Philosophies that point to Christianity

[NewTestamentChristian]

Every major Christian philosopher has been inspired by an older tradition in order to interpret doctrine. The Fathers of the Church were inspired by Platonism. The Scholastics (e.g. Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus) used Aristotle. Stoicism made a revival in 16th century Europe. What follows is a list of philosophies that I believe can be an aid to one’s faith in Christ.

• Platonism (used by the Greek Fathers in particular.)
• Stoicism (the Roman Stoics, Epictetus in particular, tended to believe in a personal god.)
• Aristotelianism (just not too much of it lest we fall into a pure natural theology.)
• Confucianism (historically backed by Jesuit missionaries to China.)
• Daoism (the translation of the Bible into Chinese translates John 1:1 with the word dao, or way, in place of logos; “In the begin was the Way and the Way was with God and the Way was God.” See also Christ the Eternal Dao by Hieromonk Damascene.)
• Buddhism (specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path; Later Buddhist schools, other than Zen, which is a distinctively Chinese invention, I know very little about.)
• Heraclitus (put an emphasis on the concept of logos.)
• The Upanishads (dialogues discussing the soul in relation to God.)

 

[Hoping2]

Every major Christian philosopher has been inspired by an older tradition in order to interpret doctrine. The Fathers of the Church were inspired by Platonism. The Scholastics (e.g. Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus) used Aristotle. Stoicism made a revival in 16th century Europe. What follows is a list of philosophies that I believe can be an aid to one’s faith in Christ.

• Platonism (used by the Greek Fathers in particular.)
• Stoicism (the Roman Stoics, Epictetus in particular, tended to believe in a personal god.)
• Aristotelianism (just not too much of it lest we fall into a pure natural theology.)
• Confucianism (historically backed by Jesuit missionaries to China.)
• Daoism (the translation of the Bible into Chinese translates John 1:1 with the word dao, or way, in place of logos; “In the begin was the Way and the Way was with God and the Way was God.” See also Christ the Eternal Dao by Hieromonk Damascene.)
• Buddhism (specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path; Later Buddhist schools, other than Zen, which is a distinctively Chinese invention, I know very little about.)
• Heraclitus (put an emphasis on the concept of logos.)
• The Upanishads (dialogues discussing the soul in relation to God.)

Faith in Christ doesn't need philosophies.
His words are clearly stated terms of obedience to God and love for neighbor.

 

[com7fy8]

In Christianity we do not have only beliefs and philosophical explanation, but >

"faith working through love" > in Galatians 5:6.

Yes, our God is personal. He personally shares His own love with us >

"Now hope does not disappoint, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts by the Holy Spirit who was given to us." (Romans 5:5)

Do any of your listed philosophers and church fathers plainly tell us that God shares His very own love with us "in our hearts"? And, by the way, this is not human love, but how God's own love is. So . . . if someone says love is most important of all , , , which love?

And God personally works in our wills to have us do what He desires to personally guide each of us to do >

"for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure." (Philippians 2:13)

This is very personal of God how He works our willing and our doing, in such intimate sharing with Him >

Does your philosopher explain this to be what he means by God being "personal"?

We experience this, if God is sharing so personally with each of us, within us. This is basic Christianity, I would say. Faith, then, is not only beliefs, but faith has us in connection and sharing with God Himself >

"But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him." (1 Corinthians 6:17)

And God proves Himself, in this union, deeper and better than words can tell.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Faith in Christ doesn't need philosophies.
His words are clearly stated terms of obedience to God and love for neighbor.

I totally agree, but there needs to be a room for reason to serve as an aid to faith. Plus these systems of thought IMO provide answers to basic questions that all people have. Christ is the fulfillment of the answers that philosophy provides.

 

[Hoping2]

I totally agree, but there needs to be a room for reason to serve as an aid to faith.

Would you kindly provide an example of that ?

Plus these systems of thought IMO provide answers to basic questions that all people have. Christ is the fulfillment of the answers that philosophy provides.

If men are focused on Christ, they won't need philosophy.

 

[WalkTheTalk77]

Hi, I think the value in Philosophy is often in the questions it asks. The ultimate answer is Christ. Help for various issues are also in the Bible, and are often illustrated by our human behavior (e.g., selfishness can be seen in kids and adults, etc.), the essence of which doesn't change and hasn't for millenia.

It is interesting how Buddhism has some overlapping concepts with Christianity, but staying anchored in THE Word is of utmost importance; less once be swept out to sea by philosophies of men.

But, yes, to perhaps ponder philosophical questions alongside the Bible could be interesting - especially: to be able to navigate through some points and walk one toward a Christian worldview would be very worthwhile. Finding the intersection of these and landing on God's side would be a nice way to interact with skeptics, atheists, and often young adults.

I totally agree, but there needs to be a room for reason to serve as an aid to faith. Plus these systems of thought IMO provide answers to basic questions that all people have. Christ is the fulfillment of the answers that philosophy provides.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Would you kindly provide an example of that ?

If men are focused on Christ, they won't need philosophy.

“For wisdom is a kindly spirit and will not free a blasphemer from the guilt of his words; because God is witness of his inmost feelings, and a true observer of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue.” (Wisdom 1:6)

“Wisdom exalts her sons and gives help to those who seek her. Whoever loves her loves life, and those who seek her early will be filled with joy. Whoever holds her fast will obtain glory, and the Lord will bless the place she enters. Those who serve her will minister to the Holy One; the Lord loves those who love her.” (‭‭Sirach‬ ‭4‬:‭11‬-‭14‬)

“My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.” (‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭5‬)

By “philosophy” I mean using our God-given reason to understand scripture and doctrine. If one can preach the gospel, as St. Paul did, using a language and terminology that people of the respective culture understand then more people could be convinced of the salvation that is found solely in Christ. So if the Fathers of the Church used Platonism and Stoicism to better understand the gospel then I’d say that’s a plus. Another example would be the Jesuits interest in Confucianism (and eventually Daoism) as a way to interpret the Bible which caused an increase in converts to Catholicism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (despite the so called “Chinese rites controversy” pushed by the Pope at the time). Ippolito Desideri, the first westerner to learn the Tibetan language and study Buddhist philosophy in an academic setting, believed that much of Buddhism was good especially its ethics and epistemology. But he could not get past the ambiguity of God in Buddhism; I wouldn’t call Buddhism atheistic, per se. Therefore, being a trained Thomist, Desideri’s basic argument was that Buddhism makes zero sense without the idea of God, and introduces a metaphysical argument for God which gained converts to the faith. To paraphrase something St. Gregory the Theologian said, keep the roses but clip the thorns. This brings me to what I think a major problem is.

I think that no church should canonize any particular philosophy as a preferred method to understand scripture and doctrine. Strict Observance Thomist's, for example, belong to a camp where they think Aquinas is the only way to understand theology. I wholeheartedly disagree. Nothing against Aquinas, I just think that once you canonize a particular philosophy as the only way to interpret the faith, the sin of pride rears its head. So, while I think we should be open to using reason as a way to understand the Bible, canonizing one particular philosopher or philosophy only muddies the waters.

 

[Hoping2]

“For wisdom is a kindly spirit and will not free a blasphemer from the guilt of his words; because God is witness of his inmost feelings, and a true observer of his heart, and a hearer of his tongue.” (Wisdom 1:6)

“Wisdom exalts her sons and gives help to those who seek her. Whoever loves her loves life, and those who seek her early will be filled with joy. Whoever holds her fast will obtain glory, and the Lord will bless the place she enters. Those who serve her will minister to the Holy One; the Lord loves those who love her.” (‭‭Sirach‬ ‭4‬:‭11‬-‭14‬)

Are those citings from the Koran ?

“My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, So that you incline your ear to wisdom, And apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment, And lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, And search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the Lord, And find the knowledge of God.” (‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭2‬:‭1‬-‭5‬)

By “philosophy” I mean using our God-given reason to understand scripture and doctrine. If one can preach the gospel, as St. Paul did, using a language and terminology that people of the respective culture understand then more people could be convinced of the salvation that is found solely in Christ. So if the Fathers of the Church used Platonism and Stoicism to better understand the gospel then I’d say that’s a plus. Another example would be the Jesuits interest in Confucianism (and eventually Daoism) as a way to interpret the Bible which caused an increase in converts to Catholicism in China, Japan, Korea, and Vietnam (despite the so called “Chinese rites controversy” pushed by the Pope at the time). Ippolito Desideri, the first westerner to learn the Tibetan language and study Buddhist philosophy in an academic setting, believed that much of Buddhism was good especially its ethics and epistemology. But he could not get past the ambiguity of God in Buddhism; I wouldn’t call Buddhism atheistic, per se. Therefore, being a trained Thomist, Desideri’s basic argument was that Buddhism makes zero sense without the idea of God, and introduces a metaphysical argument for God which gained converts to the faith. To paraphrase something St. Gregory the Theologian said, keep the roses but clip the thorns. This brings me to what I think a major problem is.

I think that no church should canonize any particular philosophy as a preferred method to understand scripture and doctrine. Strict Observance Thomist's, for example, belong to a camp where they think Aquinas is the only way to understand theology. I wholeheartedly disagree. Nothing against Aquinas, I just think that once you canonize a particular philosophy as the only way to interpret the faith, the sin of pride rears its head. So, while I think we should be open to using reason as a way to understand the Bible, canonizing one particular philosopher or philosophy only muddies the waters.

Duh...
Those who obey God have the Holy Ghost to help them unravel mysteries.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Are those citings from the Koran ?

Duh...
Those who obey God have the Holy Ghost to help them unravel mysteries.

No. They’re from the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Sirach. If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, they are in the Old Testament. If you're Protestant, they are a part of the Apocrypha. I’m starting to think you knew that already.

 

[Hoping2]

No. They’re from the Wisdom of Solomon and the Book of Sirach. If you’re Catholic or Orthodox, they are in the Old Testament. If you're Protestant, they are a part of the Apocrypha. I’m starting to think you knew that already.

I have never heard of either of those books.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

I have never heard of either of those books.

If you really haven’t heard of them, they are a good read. The debate regarding “which book goes where” is irrelevant, as ever since the Reformation there has been debate of where 7 of these books are to be placed. Protestants placed them in a section titled Apocrypha, which in Protestant bibles is usually placed between the Old and New Testaments. Roman Catholics order them in the Old Testament as do Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, only difference being they have a few more books in the Old Testament canon that Catholics don’t have. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy the Old Testament is obviously supposed to set up the new and can be used in the formulation of doctrine and this includes the 7 disputed books. In Protestantism, they limit the Old Testament to 66 books and state that the books of the Apocrypha are to be read for moral and spiritual instruction but cannot be used in the formation of doctrine. May I ask what church you belong to? As I understand it, not every Protestant Bible includes the Apocrypha.

 

[Hoping2]

If you really haven’t heard of them, they are a good read. The debate regarding “which book goes where” is irrelevant, as ever since the Reformation there has been debate of where 7 of these books are to be placed. Protestants placed them in a section titled Apocrypha, which in Protestant bibles is usually placed between the Old and New Testaments. Roman Catholics order them in the Old Testament as do Eastern and Oriental Orthodox, only difference being they have a few more books in the Old Testament canon that Catholics don’t have. In Catholicism and Orthodoxy the Old Testament is obviously supposed to set up the new and can be used in the formulation of doctrine and this includes the 7 disputed books. In Protestantism, they limit the Old Testament to 66 books and state that the books of the Apocrypha are to be read for moral and spiritual instruction but cannot be used in the formation of doctrine.

Doesn't that make you wonder what value there is in it ? (rhetorical question)

May I ask what church you belong to? As I understand it, not every Protestant Bible includes the Apocrypha.

I belong to The Church By Christ Jesus (Eph 3:21).
I use the KJ version of God's word.

 

[NewTestamentChristian]

Doesn't that make you wonder what value there is in it ? (rhetorical question)

I belong to The Church By Christ Jesus (Eph 3:21).
I use the KJ version of God's word.

Well, what came first? The Bible or the Church? Obviously the Church; There wasn’t an official Bible until centuries later. All that the believers had was the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which included the disputed books aforementioned) and testimonies from various writers about Jesus (the Gospels, Acts, epistles of Paul and the apostles). The canon was formally brought to the table at the Council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus I and was ratified in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. I use the NKJV for devotional reasons and use the RSV if I want a more academic reading of the text. That being said if the books of Wisdom and Sirach were listed in the original canon, despite the disputation of them, they should at least be considered. The KJV I believe includes the Apocrypha of which the books are a part of. I am a Cafeteria Catholic for my own reasons and I see no distinction between denominations.

 

[Hoping2]

Well, what came first? The Bible or the Church? Obviously the Church;

Agreed.

There wasn’t an official Bible until centuries later. All that the believers had was the Septuagint (the Old Testament in Greek which included the disputed books aforementioned) and testimonies from various writers about Jesus (the Gospels, Acts, epistles of Paul and the apostles).

Those were all written within 90 years of Jesus' resurrection, and most well before that.
The church had everything it needed from the beginning.
Plus, the Holy Ghost was active in the suppression of fakirs.

The canon was formally brought to the table at the Council of Rome in 382 AD under Pope Damasus I and was ratified in 397 AD at the Council of Carthage. I use the NKJV for devotional reasons and use the RSV if I want a more academic reading of the text. That being said if the books of Wisdom and Sirach were listed in the original canon, despite the disputation of them, they should at least be considered. The KJV I believe includes the Apocrypha of which the books are a part of. I am a Cafeteria Catholic for my own reasons...

OK.

and I see no distinction between denominations.

Do you think that is wise ?

 

[public hermit]

Every major Christian philosopher has been inspired by an older tradition in order to interpret doctrine. The Fathers of the Church were inspired by Platonism. The Scholastics (e.g. Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus) used Aristotle. Stoicism made a revival in 16th century Europe. What follows is a list of philosophies that I believe can be an aid to one’s faith in Christ.

• Platonism (used by the Greek Fathers in particular.)
• Stoicism (the Roman Stoics, Epictetus in particular, tended to believe in a personal god.)
• Aristotelianism (just not too much of it lest we fall into a pure natural theology.)
• Confucianism (historically backed by Jesuit missionaries to China.)
• Daoism (the translation of the Bible into Chinese translates John 1:1 with the word dao, or way, in place of logos; “In the begin was the Way and the Way was with God and the Way was God.” See also Christ the Eternal Dao by Hieromonk Damascene.)
• Buddhism (specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path; Later Buddhist schools, other than Zen, which is a distinctively Chinese invention, I know very little about.)
• Heraclitus (put an emphasis on the concept of logos.)
• The Upanishads (dialogues discussing the soul in relation to God.)

Yes, I don't think we should be surprised to see the fingerprints of the One God who creates everything on everything. As you point out, early Christians were much better at recognizing this.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Every major Christian philosopher has been inspired by an older tradition in order to interpret doctrine. The Fathers of the Church were inspired by Platonism. The Scholastics (e.g. Anselm, Aquinas, Duns Scotus) used Aristotle. Stoicism made a revival in 16th century Europe. What follows is a list of philosophies that I believe can be an aid to one’s faith in Christ.

• Platonism (used by the Greek Fathers in particular.)
• Stoicism (the Roman Stoics, Epictetus in particular, tended to believe in a personal god.)
• Aristotelianism (just not too much of it lest we fall into a pure natural theology.)
• Confucianism (historically backed by Jesuit missionaries to China.)
• Daoism (the translation of the Bible into Chinese translates John 1:1 with the word dao, or way, in place of logos; “In the begin was the Way and the Way was with God and the Way was God.” See also Christ the Eternal Dao by Hieromonk Damascene.)
• Buddhism (specifically the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path; Later Buddhist schools, other than Zen, which is a distinctively Chinese invention, I know very little about.)
• Heraclitus (put an emphasis on the concept of logos.)
• The Upanishads (dialogues discussing the soul in relation to God.)

Yes, the early church used Platonic philosophy to better understand the incarnation. But my initial interest was Eastern philosophies. I see them as providing helpful method. Especially yoga and Buddhism deal with the mind and how it works, how to bring about peace and stability. Their "theology" dos not align with Christianity but I don't think it needs to.

The other day I found an interesting article on Buddhism and tie Yoga Sutras. Since Buddhism was a non-Vedic philosophy Vedic commentaries tried to distance Buddhist sources from the Yoga Sutras. But the influence is there non-the -less.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

Come to think about it, Yoga philosophy and Buddhist philosophy make moral behavior a nonnegotiable requirement for salvation. There is no other way to be saved. We have to do all the work. I think sometimes because Christians have the doctrines of faith and grace, maybe we don't see the need to try so hard. In fact, some do not seem to try at all and view it as a virtue to rely solely on faith. I think this is an important misunderstanding of faith and grace.

 

[Akita Suggagaki]

With this in mind I was wondering what metric their might be for our spiritual progress. That is spiritual growth, maturation. It is not necessarily correlated with salvation, I don't think. One can be a mess and still be "saved" however one wants to understand that concept. My gosh, in Buddhism it means liberation from self.

In my own personal journey I find ego defensive anger to be a valuable metric. How easily am I angered by a slight, unkind word, insult or even unfortunate event? It seems to me that in Christianity as well as Eastern religions a misprioritized ego is our greatest burden. It causes us to sin. It causes our suffering. It prevents our self giving. It hinders love.

So let me ask you all. I not the ego our biggest issue. Of course we must have an ego. It is the focal point of our daily sense of self. This is where pre-Christian philosophies hint that we can be more than that limited sense of self. That we are in fact something that we can hardly imagine. And the Jesus comes along and tells us that if we want to be his followers we must die to self. What is this self other than, I think, a misshaped ego, a distorted sense of self that we identify so mush with that we defend it at all costs. In fact, not only anger is a metric but also the other deadly sins that originated in philosophy and made their way in to Christianity.
But I dislike anger Ira, wrath the most so I try to be mindful of it.

This, the ego or personal identity, is a main difference between East and West. In Eastern philosophies it is a impermeant. In the West it goes to Heaven or Hell. Whatever our philosophy or goal the development of virtues is crucial. For each deadly sin there is a virtuous antidote.
for

gluttony - Temperance
Lust - chastity
greed - Charity
Despair - Hope
Anger - Patience
Sloth - Diligence
Pride - Humility

At the end of the day as I reflect on virtues and vices of my ego it seems anger gets the most attention.