Is learning Greek Philosophy useful?

[Apologetic_Warrior]

For us, yes.

But for God???

So is it impossible for God to lie? Scripture say's yes. Also in Scripture it say's that God is not the author of confusion, meaning He did not nor does not create it. Which implicates secondary causal agents, originally created by God as good, but given freedom to deviate from it...or as best as this finite man can understand.

 

[Dave-W]

So is it impossible for God to lie? Scripture say's yes. Also in Scripture it say's that God is not the author of confusion,

Try this one on for size:

2 Chron 18:18
Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. 19 The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ 21 He said, ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.’ 22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”

 

[Ken Rank]

When we read the gospels, and I pick these because they are similar enough to make a point... we can see that God very well inspired the authors, but that the authors retained their individuality. Each writing style is different, the wording used is slightly different, thus we can tell that while inspired to write, the authors retained a sense of who they are. So which perspective or lens should we look through when reading their work? Greek? Why? The authors were Hebrew and thus the answer is Hebrew is the lens we should be looking through.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Try this one on for size:

2 Chron 18:18
Micaiah said, “Therefore, hear the word of the Lord. I saw the Lord sitting on His throne, and all the host of heaven standing on His right and on His left. 19 The Lord said, ‘Who will entice Ahab king of Israel to go up and fall at Ramoth-gilead?’ And one said this while another said that. 20 Then a spirit came forward and stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ And the Lord said to him, ‘How?’ 21 He said, ‘I will go and be a deceiving spirit in the mouth of all his prophets.’ Then He said, ‘You are to entice him and prevail also. Go and do so.’ 22 Now therefore, behold, the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouth of these your prophets, for the Lord has proclaimed disaster against you.”

Simple, the Lord and the deceiving spirit are not one and the same, the deceiving spirit is for lack of words, a secondary causal agent. As such, the Lord is not doing the deceiving, rather the deceiving spirit is doing the deceiving. Can the Lord prevent such? Absolutely, but evidently He has purposes in it, just as He allows so much evil in the world today, even massive deception, like the self-deceived followers of Islam as one example.

 

[Dave-W]

Simple, the Lord and the deceiving spirit are not one and the same, the deceiving spirit is for lack of words, a secondary causal agent. As such, the Lord is not doing the deceiving, rather the deceiving spirit is doing the deceiving.

Except the Lord DIRECTED it to do so. That makes the Lord the primary cause of dece0ption here.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Except the Lord DIRECTED it to do so. That makes the Lord the primary cause of dece0ption here.

Except unregenerate man is sinful in every way, the Scriptures tell us the heart is deceitful above all things who can understand it? So for the Lord to command a deceiving spirit to prompt a man to do what is already in his heart is not a logical leap to "God did it". What I see is the sovereignty of God over evil, that He has the power over evil, that evil can do no more than He allows.

 

[Monk Brendan]

I mean, works of Plato and Aristotle have been used by Christians to defend their beliefs or even to get into a common ground with non-Christians. What do you think?

The Orthodox Church teaches that philosophy was given to the Gentiles to prepare them for Christ.

The main thing about studying the best philosophers is that they teach you how to think clearly and rationally.

 

[Radagast]

And that is what bible interpretation is all about--they try to interpret the word according to how the Jews used their language.

According to how you imagine Jews used their language.

That is why you don't understand what it means when they talked about the names

You don't understand that that way of speaking is also part of English. People still say "his name is mud." That doesn't mean that "Mud" is actually what he is called.

 

[Radagast]

I'd like to propose that logic is eternal, a property of God, that it is a characteristic of the mind of God (not the author of confusion), and by extension an attribute of being made in the image of God.

I agree. That is the standard Christian view.

 

[Radagast]

The authors were Hebrew and thus the answer is Hebrew is the lens we should be looking through.

No, you should absorb the meaning of the words and sentences that are actually written down. That's what God intended.

God also gave us pastors/teachers to help us understand the Bible (Ephesians 4:11). Not to mention the Holy Spirit. God did not say "you must interpret all this through a "Jewish lens."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, you should absorb the meaning of the words and sentences that are actually written down. That's what God intended.

God gave us pastors/teachers to help us understand the Bible (Ephesians 4:11). Not to mention the Holy Spirit. God did not say "you must interpret all this through a "Jewish lens."

The "Jewish Lens" does add some assistance to how we fully approach, handle, and interpret the Bible. If we don't include even some minimal consideration for the Jewish idioms that are inherently a part of the expression of the New Testament, we're bound to make interpretive mistakes......like thinking that the phrase "Weeping and Gnashing of Teeth" has something to do with an Eternal Hell rather than a temporal judgment upon some of those who heard Jesus speak that phrase.

So, I vote that we all just go ahead and learn about Jewish thought and hold that alongside our more Grecian interpretive measures as we read the Word of God together.

 

[Radagast]

The "Jewish Lens" does add some assistance to how we fully approach, handle, and interpret the Bible.

Not if it's a false theoretical framework that negates the actual meaning of the text.

If we don't include even some minimal consideration for the Jewish idioms that are inherently a part of the expression of the New Testament, we're bound to make interpretive mistakes.

Well, yes, but Christian interpreters already do that. Understanding idioms is not the "Jewish lens" that was being spoken about.

The "Jewish lens" that was being spoken about is actually the Pharisaic mindset that Jesus rejected. It was not the mindset of the men who wrote the New Testament, nor is it an accurate picture of 1st century Jewish thought.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not if it's a false theoretical framework that negates the actual meaning of the text.

True enough. There is, dare I say, a kind of 'Yin-Yang' relationship in how we might fully consider the Jewish mindset that permeates the Scriptures. It is one thing to be sensitive to Midrash and Pesher modes of interpretation, but it is quite another to say that we should just go all Talmudic/Rabbinic, which is often another thing altogether.

As for Greek philosophy, we should ALSO be careful with it lest we end up thinking that something like Plato's Socratic Euthyphro actually applies to either Jewish or Christian Theology ... when it doesn't.

Well, yes, but Christian interpreters already do that. Understanding idioms is not the "Jewish lens" that was being spoken about.

The "Jewish lens" that was being spoken about is actually the Pharisaic mindset that Jesus rejected. It was not the mindset of the men who wrote the New Testament, nor is it an accurate picture of 1st century Jewish thought.

... sure. I think I'm on a similar page with you, but this doesn't mean that everything the Pharisees thought was wrong or completely at odds with Jesus. We might remember that.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

As for Greek philosophy, we should ALSO be careful with it lest we end up thinking that something like Plato's Socratic Euthyphro actually applies to either Jewish or Christian Theology ... when it doesn't.

Sorry to kind of but into the conversation, but in reading the thought above, which I agree with, it also brought to attention that today, in our times, most people already have informal Greek philosophy in their hearts and minds. In other words, a person does not have to read Greek philosophy to have the philosophy ingrained into their conscience. For example, broadly speaking, the philosophies of hedonism and pragmatism are in the Greeks, and they would seem to be prevailing philosophies in American society today, and have been, and often veiled or wrapped in notions of subjectivism, a (one-sided) philosophy about the nature of truth. People may not know or even understand the technical terms or definitions, but if we analyze the words and behavior of the general public, these become more evident and clear. It is difficult even as a Christian, to not give into hedonism, which could be described as the self-desires of the flesh, to refrain from worldly influences and not give into pressures or conformed in one way or another. The problem is, selfishness comes so naturally, self-preservation comes naturally, so hedonism of the secular variety is more than compatible with our natural state, and self-preservation and contentment is practical. So it is likely these will be brought into interpretation, without ever reading Greek philosophy because they are taught informally and popularized into catchy formats.

 

[Radagast]

in our times, most people already have informal Greek philosophy in their hearts and minds

Well, no, actually.

broadly speaking, the philosophies of hedonism and pragmatism are in the Greeks

It would be more accurate to say that condemnations of those things are in Greek philosophy. Have you ever read any Greek philosophy?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Well, no, actually.

It would be more accurate to say that condemnations of those things are in Greek philosophy. Have you ever read any Greek philosophy?

Be helpful to get more than an expression of disagreement, maybe a few quotes or explanation, something a bit more convincing.

I have listened to a number of Christian philosophers who have read Greek philosophy, to what extent, I will not pretend to know. Philosophers such as Van Til, Greg Bahnsen, R.C. Sproul, and Ronald Nash to name a select few. Which Christian philosophers have you read/listened to in order to come to the conclusion Greek philosophers condemned those ideas? Sure, one group of Greek philosophers might condemn another, hence there are different and conflicting ethical "theories".

Here are a couple of links to courses taught by the late Dr. Ronald Nash while teaching at SBTS:

Christian Ethics

Essentials of Christian Ethics

His history of Philosophy and Christian Thought course is extensive, about 20 hours.

I could post links to others I've listened to but uncertain there is interest. It has been quite some time since I invested the time to listen closely.

 

[Radagast]

I have listened to a number of Christian philosophers who have read Greek philosophy

I've read a lot of Greek philosophy myself. I can't possibly condense it all down to one post.

His history of Philosophy and Christian Thought course is extensive, about 20 hours.

20 hours is hardly "extensive." It's just a tiny, tiny introduction.

 

[Not David]

Does that mean Greek is the language of God? Or am I being too generous?

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

Does that mean Greek is the language of God? Or am I being too generous?

Good one, it's not Hebrew either, but thankful He condescends to man and communicates in languages we can understand and in ways we can relate. He keeps me thinking, always, His wisdom in Scripture of more value than all the Greeks combined.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

I've read a lot of Greek philosophy myself. I can't possibly condense it all down to one post.

20 hours is hardly "extensive." It's just a tiny, tiny introduction.

Got another "standard" Christian response...

Colossians 2:8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.

I've got an answer, but eager to hear yours.