Featured MMOTW, what makes the most perfect being of them all?

Well said!

Chalcedon probably said it better except for making Mary the mother of God. It is important to keep in mind that the two natures were separate.

Good question and good luck!

 

It is my understanding that this Forum is for the discussion of Baptist Theology, not the vagaries of philosophy!

 

""There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles. There is simply no “Bible alone theology,” as if one is allowing only the Bible to inform their theological point of view, because even within that position their is the implicit philosophical positions about the link between Scripture and theology or the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology."......more from Bryce here.... http://amtheomusings.wordpress.com/2010/11/20/no-theology-without-philosophy-part-1/

 

God revelation of Himself in BOTH the Bible and most of all in Jesus is sure, that of vain philosphies, IS NOT!

 

First I believe that every thinking person is a theologian, even an agnostic or an atheist. They postulate the existence of a god or gods or the nonexistence of a god or gods. Now if some want to call that a philosophical theology then so be it. Philosophy, good or bad, if there is a distinction,:laugh: can speculate about God but that is all.

With all due respect to he writer of the reference I disagree totally, particularly the comment that there is "no Bible alone theology". Biblical Theology alone, in my opinion, is the only true theology. Knowledge of God can only come because He chooses to reveal Himself. Fortunately He has done so. The Apostle Paul tells us that He has revealed certain truths about Himself through His Creation. However, it is only through His Word, living and written, that we can KNOW Him.

Bryce says:

Given the theology of the RCC it is obvious that philosophy or the Teaching Magisterium is a poor substitute for the Word of God.

 

This statement is simply baloney. Did you pay attention to who said it? The author of the blog is (1) only a college junior studying philosophy, and (2) a Roman Catholic.

 

Thank you for this paragraph. I think you are beginning to understand my points, but haven't arrived yet.

Once again, my point is not grammar, so a "Grammar Alert" would have accomplished nothing. Grammar is: "Any systematic account of the structure of a language; the patterns that it describes; the branch of linguistics concerned with such patterns" (Oxford Concise Dictionary of Linguistics, by P. H. Matthews, p. 163). My point is not at all about the structure of language, but the meaning of language. My point is based on semantics: "The study of meaning" (ibid, 361).

I'm sorry you feel we've been obstinate and uncharitable. Tell me where I've been uncharitable and I'll apologize. As for a new thread, I'm sticking with this one, since you use the word "perfect" in the OP title. I think my linguistic objections are quite within the range of the OP.

Now, more about "perfect." First of all, the word is polysemous, meaning that it has more than one meaning. In modern English it can mean "just right," as in "That meal was perfect." It can mean being without blemish, as in "a perfect specimen." It can mean complete, as in "a perfect fool." My computer dictionary gives 11 meanings. This explains the completely proper usage of the word in "a more perfect union." The framers of the U. S. Constitution certainly did not use this word in the same way as we do when we say that God is perfect. They meant a more complete, a more mature union. Even in the Bible the word "perfect" in the KJV does not always mean what we mean when we say perfect. The Greek adjective teleios had the meaning of "mature" as well as perfect in the sense that God is perfect.

When we say God is perfect, we are saying He is without fault and without sin. Here is what Strong says on perfection as an attribute of God: "By perfection we mean, not mere quantitative completeness, but qualitative excellence. The attributes involved in perfection are moral attributes. Right action among men presupposes a perfect moral organization, a normal state of intellect, affection and will. So God's activity presupposes a principle of intelligence, of affection, of volition, in his inmost being" (Systematic Theology, A. H. Strong, p. 260).

When we consider God's moral perfection, a "more perfect" God is impossible. He is completely perfect in every moral way. He not only has no sin in Him, no moral or ethical failure, He is holy--not just in his actions, His very nature is holy. That cannot be added to by "more" holiness.

 

:laugh: People denying philosphical principles exist in theology while presenting that reasoning which is purely fallacious and rhetorical!

Hmm, at least some evidence of lack of critical thinking skills (philosophy) is presented with that example.. :smilewinkgrin:

 

If I get you right (maybe I don't, maybe you mean my reasoning--but then I haven't denied that philosophical principles exist in theology, only that they are necessary), you mean the young man saying "There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles" and then giving exceptions among Protestant theologians. Oh to be a college junior again and know everything!

I admit I could have said that a lot better. I guess my disgust at the choice of a quote (quotes in a debate are supposed to be authoritative) caught up with me at an existential moment. :smilewinkgrin: There is such a disjunct between that blogger and we Baptists on the BB....

Consider a theologically uneducated missionary translating the Bible into a tribal language. (There have been many such down through the years. The tribal people will then develop a theology based strictly on the Bible, having no access whatsoever to any philosophy, Western or Eastern, unless one defines philosophy very broadly, as in the native philosophy of hunting--"Follow the tracks, make sure you're not seen by the animal, hit him in the neck with your blowdart." I found the young man and Prof. Lesko in the comments, both, to have just about that broad a definition of philosophy.

 

Above OldRegualr is laughing off philosophy and basically claiming it is only for “speculating” for the existence of God. I have had a similar discussion before pertaining this subject about giving logical reason (1Pet 3:15), for one’s faith. Here is some of my argument:

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1680110&postcount=10

http://www.baptistboard.com/showpost.php?p=1680178&postcount=12

Philosophy is a science that uses logical principles to “draw out the truth” in the words of a claim. The science of logic (philosophy) is universal and extends to every language, whether it is simplistic or highly developed, it exists in some form, for without it, without a means to determine the truth in words about a claim it can not be known to be rationally true. It IS that broad.

Personally, I believe a person has a big problem if he says he cannot logically reason for his faith, contend for his faith in a rational and reasonable way. To state, as a Determinist often does, that one’s faith had to be placed upon him, that he had no choice but to believe, is not giving reason for the hope and faith in you, it is like admitting one is too proud to bow down to accepting the truth that every man is given (Rom 1;20) and saying it had to be force upon you. It is basically saying the truth cannot “really” be known (Psa25:5, Isa1:18, John 1). Apologetics about theology, and/or evangelism without a philosophy from one’s own heart and mind of how it can be known to be true is void of reason and valueless as far as language goes.

I believe this "mere College Junior'" (fallacy John!:smilewinkgrin makes a valid recognizable point when he speaks of “the anti-philosophical streak usually present in Reformed theology” and believe his statement of “There has never, and never will be, any theology that is performed without implicitly deferring to philosophical principles, whether or not they are discussed or referred to as self-understood philosophical principles.” is not only accurate but is typically taught at the beginning in Basic Logic 101 along with the argument of whether or not truth can be known.

:laugh: I know you could, It just struck me as hilarious because of what was being said and it could have been a textbook example of a fallacy. Sorry, I just like to tease sometimes and figured you could take it...I was just passing by and wasn't even going to get into this thread. :tonofbricks:

 

It's okay, I can take it. :laugh:

But the idea that philosophy is by definition good is a very narrow view of philosophy. Again, the idea that logic exists only in philosophy is wrong. (I'm not sure that these things are what you are saying.)

I think logic is a God-given human trait. We didn't get it from philosophy, which only explained what was already there in human logic. Reasoning is a gift from God; we don't need philosophy to teach us how. I've heard some very logical statements from Japanese people totally unversed in philosophy. (There are no true Japanese philosophers, though they have professors of philosophy in their colleges.)

Consider these non-logical philosophies: existentialism, logical positivism (no longer held by anyone because Wittgenstein had no logic in his works), Taoism and Confucianism.

Edited in: Okay, I see from your referenced posts that you agree that logic/reasoning is the gift of God.

 

I have to apologize to humblethinker. I just re-read the OP and it doesn't say a thing about philosophy per se (though I think that is where it is coming from).

 

It should be noted that none of those espousing the superior virtues of philosophy are philosophers by profession. It follows then, using logic, that they are simply engaged in the vagaries of philosophy!:laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh:

 

In order to really understand the OP, at least its intent, one must understand that you reject the Biblical revelation of God The OP is nothing more than an attempt to engage in a philosophical discussion of the nature of God. God is not the god of philosophy, He is not the god of speculation, He is the God of Revelation. The Apostle Paul addressed the false god of philosophy in his sermon on Mars hill. You can read it in Acts 17:22ff.