The Relationship between Theology and Philosophy

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Wikipedia: Alfred Edersheim (March 7, 1825 – March 16, 1889) was a Jewish convert to Christianity and a Biblical scholar known especially for his book The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah (1883).

HP: DHK, I for one believe you are simply in error, and a not so kind error at that.

 

[DHK]

HP: DHK, I for one believe you are simply in error, and a not so kind error at that.

Yes, I got him mixed up with someone else.
After he converted to "Christianity" he became a Presbyterian, and then ended his life as a curate in the Church of England. Not much details are given on his actual conversion though.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Just for your information, he would agree with you on original sin, although he was intellectually honest enough to state clearly the utter lack of support for any such notion in Jewish theology. I can appreciate that in a man.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

He wasn't like Kagan, who evidently just changed the facts and lied to the Supreme Court when her beliefs went against the scientific evidence that a group had in reality stated. Read about it here: http://www.declarationalliance.org/

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Would you argue that only the wicked were born "estranged" from the womb and only they "go astray AS SOON AS THEY BE BORN and no other babies?

HP: First, this was not written by me, but rather by David. He is the one that wrote this concerning two groups of people, not merely one.

I have a question for you DW. How many babies have you witnessed going astray as soon as they are born??? Would you rejoice if one went through a maternity ward smashing out the teeth of every baby born? Can you picture a Holy and Just God doing that?

Of a truth, it would appear to me that some have stopped thinking right about religion and the sound, reasonable, interpretation of Scripture. It matters not how absurd they get as long as it provides fodder for original sin.

 

[Dr. Walter]

It is you that interpret "go astray" to the absurd and rediculous extreme of going through nurseries and breaking teeth out or some other weird definition of "go astray.'

Yes, babies manifest the sinful nature in its primal state. They are total selfish from the start and learn to lie almost immediately, and manipulate. I have had five children and I have not yet had to teach any of them to sin as it comes natural and instinctive. However, teaching them to do right is a real job as it is contrary to the very nature of survival.

Are you serious that there are TWO KINDS of babies that David is talking about coming into this world? Think about that HP - that is about as bizzare as it comes - do you really believe that? If so, then according to you bizzare analogy and definition of "going astray" there are infants that really do that, huh?

HP: First, this was not written by me, but rather by David. He is the one that wrote this concerning two groups of people, not merely one.

I have a question for you DW. How many babies have you witnessed going astray as soon as they are born??? Would you rejoice if one went through a maternity ward smashing out the teeth of every baby born? Can you picture a Holy and Just God doing that?

Of a truth, it would appear to me that some have stopped thinking right about religion and the sound, reasonable, interpretation of Scripture. It matters not how absurd they get as long as it provides fodder for original sin.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Since DW has brought up the passage in Job that speaks of one being ‘unclean’ in support of original sin, I would like for him to do a word search on the uses of ‘unclean’ in the OT, and tell how many instances he believes that us that term are doing so in the support of the original sin he supports. H might start with lepers having to cry “Unclean! Unclean!” ….or things that should not be eaten termed unclean, etc etc. Are we even trying to interpret Scripture, using Scripture to interpret Scripture in a wise and reasonable manner? We shall see.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Since DW has brought up the passage in Job that speaks of one being ‘unclean’ in support of original sin, I would like for him to do a word search on the uses of ‘unclean’ in the OT, and tell how many instances he believes that us that term are doing so in the support of the original sin he supports. H might start with lepers having to cry “Unclean! Unclean!” ….or things that should not be eaten termed unclean, etc etc. Are we even trying to interpret Scripture, using Scripture to interpret Scripture in a wise and reasonable manner? We shall see.

Like all terms they must be intepreted in the context they are found. I gave you two uses of the term "unclean" by Job and he does apply it to that born of women in Job 15:14.

The ceremonial laws of the unclean are types of sin. Infants had to be ceremonially cleansed signifying they were born with a sinful nature and were unclean in God's sight and must be ceremonially cleansed.

 

[DHK]

It is you that interpret "go astray" to the absurd and rediculous extreme of going through nurseries and breaking teeth out or some other weird definition of "go astray.'

Yes, babies manifest the sinful nature in its primal state. They are total selfish from the start and learn to lie almost immediately, and manipulate. I have had five children and I have not yet had to teach any of them to sin as it comes natural and instinctive. However, teaching them to do right is a real job as it is contrary to the very nature of survival.

Are you serious that there are TWO KINDS of babies that David is talking about coming into this world? Think about that HP - that is about as bizzare as it comes - do you really believe that? If so, then according to you bizzare analogy and definition of "going astray" there are infants that really do that, huh?

HP, you have a problem here. You always have. The context doesn't bail you out. As I pointed out: it is a prayer. David does not set out to teach doctrine. It is the Holy Spirit that teaches the doctrine of the depravity of man in Psalm 58:3 whether you like it or not. It just can't be so easily dismissed or rationalized away. It is there. Accept it.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: I gave you two uses of the term "unclean" by Job and he does apply it to that born of women in Job 15:14.

HP: Where did I refute it having to do with being born of a woman? My point was simply that it by no means mandates or implies original sin.

 

[steaver]

Just for your information, he would agree with you on original sin, although he was intellectually honest enough to state clearly the utter lack of support for any such notion in Jewish theology. I can appreciate that in a man.

How would the lack of Jewish theology teaching on a doctrine add to your conclusions?

Does Jewish theology teach the Christ will suffer and sacrifice His life for the sins of man?

I believe the Jews were scolded in many ways for not understanding God's Word. Nicodemus did not understand the new birth to come and most of the Pharisees of the time scolded Jesus for teaching them contrary to what they taught.

So the "Jewish theology never taught it" does not add anything favorable to your position. In fact, in one way it hurts your position since they have so many biblical truths wrong.

 

[J.D.]

We should simply start with a working definition of philosophy as it applies to this discussion. Philosophy literally is simply a “love for wisdom” according to Noah Webster. Webster continues, “ When applied to any particular department of knowledge, it denotes the collection of general laws, or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject, are comprehended.”

The purpose of this discussion is to simply get us to realize that there are some principles of truth given by God to all men of reason, and necessarily so if God is going to hold men accountable as moral beings. We are told in Romans that the heathen which have not the law do the things in the law therefore becoming a law unto themselves. Even the heathen have some natural God given abilities to understand certain principles of the law without having the Scriptures. I maintain that God gives to every moral being or those with the capacity to become moral being, certain instilled principles innate within their nature that are denoted as ‘first truths of reason.’ Apart from these first truths of reason, man could have no certain idea or comprehension of morality or the law of God. One such first truth of reason would be the following: In order to do anything praiseworthy or blameworthy, man must have a choice. To deny this truth is to deny the very bedrock of God given intuitive wisdom again granted to all men of reason. It si a universal truth that should not require the least supporting evidence, for it is intuitively known. It is even a bit absurd to even try to ‘prove’ such a clear an indisputable fact, and it does the truth injustice to search for supporting evidence. It is a God given principle granted to us to guide us in the search for truth and cannot be avoided or simply set aside if we are to embark upon a wise plan of action in searching for moral truth anywhere, including Scripture. To conclude any differently in the study of Scriptures or any matter of morality, would be paramount to caviling at any semblance of wisdom.

In summary of this first post, God grants to man intuitive wisdom in the form of first truths of reason that man must employ when seeking truth that concerns morals no matter where that search leads one, Scripture included. This is not putting philosophy above Scripture, but rather is simply taking the most basic notions of God given wisdom and using those solid universal principles to uncover deeper truths. God inspired truth always compliments and agrees with truth wherever truth is to be found. We should always start with looking clearly at the most basis God inspired truths if in fact we expect our conclusions in far more difficult to discern matters to be trustworthy and in accordance to wisdom.

I don't know the context of these comments but it seems you are elevating philosophy and theology to some form of true spiritual knowledge. If that is the case, how do you reconcile that with the fact that certain forms of philosophy not only deny the existence of God, but deny the existence of metaphysical reality itself? Re: Empiricism, Hume, others...

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

JD: I don't know the context of these comments but it seems you are elevating philosophy and theology to some form of true spiritual knowledge.

HP: Sorry JD, but you must have me confused with those following the heathen philosophies of Augustine in his support of original sin. You do know that he was in fact a heathen philosopher, do you not? Maybe you missed my summary. Here it is again.

HP: In summary of this first post, God grants to man intuitive wisdom in the form of first truths of reason that man must employ when seeking truth that concerns morals no matter where that search leads one, Scripture included. This is not putting philosophy above Scripture, but rather is simply taking the most basic notions of God given wisdom and using those solid universal principles to uncover deeper truths. God inspired truth always compliments and agrees with truth wherever truth is to be found. We should always start with looking clearly at the most basis God inspired truths if in fact we expect our conclusions in far more difficult to discern matters to be trustworthy and in accordance to wisdom.

 

[billwald]

>HP: Sorry JD, but you must have me confused with those following the heathen philosophies of Augustine in his support of original sin.

Wasn't/isn't most protestant theology based on Socratic/Augustinian philosophy?

Whose philosophy is Baptist philosophy based upon? "We only believe the Bible?" You gots to be kidding!

 

[JTornado1]

St. Augustine taught that since Adam sinned, resulting in the "total depravitiy of man:"

http://www.answers.com/topic/total-depravity-2

 

[DHK]

HP: Sorry JD, but you must have me confused with those following the heathen philosophies of Augustine in his support of original sin. You do know that he was in fact a heathen philosopher, do you not? Maybe you missed my summary. Here it is again.

No he wasn't confused. You allow your philosophy to dictate your theology. You even say so. In fact you go one step further. You demand that we all do the same thing, which in fact is false. We (or most of us) allow the Bible to interpret itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture and using sound Biblical hermeneutics to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us as we exegete the passage in question. That way there is no question as to what the passage is saying.

Almost all of us agree on the meaning of Psalm 58:3 for example. You allow a philosophy formulated by men like Finney to influence your interpretation of that verse instead of looking at it from a Scriptural point of view. We have pointed out this to you in such a way that you cannot refute it. But you won't change because your theology is based on your philosophy. You have your mind made up, and it can't change because your philosophy won't change no matter how much evidence is provided that your interpretation is wrong.

 

[steaver]

We have pointed out this to you in such a way that you cannot refute it. But you won't change because your theology is based on your philosophy. You have your mind made up, and it can't change because your philosophy won't change no matter how much evidence is provided that your interpretation is wrong.

Exactly.

2 Pt 2 has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by context that the spoken of are not once saved individuals who have returned to lostness, but are of those who are pretenders and liars having never known regeneration by the Holy Ghost.

But have you seen HP humble himself and agree?? No, he cannot because he has given human reasoning equal authority as the scriptures. In the future a OSAS debate will arise and just as sure as the earth revolves around the sun HP will post once again 2 Pt 2 as a person who has been saved getting lost again.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: You allow your philosophy to dictate your theology.

HP: Have you ever considered honestly reading ones posts and being fair in your responses? You might consider it sometime.:thumbs:

DHK: You even say so. In fact you go one step further. You demand that we all do the same thing, which in fact is false.

HP: What is false is what you say. I have never demanded any such thing as you claim. I have stated clearly that one has a philosophy, stated or implied, cognizant of or oblivious to it as you and DW are of your own.

DHK: We (or most of us) allow the Bible to interpret itself, comparing Scripture with Scripture and using sound Biblical hermeneutics to allow the Holy Spirit to guide us as we exegete the passage in question. That way there is no question as to what the passage is saying.

HP: Sounds real good DHK, but that is simply not what happens. You read into verses, begging the question just as I have pointed out with DW and will continue to point out, and then try to peddle your stated ‘exegesis’ or interpretation as infallible proof.

DHK: Almost all of us agree on the meaning of Psalm 58:3 for example. You allow a philosophy formulated by men like Finney to influence your interpretation of that verse instead of looking at it from a Scriptural point of view. We have pointed out this to you in such a way that you cannot refute it.

HP: Now that is certainly a matter of interpretation. I say neither you nor DW have done any such thing, other than as a figment of your own imaginations. You and DW abuse Psalm 58 every time you post it and have offered nothing of substance to refute anything I have offered concerning it.

DHK: But you won't change because your theology is based on your philosophy. You have your mind made up, and it can't change because your philosophy won't change no matter how much evidence is provided that your interpretation is wrong.

HP: If you think for a minute that you can come along and refute such clear universal principles of matters of fact, truths of immutable justice and first truths of reason with a necessitated/deterministic/fatalistic system as you have bought into lock stock and barrel, you must be dreaming. Offer something other than ‘my way or the highway,’ ‘my proof text is better than your proof text,’ or ‘my interpretation is better than yours’ if you desire to convince the listener of what you or DW have to offer. Show us some immutable truths of justice, something that to reason against would be to cavil at reason itself, and you might get someone’s attention. :thumbs:

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP what you are trying to do is use human philosophy to establish a theological premise that human responsibility requires ability to freely choose good as well as evil without any INWARD or OUTWARD compulsion to choose either. Thus in one swoop deny the doctrine of total depravity before even approaching the Biblical revelation of the nature and extent of the fall of man.

Sorry, but that is building a doctrine on human rationale that is directly contrary to the revelation of Scripture and is not necessarily logical in the first place.

The Bible does teach that man is not OUTWARDLY compelled by God and demons to choose between right and wrong. However, the Bible also teaches that man is INWARDLY compelled to resist, reject, hate, and refuse to obey God's Word while loving sin. This is precisely why the Bible says that man must be born again as he does not free from INWARD compulsion to love, choose and do evil.

God has provided both EXTERNAL and INTERNAL revelation of what is right and fully understand right from wrong but is inwardly compelled by their own DESIRES and LUSTS to always choose wrong. God is perfectly just to condemn them for their own free choice as nothing OUTWARDLY compelled them to choose anything. Their choices are entirely determined by their own SELF-INTERESTS, desires and motives which the Bible clearly and repeatedly teaches LOVES darkness.

We should simply start with a working definition of philosophy as it applies to this discussion. Philosophy literally is simply a “love for wisdom” according to Noah Webster. Webster continues, “ When applied to any particular department of knowledge, it denotes the collection of general laws, or principles under which all the subordinate phenomena or facts relating to that subject, are comprehended.”

The purpose of this discussion is to simply get us to realize that there are some principles of truth given by God to all men of reason, and necessarily so if God is going to hold men accountable as moral beings. We are told in Romans that the heathen which have not the law do the things in the law therefore becoming a law unto themselves. Even the heathen have some natural God given abilities to understand certain principles of the law without having the Scriptures. I maintain that God gives to every moral being or those with the capacity to become moral being, certain instilled principles innate within their nature that are denoted as ‘first truths of reason.’ Apart from these first truths of reason, man could have no certain idea or comprehension of morality or the law of God. One such first truth of reason would be the following: In order to do anything praiseworthy or blameworthy, man must have a choice. To deny this truth is to deny the very bedrock of God given intuitive wisdom again granted to all men of reason. It si a universal truth that should not require the least supporting evidence, for it is intuitively known. It is even a bit absurd to even try to ‘prove’ such a clear an indisputable fact, and it does the truth injustice to search for supporting evidence. It is a God given principle granted to us to guide us in the search for truth and cannot be avoided or simply set aside if we are to embark upon a wise plan of action in searching for moral truth anywhere, including Scripture. To conclude any differently in the study of Scriptures or any matter of morality, would be paramount to caviling at any semblance of wisdom.

In summary of this first post, God grants to man intuitive wisdom in the form of first truths of reason that man must employ when seeking truth that concerns morals no matter where that search leads one, Scripture included. This is not putting philosophy above Scripture, but rather is simply taking the most basic notions of God given wisdom and using those solid universal principles to uncover deeper truths. God inspired truth always compliments and agrees with truth wherever truth is to be found. We should always start with looking clearly at the most basis God inspired truths if in fact we expect our conclusions in far more difficult to discern matters to be trustworthy and in accordance to wisdom.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Sorry, but that is building a doctrine on human rationale that is directly contrary to the revelation of Scripture and is not necessarily logical in the first place.

HP: Here is the truth I presented concerning the realm of morals and morality: Without choice, man can do nothing blameworthy or praiseworthy. I could also say, it is unjust to blame or praise,(in a moral sense) apart from the one being praised or blamed being the first cause of their moral intents.

Use your far superior intellect and education to show us how this is illogical, unreasonable, or contrary to the teachings of Scripture. Stay focused and give it your best logical reasoning. The world needs your logical instruction.:thumbs: