Catholic!
 
Larry B:
My brother left the faith many years ago. He would describe himself as a bible believing Christian. He attends a Calvary Chapel service mostly but does attend other Christian services as well. We occasionally engage in conversations about the faith. He latest issue seems to be philosophy. I know Paul addresses philosophy in Collosians 2: 7-9. One translation uses “hollow and deceptive philosophy”. My brother says Paul here is rejecting philosophy in this case. I believe we can say Paul is rejecting “hollow and deceptive philosophy” and not all philosophies (IE: kind a like not all repitition is to be rejected but only "vain repitition) . I have heard Peter Kreeft on a previous broadcast on CA Live and this was quite helpful. I am certain there are many practical reasons for the use of philosophy. What arguments would you propose? Also, are there Scriptural Apologetics as well that can be utilized to support the use of a good philosophy. I am now researching this topic myself but I would appreciate as always any additional info on the subject from my fellow forum users.

God Bless,

Larry
Click to expand...
Simple reason why some philosophy is good: God gave us each a brain. use it.
 
papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13evl.htm
"Philosophy seeks not the overthrow of divine revelation, but delights rather to prepare its way, and defend it against assailants, both by example and in written works, as the great Augustine and the Angelic Doctor, with all other teachers of Christian wisdom, have proved to Us. "

Pope Leo XIII
 
I’d recommend a couple of resources:

John Paul II, Fides et Ratio: Faith & Reason (Pauline Books & Media, 1998)

Josef Pieper, In Defense of Philosophy (Ignatius Press, 1992)

The first is the exceptional document on truth and sound thinking by one of the finest Christian philosophers and theologians of the 20th century (even many Protestants admit this). The second is a somewhat more academic but especially helpful work by a well-known Thomistic philosopher. Both volumes address the question of the value of philosophy for Christian thought.

I would also point out to your brother that the vast majority of Protestant biblical scholars and theologians certainly wouldn’t interpret Paul’s teaching as a wholesale repudiation of all philosophy whatsoever. This is an extremely restrictive view which insists on focusing on the word “philosophy” without considering the multifaceted way the term may in fact be used. In Paul’s case, context (both immediate and in the rest of Paul’s New Testament writings) provides the proper meaning.

God bless,
Don
 
St. Paul’s epistle to the Romans is a concise summary treatise on Christian philosophy. St. Paul himself was a very able philosopher.

Take reen12’s summary of philosophy and read Romans with that outline in mind. It will make it very clear that what St. Paul was decrying in Collosians was empty philosophy, not philosophy rooted first in God’s Truth.
 
Larry B:
My brother left the faith many years ago. He would describe himself as a bible believing Christian. He attends a Calvary Chapel service mostly but does attend other Christian services as well. We occasionally engage in conversations about the faith. He latest issue seems to be philosophy. I know Paul addresses philosophy in Collosians 2: 7-9. One translation uses “hollow and deceptive philosophy”. My brother says Paul here is rejecting philosophy in this case. I believe we can say Paul is rejecting “hollow and deceptive philosophy” and not all philosophies (IE: kind a like not all repitition is to be rejected but only "vain repitition) . I have heard Peter Kreeft on a previous broadcast on CA Live and this was quite helpful. I am certain there are many practical reasons for the use of philosophy. What arguments would you propose? Also, are there Scriptural Apologetics as well that can be utilized to support the use of a good philosophy. I am now researching this topic myself but I would appreciate as always any additional info on the subject from my fellow forum users.

God Bless,

Larry
Click to expand...

Better Calvary Chapel than nothing - CC seems to do a great deal of good.​

The Bible is the wrong place to look for arguments for philosophy - it contains no end of ideas and assumptions about the divine, man, and society; but, these are not arranged in a system. At most, conclusions are drawn from this fact or that.

Philosophies are born of abstract reflection upon specific realities, whether these are realities of the intellect, of the external world, or of some other kind; and the reflections are then arranged into more or less coherent bodies of axioms, principles, inferences, deductions, and conclusions.

Biblical thought - particularly in the OT - is practical, ethical, and personal. The question “Is there a divine being ?” is not asked: that there is a divine realm - a reality that is not human, but more than human, a reality which “the Holy” - is taken for granted. The questions that arise can almost be summed up thus: “As there is a divine realm, how does it affect the way in which men live ?” (Which does not mean that that question would have ben asked in that specific way.)

Biblical thought is found in narratives - not in treatises on “The Good Life”, such as the Greek and Latin philosophers wrote. The nearest approach to to a treatise in the Biblical writings, is in the epistles: specifically, in Romans and Hebrews.

The God of Israel is not a god about whom man thinks - He is a God Who acts, a God who encounters man, a a God Who is over against man, always by being God rather than than man; and often, by being Righteous - over against unrighteous, unclean, sinful man. IOW, the difference of God from man, is recognised - after a long time - as being an ethical difference: all gods and spirits belong to the realm of “the Holy” - but only this god, is holy by way of being ethically holy: He is not only other than human; He is better than human. He convicts man of his utter uncleanness, simply by being Who He Is; and He cannot be other than that.

And it is this God, Who enters into covenant with Israel. With many results, some of them deeply shocking to Israel’s sense of self and self-love. Which is just what happens with the Church.

Read an Intro to the OT - and one to the NT 🙂
 
Dear Gottle of Geer,

quote: Gottle of Geer

Better Calvary Chapel than nothing - CC seems to do a great deal of good.​

The Bible is the wrong place to look for arguments for philosophy - it contains no end of ideas and assumptions about the divine, man, and society; but, these are not arranged in a system. At most, conclusions are drawn from this fact or that.

Philosophies are born of abstract reflection upon specific realities, whether these are realities of the intellect, of the external world, or of some other kind; and the reflections are then arranged into more or less coherent bodies of axioms, principles, inferences, deductions, and conclusions.

Biblical thought - particularly in the OT - is practical, ethical, and personal. The question “Is there a divine being ?” is not asked: that there is a divine realm - a reality that is not human, but more than human, a reality which “the Holy” - is taken for granted. The questions that arise can almost be summed up thus: “As there is a divine realm, how does it affect the way in which men live ?” (Which does not mean that that question would have ben asked in that specific way.)

Biblical thought is found in narratives - not in treatises on “The Good Life”, such as the Greek and Latin philosophers wrote. The nearest approach to to a treatise in the Biblical writings, is in the epistles: specifically, in Romans and Hebrews.

The God of Israel is not a god about whom man thinks - He is a God Who acts, a God who encounters man, a a God Who is over against man, always by being God rather than than man; and often, by being Righteous - over against unrighteous, unclean, sinful man. IOW, the difference of God from man, is recognised - after a long time - as being an ethical difference: all gods and spirits belong to the realm of “the Holy” - but only this god, is holy by way of being ethically holy: He is not only other than human; He is better than human. He convicts man of his utter uncleanness, simply by being Who He Is; and He cannot be other than that.

And it is this God, Who enters into covenant with Israel. With many results, some of them deeply shocking to Israel’s sense of self and self-love. Which is just what happens with the Church.

Read an Intro to the OT - and one to the NT 🙂
Click to expand...
An incredibly perceptive post, IMHO, beautifully written. I appreciated reading same, and thank you for it.

Best regards,

reen12
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top