Theology compared to Philosophy

[cyberjosh]

This is kind of a polling of various opinions on this topic. How do Theology and Philosophy compare? Are they opposites, do either have any right for consideration in the other, what are the differences in their goals? Early Church Fathers made use of philosophies of their day and of past thinkers (sometimes acceptably, sometimes unacceptable incorrect philosophies), Paul engaged in some philosophical discourse with the Greeks, etc. To what extent is philosophy anthropocentric, and theology theocentric? Paul also warned (in the theological corpus of the NT) that we should not be taken captive by "deceptive philosophies", how do we guage them?

Would a philosophy major at a university scoff at "the study" of theology? What are the differences in how a career in either field would affect the person and their goals (a professional philosopher or theologian)? To what extent should we be interested in either subject?

Share your thoughts.

 

[cyberjosh]

From a purely linguistic standpoint philosophy means the "love of wisdom" which is not incompatible with theology which is the "study of God", for we as Christians seek to grow in wisdom in things concerning God. Yet neither fields are limited to their immediate semantic meaning & concerns, and theology also considers man in relation to God, etc. while philosophy is as much a "study" as it is a "love" of wisdom, and it manifests in what man can know or discern about any given subject, and its application. Thus philosophy can extend well outside the realm of theology and can in fact contradict it.

 

[glorydaz]

From a purely linguistic standpoint philosophy means the "love of knowledge" which is not incompatible with theology which is the "study of God", for we as Christians seek to grow in knowledge of God. Yet neither fields are limited to their immediate semantic meaning & concerns, and theology also considers man in relation to God, etc. while philosophy is as much a "study" as it is a "love" of knowledge, and it manifests in what man can know about any given subject. Thus philosophy can extend well outside the realm of theology and can in fact contradict it.

And I'd venture to say it often does contradict it.
The field of philosophy is usually humanistic.

I'm no expert on either, and you sound like a very smart young man, but I just thought I'd mention what I've seen concerning the two.

 

[jasoncran]

the christian world view is a philosophy.

 

[mondar]

This is kind of a polling of various opinions on this topic. How do Theology and Philosophy compare? Are they opposites, do either have any right for consideration in the other, what are the differences in their goals?

If your asking for opinions... "Philosophy" is a very general term that covers way too much ground. In my opinion, any good Christian philosophy is usually driven by correct Christian theology.

I admire those who do presuppositional apologetics. While the presupper might make use of philosophy, his starting point is really theology. I am not knowledgeable about the subject. I would not be able to identify the difference between Gordon Clark and Cornelius Van Til. I have listened to debates by Greg Bahnsen. I admire Bahnsen. I dont thing the atheist ever lived that could stay in the ring with Bahnsen. I think the study of epistemology can be profitable. Especially if it is approached with the correct theological basis.

On the other hand, there are certainly many vain and foolish philosophies and philosophers. I dont think the approach of someone like William Lane Craig is profitable. In fact, I think it is damaging to Christianity. When I listen to Craig debate, and then listen to Bahnsen debate, there are enormous differences in the process, and the outcome. The problem is that Craig starts from a bad theological basis, and then he debates from very weak arguments. Again, it appears to me that our theology is the primary issue. The basis of any good Christian philosophy is always Christian theology. The basis of bad theology, is philosophy... and Craig is a philosopher.

Early Church Fathers made use of philosophies of their day and of past thinkers (sometimes acceptably, sometimes unacceptable incorrect philosophies), Paul engaged in some philosophical discourse with the Greeks, etc. To what extent is philosophy anthropocentric, and theology theocentric? Paul also warned (in the theological corpus of the NT) that we should not be taken captive by "deceptive philosophies", how do we gauge them?

Concerning Paul, I suspect you are referring to the speech before the Areogapus. Do you really see Paul as approaching the philosophers as another philosopher? Certainly he did not approach them quoting the LXX. I know he quoted a pagan philosopher in that speech. I dont think that means Paul was approving of Philosophy at that point. It would be like you quoting from the Koran to establish a point when you were witnessing to a Muslim. Quoting the Koran would not make you a Muslim any more then quoting a pagan philosopher made Paul a philosopher. Paul was merely establishing a point about the sovereignty of God and idolatry. Then based upon the fact that God will sovereignty judge, he demands repentance. So then, is Paul joining the Philosophers in their philosophy, or is he merely quoting their sources to establish a theological point? You also allude to the fact that Paul also wrote some very negative things about Philosophy. You allude to this.... Col 2:8 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ:

To what extent is philosophy anthropocentric, and theology theocentric? Paul also warned (in the theological corpus of the NT) that we should not be taken captive by "deceptive philosophies", how do we guage them?

Would a philosophy major at a university scoff at "the study" of theology? What are the differences in how a career in either field would affect the person and their goals (a professional philosopher or theologian)? To what extent should we be interested in either subject?

Share your thoughts.

Ahh, I think I can see where you are going here. "anthropocentric" and "theocentric" are good terms to describe the difference. Undoubtedly the university student in philosophy would scoff at theology.

First, he cannot receive the spiritual things contained in Christian theology...
1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.
And he will go about to suppress Christian theology.....
Rom 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hinder the truth in unrighteousness;

I guess in the end, if philosophy does not begin with the scriptures and a correct theology, then it will be anthropocentric. In the end, even a Christian world view does not start with philosophy, but with the scriptures.

 

[VertigoAge]

Here's how I see it: Philosophy is much more broad than Theology (which is, first and foremost, the study of God), but they are somewhat interdependent. Because God is not provable using objective science, Philosophy and reason are usually necessary in apologetics... all the way back to the earliest days of the church. In those days, especially in Greece, if you could not work your religious world view in the context of reason, they wouldn't even listen. For example, from Acts 17:

While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day with those who happened to be there. A group of Epicurean and Stoic philosophers began to dispute with him.

 

[cyberjosh]

Ah! Thanks for the variety of responses so far. I will get to them soon hopefully. I just wanted to drop in though real quick to leave a quote I found pertaining to this topic that I ran across inadvertently while doing some research on Medieval Christian Doctrine from a book on hermeneutics:

"Thomas Aquinas contended that both theology and philosophy contained truth and that they did not conflict: natural truth can be explained by philosophy, but supernatural truth comes only by revelation. Where Aristotle disagreed with Christian doctrine, Aquinas argued against him with both reason and revelation. So Aquinas combined the rationalism of one school and the faith of the other."

"Biblical Hermeneutics: A Comprehensive Introduction to Interpreting Scripture", pg. 108

I think that is an interesting balance, however I will say that I think that the Church on occasion took too much liberties in introducing philosophy into Church doctrine which led to, what I regard to be, certain false doctrines such as transubstantiation, among others (some of which were argued for using classical philosophical ideas). But I best not get into that here.

 

[jasoncran]

that thing on rationalization would help a christian scientist. as me must study and be able to test something not simply say god did it.

that is in regards to the looking for cures or whatever the scientific method is applicalble too.
even biology, but that doesnt meant he or she has to be a naturalistic in his thinking,just a methodical naturalist.

 

[cyberjosh]

And I'd venture to say it often does contradict it.
The field of philosophy is usually humanistic.

I think 'humanistic' is a good descriptor for philosophy, seeing its obvious role in humanism, but also as a way for man to formulate rational ideas about what exists and how things are. I have been studying about the Medieval fixation with what is called 'Scholasticism' which was basically a marriage of faith and rationality after a long period of time (mostly throughout the first millennium AD) of simple spiritualism and allegorical understanding of the Bible and theology, etc. Then certain theologians began to say "'Hey, man's intellect is a valid and embedded faculty of the mind and we should be able to use it without contradicting our faith and doctrine. Better yet, why don't we master and refine our rational arguments and philosophy so that we can use it to reinforce and defend our faith?". And thus a long series of debates between the right way to look at things (nominalism versus realism, etc.) mixed with theological considerations encompassed and dominated the discussions in Medieval times about Scholasticism. I think it was the only real period in human history where that subject was deliberately focused on and addressed by almost all Christian thinkers together at the same time.

As Wikipedia says, "Scholasticism originally began as an attempt to reconcile ancient classical philosophy with medieval Christian theology." [1] And I think that is about as succinct of a summary about Scholasticism as it gets.

Ultimately it brought to the foreground what was wrong with certain philosophies and what boundaries should be set is it is to be adopted into Christian doctrine and faith. And yet, even after summarizing all this, I can't say that I understand all that was discussed on the subject at that time, and thus I am still studying about it. But I find the topic fascinating nonetheless.

I'm no expert on either, and you sound like a very smart young man, but I just thought I'd mention what I've seen concerning the two.

Well thank you, and your input is very much appreciated.

God Bless,

~Josh

 

[glorydaz]

Hey Josh...

It is an interesting topic, and one I'd enjoying seeing you pursue.

Here are some verses that you might bear in mind while you do that...

Man, without the Spirit, may consider his thoughts high, but true wisdom can only come from God.

8And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the LORD, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding.

And he hath filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship;

And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power:

Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

 

[jasoncran]

yes, glorydaz put we should we or shouldnt have a christian worldview.

would you want a doctor that will pray with you or one who doesnt. or better a reasercher for cures to diseases that has ethics based on the bible or one who doesnt.

think stem cell reasearch there.

 

[logical bob]

I think theology has often used ideas from philosophy to provide new ways of thinking about God. The early church fathers associated God with the One of Neoplatonism, scholastics like Aquinas with Aristotle's unitary intellect and Prime Mover, later theologians with the Absolute of Hegel and other idealist philosophers. Cantor associated God with ideas from his own mathematical work on the infinite while 20th century theologians responded to existentialism. All of these were essentially secular ideas which theology found useful.

Moving in the other direction, believers have used philosophy as a sort of apologetics to justify their belief. As cybershark said, much time was spent on reconciling reason and faith. Anselm, Aquinus, Descartes, Leibniz and Godel attempted actual philosophical proof of the existence of God.

On the other hand, neither discipline depends on the other. Philosophy can obviously be a secular activity and it mainly is. Theology is quite possible on the basis Glorydaz sets out - by denying the importance of human understanding and the need to justify faith in terms of reason.

One nitpick - the word philosophy means "love of wisdom" not "love of knowledge."

 

[cyberjosh]

One nitpick - the word philosophy means "love of wisdom" not "love of knowledge."

Ah yes, I parsed my Greek wrong. I fixed the reference. Thanks. ;)

 

[JudaicChristian]

The origin of philosophy is from a Gnostic called Philo. A good question would be, what in religion did Philo teach?