Sophists? Need help with the term.

Behe's Boy said:

Hey ya'll -

I am currently reading "The Bondage of The Will" by Martin Luther and absolutely loving it. One term that keeps coming up in the book is "Sophists." He uses the phrase in very negative terms and I think that they are more repulsive to Luther than the Armininians. Unfortunately the term is used with the impression that the reader knows who they were. I have no clue - and would like to know if anyone can help me out with this. What is a Sophist? What do they believe that Luther refered to them over and over again in regards to his defense of the "Bondage of The Will?" It would help me better understand what I'm reading when I come to parts in the book where he is discussing them.

Thanks for any help ya'll can give me.

Dave C.

Click to expand...

Euthydemus replied: And do you think, Ctesippus, that it is possible to tell a lie?

Yes, said Ctesippus; I should be mad to say anything else.
And in telling a lie, do you tell the thing of which you speak or not?

You tell the thing of which you speak.
And he who tells, tells that thing which he tells, and no other?
Yes, said Ctesippus.
And that is a distinct thing apart from other things?
Certainly.
And he who says that thing says that which is?
Yes.
And he who says that which is, says the truth. And therefore Dionysodorus, if he says that which is, says the truth of you and no lie.

Yes, Euthydemus, said Ctesippus; but in saying this, he says what is not.

Euthydemus answered: And that which is not is not?
True.
And that which is not is nowhere?
Nowhere.
And can any one do anything about that which has no existence, or do to Cleinias that which is not and is nowhere?

I think not, said Ctesippus.
Well, but do rhetoricians, when they speak in the assembly, do nothing?

Nay, he said, they do something.
And doing is making?
Yes.
And speaking is doing and making?
He agreed.
Then no one says that which is not, for in saying what is not he would be doing something; and you have already acknowledged that no one can do what is not. And therefore, upon your own showing, no one says what is false; but if Dionysodorus says anything, he says what is true and what is.

Click to expand...

[font=Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica, Helvetica]The traveling teachers called Sophists, whose teachings had an enormous influence on the thought of the fifth century B.C., were in general intellectual descendants of the Presocratic philosophers. Perhaps because of the mutually contradictory answers offered by the Presocratics as to the nature of the universe, the Sophists turned from theoretical natural science to the rational examination of human affairs for the practical betterment of human life. This approach to life began to undermine the mythological view of the world evident in poetry with its emphasis on the involvement of anthropomorphic deities in the natural world and in human action. Divine causation was no longer the only explanation of natural phenomena and human action.[/font]

[font=Arial, Helvetica, Helvetica, Helvetica]Most Sophists were non-Athenians who attracted enthusiastic followings among the Athenian youth and received large fees for their services. Sophists flocked to Athens no doubt due to the favorable attitude of Pericles towards intellectuals. Pericles was a staunch rationalist; he had been trained in music and political affairs by Sophists. He was associated with the great sophist Protagoras of Abdera and two important Presocratics: Zeno of Elea and Anaxagoras of Clazomenae. The latter taught that the universe was governed by pure intelligence and his assertion that the sun, moon and stars are red hot stones and not gods led to his prosecution for impiety. Perhaps the best illustration of Pericles's rationalism is a story told by Plutarch of how Pericles, when an eclipse of the sun (generally considered a bad omen) frightened the helmsman of his ship, held up his cloak before the helmsman's eyes and asked him if he thought that this was a bad omen. Upon receiving a negative answer, Pericles then asked the helmsman whether there was any difference between his holding up of the cloak before his eyes and the eclipse of the sun except that the eclipse was brought about by an object larger than the cloak (i.e., the moon). Pericles was no doubt applying knowledge he had obtained from Anaxagoras, who is generally credited with being the first to explain the true cause of solar eclipses. Pericles's rational approach to life and that of his circle of friends was as unpopular as his democratic politics among conservative groups in Athens, but it must have encouraged Sophists from all over the Greek world to flock to Athens as a potentially fertile ground for their teachings.

Click to expand...

[2] You must get used to the idea that it is one thing to do the works of the law and quite another to fulfill it. The works of the law are every thing that a person does or can do of his own free will and by his own powers to obey the law. But because in doing such works the heart abhors the law and yet is forced to obey it, the works are a total loss and are completely useless. That is what St. Paul means in chapter 3 when he says, "No human being is justified before God through the works of the law." From this you can see that the schoolmasters [i.e., the scholastic theologians] and sophists are seducers when they teach that you can prepare yourself for grace by means of works. How can anybody prepare himself for good by means of works if he does no good work except with aversion and constraint in his heart? How can such a work please God, if it proceeds from an averse and unwilling heart?

Click to expand...

rmwilliamsll said:

it is certainly true that sophists are a Greek philosophic school. however Luther is using the term to describe the scholastic's use of natural theology which blossomed into the humanists like Erasmus. they share little to no continuity with the Greek sophists, but are rather early renaissance scholars.

for example: http://history.hanover.edu/courses/excerpts/111luth2.html

Click to expand...