The Relationship between Theology and Philosophy

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

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]

I could also sum up my thoughts by simply saying that God creates us and instills within every moral being a sound philosophy concerning certain indisputable and universal principles involving morals and morality, without which we could not be held morally accountable, neither heathen or any other. Again, the following principle is a clear example: In order to do anything morally blameworthy or praiseworthy, man must have a choice and as such be considered as a proper first cause of his formed intents.

 

[steaver]

I could also sum up my thoughts by simply saying that God creates us and instills within every moral being a sound philosophy concerning certain indisputable and universal principles involving morals and morality, without which we could not be held morally accountable, neither heathen or any other. Again, the following principle is a clear example: In order to do anything morally blameworthy or praiseworthy, man must have a choice and as such be considered as a proper first cause of his formed intents.

You are beginning with a non-starter as far as finding agreement goes.

I had no choice to be born.

I had no choice to be born with a curse of physical death.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: I had no choice to be born.

I had no choice to be born with a curse of physical death.

HP: I agree, now what do either of these have to do with do with the issue at hand? God does not blame and punish us for being born or being born as finite humans, does He?

 

[steaver]

HP: I agree, now what do either of these have to do with do with the issue at hand? God does not blame and punish us for being born or being born as finite humans, does He?

We are born with the curse of death are we not?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Steaver: We are born with the curse of death are we not?

HP: As physical descendants of Adam we are born with his natural physical propensities, one being the curse of physical death. NOT spiritual death, but physical death. Scripture is clear. No one is going to be eterally punished or judged because of the sins of another.


Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: As physical descendants of Adam we are born with his natural physical propensities, one being the curse of physical death. NOT spiritual death, but physical death. Scripture is clear. No one is going to be eterally punished or judged because of the sins of another.


Eze 18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.
Eze 18:24 But when the righteous turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he hath done shall not be mentioned: in his trespass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die.

Ezekiel 18 cannot be used in regard to the judgement of God for heaven or hell. If you will look at the introduction to this chapter and particularly verses 3-4 Ezekiel will tell you clearly and explicitly that this chapter is dealing with the abuse of the civil justice system "IN Israel" and in particular the abuse of capital punishment by the civil authorities.

As I live, saith the Lord GOD, ye shall not have occasion any more to use this proverb in Israel.

Yet say ye, Why? doth not the son bear the iniquity of the father? When the son hath done that which is lawful and right, and hath kept all my statutes, and hath done them, he shall surely live.

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel; Is not my way equal? are not your ways unequal?

Yet saith the house of Israel, The way of the Lord is not equal. O house of Israel, are not my ways equal? are not your ways unequal?

God is correcting "IN ISRAEL" the abuse of His civil laws by the judges.

 

[DHK]

I could also sum up my thoughts by simply saying that God creates us and instills within every moral being a sound philosophy concerning certain indisputable and universal principles

Pure Finneyism. Oberlin Theology.
Every man has inherited a sin nature because of Adam's fall. We sin because we have a sin nature. We sin because we want to sin. Both statements are true.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Ezekiel 18 cannot be used in regard to the judgement of God for heaven or hell. If you will look at the introduction to this chapter and particularly verses 3-4 Ezekiel will tell you clearly and explicitly that this chapter is dealing with the abuse of the civil justice system "IN Israel" and in particular the abuse of capital punishment by the civil authorities.

HP: You are sadly mistaken DW. It specifically and clearly dealing with eternal rewards and punishments. Your treatment of this passage of the Word of God is with reckless abandon to a clear warning to everyone of us.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: Every man has inherited a sin nature because of Adam's fall. We sin because we have a sin nature. We sin because we want to sin. Both statements are true.

HP: Just interested. Can you show us one clear passage that claims we have a sin nature because of Adam's fall?

I would certainly say that we have a proclivity to sin, but desire in and of itself does not necessitate sin. If you would limit the notion of a sin nature to that which is developed as a youth or subsequent to moral agency I would be inclined to agree that we have a nature to sin, but even then, the sin would be due to our own willful choices and not Adam. I remember reading a good book one time entitled, "Don't Blame it All on Adam."

 

[DHK]

HP: Just interested. Can you show us one clear passage that claims we have a sin nature because of Adam's fall?

Psalm 51:5 is clear enough to me. But knowing you, you would rationalize that verse right into Veda Scriptures of the Hindus. You have no use for the clear teaching that that verse gives. Your interpretation is: Blame it all on the mother.

But you cannot get around Jer.13:23.

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: You are sadly mistaken DW. It specifically and clearly dealing with eternal rewards and punishments. Your treatment of this passage of the Word of God is with reckless abandon to a clear warning to everyone of us.

You failed to quote the evidence I gave you from Ezekiel 18 that this is God's response to those "in Israel" who were abusing the civil law by misinterpration and misapplication noted by the repeated words "you say".

You also failed to respond with any evidence to support your position. Why?

 

[Dr. Walter]

HP: Just interested. Can you show us one clear passage that claims we have a sin nature because of Adam's fall?

I would certainly say that we have a proclivity to sin, but desire in and of itself does not necessitate sin. If you would limit the notion of a sin nature to that which is developed as a youth or subsequent to moral agency I would be inclined to agree that we have a nature to sin, but even then, the sin would be due to our own willful choices and not Adam. I remember reading a good book one time entitled, "Don't Blame it All on Adam."

Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

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?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Ps 58:3 The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies.

HP: So you want to simply change the subject from the OP to your list of proof texts cherry picked and ripe to support the false notion of original sin? OK, I'll walk with you down that path. This verse is one of the most abused passages in Scripture. Again, watch closely how true context means nothing to those determined to find support for their presupposition of OSAS at all costs.

If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least. There was no place in their theology for such a notion. Don’t believe me. Read Alfred Edersheim on the matter. He is a well known and respected authority on Jewish antiquity. Original sin had absolutely no place in the theology of the Jew. Such a notion was absolutely foreign to them.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates TWO, (not one) groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction. David cries out to God to let “every one of THEM pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘ALL’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK or DW holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? If God is as the passage states, going to wash his hands in the blood of all of them, and we are all wicked, that would include everyone, right? God help us!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.
11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting TWO GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS, the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the group he sees as wicked as opposed to the righteous, appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate as DW and DHK wrongly assume when they try and make this passage walk on all four legs to support the Augustinian/Calvinistic notion of original sin.

 

[DHK]

HP: So you want to simply change the subject from the OP to your list of proof texts cherry picked and ripe to support the false notion of original sin?

Your the only one here that says that "original sin" or the depravity man, more accurately called, is a false notion. But then you are a Finneyite, and Finney is a known heretic.

OK, I'll walk with you down that path. This verse is one of the most abused passages in Scripture. Again, watch closely how true context means nothing to those determined to find support for their presupposition of OSAS at all costs.

There is no presupposition of finding a doctrine. The Scripture speaks for itself. It is not as if we came here looking for a specific doctrine. It jumps out at you.

If one would take the time to read this short Psalm in it’s entirety, one would come to the plain truth that this Psalm was NOT written in any way to support some notion of original sin or inherited depravity, not only because of the context but the fact that the Jews did not hold to inherited depravity in the least.

Your right in part. Its purpose was not written to be a discourse on the depravity of man, and it isn't. But that doesn't mean that it doesn't teach it. Here is your logic. I say that the Book of Romans is a dissertation on the subject of salvation. And it is. But that doesn't exclude other doctrines that Paul may teach in that book. This is the logic that you are using.

There was no place in their theology for such a notion.

That is your opinion. Not worth much here--pure Finneyism.

Don’t believe me. Read Alfred Edersheim on the matter. He is a well known and respected authority on Jewish antiquity. Original sin had absolutely no place in the theology of the Jew. Such a notion was absolutely foreign to them.

I would rather read David and Jeremiah. They know all about the depravity of man. The inspired Word of God is of much more value than Edersheim.

The context of the Psalm clearly indicates TWO, (not one) groups of individuals being addressed. From verse 3-9 David addresses the wicked and speaks clearly to their final destruction.

And the wicked are wicked from their birth. That includes 100% of the world since we are all born wicked until we are born again.
"There is none righteousness, no not one."

David cries out to God to let “every one of THEM pass away that they may not see the sun.” He proclaims that God is going to destroy ‘ALL’ of them and wash His feet in their blood. Is DHK or DW holding to the belief that God is going to wash His feet in the blood of innocent babies, millions of which are the product of the abortionist’s knife? If God is as the passage states, going to wash his hands in the blood of all of them, and we are all wicked, that would include everyone, right? God help us!

Is HP teaching us that just because the Psalm is an imprecatory Psalm that it can't teach us anything. The Lord help us! Throw out the Book of Psalms then!

Starting with verse 10-11, David shifts his focus from the wicked and onto the righteous. He states, “10 The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

11 So that a man shall say, Verily there is a reward for the righteous: verily he is a God that judgeth in the earth.

And so God judges, and the righteous rejoice. Wonderful truths to rejoice in. It is also wonderful to know that even though we are born with a sin nature we have a Savior that came and through faith in his blood would wash away all our sin: past, present and future.

One thing is clear. David is not trying to establish a dogma of original sin in this text in the least, but rather is simply contrasting TWO GROUPS OF INDIVIDUALS, the wicked with the righteous. He in NO way insinuates or states that the righteous are as the wicked, neither in birth nor in life.

David didn't have to try to establish any doctrine. It was a prayer. He wasn't teaching, lecturing, establishing doctrine. This was a prayer. In this prayer the Holy Spirit saw it fit to include a verse that teaches the depravity of man. But Finneyites reject this doctrine.

In simple terms, David was just expressing in poetic terms that the group he sees as wicked as opposed to the righteous, appeared to be wicked from the earliest light of moral agency, and that as soon as they were able to understand and communicate, even from a very early age, they appeared to him to be engaging in wickedness. Nothing in this passage establishes any such idea as original sin would indicate as DW and DHK wrongly assume when they try and make this passage walk on all four legs to support the Augustinian/Calvinistic notion of original sin.

There is no need to allegorize, to rationalize, a verse which teaches a truth so plainly that one has to distort the Scriptures in order to escape the doctrine it teaches just because he is prejudicial to its teaching. HP is opposed to the depravity of sin. He follows the teaching of Finney, and therefore will do anything to reject this doctrine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Job 14:4 Who can bring a clean thing out of an unclean? not one.

HP: As stated earlier, there was absolutely no place in the theology of the Jew for original sin. To try to show support for OS by using OT verses written by Jews to Jews is simply preposterous.

On this verse it has been wisely remarked by others that all that can be taken from this verse is that a physically depraved parent will produce physically depraved offspring. Jobs comments were focused on the dying and diseased state of the flesh and was not making any comment regarding the moral nature of man. Again, even if he was speaking of the moral state of man, all that could be rightfully assumed is that if one belongs to a race of sinners their offspring can be expected to be sinners. I certainly believe that, for Scripture affirms all in need of repentance. One thing this verse in no wise does is throw support for the Augustinian/Calvinistic notion of OS.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DW: Job 15:14 What is man, that he should be clean? and he which is born of a woman, that he should be righteous?

HP: These words were spoken not by Job but Eliphaz and as such cannot be accepted at face value as true inspired words of God, as he was reproved for his comments. If this statement was found to be true, it still cannot be seen or used as support for something totally foreign to Jewish theology. The most that can be taken from this verse is that in a world of sinners, all that are born become sinners. It by no means states or implies OS as understood in Augustinian or Calvinistic thought.

I could say the same things as Eliphaz stated in light of knowing that all in our dispensation have indeed sinned and came short of the glory of God, all without throwing the least support to the notion of OS.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Quote:
HP: There was no place in their theology for such a notion.

DHK: That is your opinion. Not worth much here--pure Finneyism.

HP:It was Alfred Edersheim, not Finney, that pointed out that truth. Can the reader assume that you are calling AE a heretic for his (in your estimation) ‘Finneyism?’

PS: DHK, just between you and me, if you are going to violate your conscience with such name calling, you need to at least be in acordance to truth to impress the reader.:thumbsup:

 

[DHK]

Quote:
HP:It was Alfred Edersheim, not Finney, that pointed out that truth. Can the reader assume that you are calling AE a heretic for his (in your estimation) ‘Finneyism?’

PS: DHK, just between you and me, if you are going to violate your conscience with such name calling, you need to at least be in acordance to truth to impress the reader.:thumbsup:

Is a Muslim a heretic?
Is a Jew a heretic?
Any unsaved person would be considered a heretic when it comes to Biblical doctrine would he not? Edersheim was not a Christian. He was an unsaved Jewish historian hardly qualified to comment on Christian doctrine.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK: (making reference to Alfred Edersheim) He was an unsaved Jewish historian hardly qualified to comment on Christian doctrine.

HP: Now there is a quote to remember. By the way, where did you get that information from??? By the way, the comment I was making reference to was in reference to Jewish, not Christian, doctrine. Was he unqualified to comment on Jewish doctrine as well???:laugh: