Philosophy is thought of being nothing more than thinkers thinking up weird and lofty ideas that have no application in the real world. As such, philosophy receives a bad rap and little attention in our world today. This sentiment is especially true among Christians. I will venture to say that when most Christians think of philosophy, they think of evil ideas and theories expounded by men and women set up against the Jesus Christ and the Gospel. The popular verse referred to as a warning against philosophy is Colossians 2:8:
See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ. (NASB)Yet, as previously pointed out, Paul did not intend to warn us against philosophy itself, but against philosophies that set itself up against God and Jesus Christ. Instead of shunning philosophy, Paul utilizes philosophy in the very logic and argumentation used in his letters! So, if Paul used philosophical principles of logic and argumentation, should we as Christians today avoid philosophy as a whole, or can we employ philosophy, without shame, for the furtherance of God’s kingdom and for the defense of His Gospel? This semester I am taking History of Philosophy I taught by Dr. Ted Cabal. This course, in conjunction with my previous philosophy courses, has fostered in me not only a joy for philosophy, but also an awareness of its place and role in Christianity. Recently I had the opportunity to sit down with Dr. Ted Cabal, Professor of Christian Philosophy and Applied Apologetics, for a short interview on the issue of philosophy in the Christian’s life and its proper place. Below is his biography from his faculty page on http://www.sbts.edu/: Dr. Cabal has sought to instill in his students a drive for academic excellence, as well as devotion to Christian apologetics. This entry was posted on Thursday, September 20th, 2007 at 9:50 pm and is filed under interviews, philosophy, theology.
Paul seems to be the flavour of the moment these days---very big indeed. Part of a multi-faceted retro-culture re-emerging.
ReplyDeleteBut what do we really know about Paul and his "philosophy"?
Did anyone (especially the church fathers who put the Bible together) ever meet this "Paul" and REALLY confirm that "Paul" wrote this "philosophy".
Also remember that "Paul" never met Jesus and was therefore not instructed by Jesus or anointed by the Holy Spirit (by Jesus) as were the direct disciples of Jesus.
Didnt Paul also actively persecute Christians before his alleged dramatic "conversion" experience?
And besides which Christianity is supposed to be about the understanding of Jesus and devotion to him.
What have questions about "Paul" and his "philosophy" got to do with the necessary process of self-understanding and the consequent dis-illusionment with all of the usual "answers".
Such positive dis-illusionment being the necessary "end of the rope" as it were for true Spiritual Life to even begin.
"Paul" along with "Jesus" are mind created idols which, except in very rare cases (Bernadette Roberts for instance) are BARS which prevent the necessary process of self understanding and self-transcendence.
Thank you for linking my post. Here are some of my answers to your comments...
ReplyDeletePaul seems to be the flavour of the moment these days---very big indeed. Part of a multi-faceted retro-culture re-emerging.
Paul may indeed be "the flavor of the moment" these days for some, but as a Christian, he isn't something 'new' or a new 'fad.' Rather, he was an apostle of Jesus Christ who spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the early to mid first century. He was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write those letters of his we see in the New Testament.
But what do we really know about Paul and his "philosophy"?
I'm not saying that Paul developed philosophy ... rather that he utilized philosophy, more specifically logic and argumentation when writing.
Did anyone (especially the church fathers who put the Bible together) ever meet this "Paul" and REALLY confirm that "Paul" wrote this "philosophy".
The apostle Peter is about as early of a church father as one can get, and we have record in Scripture of Peter and Paul having met and ministered together.
Also remember that "Paul" never met Jesus and was therefore not instructed by Jesus or anointed by the Holy Spirit (by Jesus) as were the direct disciples of Jesus.
Paul did, in fact, meet Jesus. Acts 9 tells of Paul encountering the resurrected Jesus Christ on the road to Damascus. It was this moment Paul changes from persecuting the church to becoming one of its primary figures.
Didnt Paul also actively persecute Christians before his alleged dramatic "conversion" experience?
Yes, he did. And that is the beauty of Acts 9, that Jesus Christ can save anyone. Paul was the church's fiercest persecuter, yet the work accomplished by Jesus Christ on the cross can save such a person as Paul. While we were all yet sinners, Christ died for us. No one is exempt from the redemption of Christ if they "confess with [their] mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in [their] heart that God raised Him from the dead, [they] will be saved" Romans 10:9.
And besides which Christianity is supposed to be about the understanding of Jesus and devotion to him.
Right on. My devotion is to Jesus Christ and to Him alone. But, my referring to Paul does not mean my devotion is to him. Paul was inspired by the Holy Spirit to write what he contributed in the New Testament, and his writing point us to Jesus Christ, the object of my worship and devotion. I heartily agree with you that Paul should not be the object of my worship and devotion, and believe those who do so are in error.
Such positive dis-illusionment being the necessary "end of the rope" as it were for true Spiritual Life to even begin.
"Paul" along with "Jesus" are mind created idols which, except in very rare cases (Bernadette Roberts for instance) are BARS which prevent the necessary process of self understanding and self-transcendence.
Can you explain further exactly what you mean?
I would appreciate the opportunity for further dialogue. My purpose for answering your comments is to clarify where I am coming from; I believe some of the comments you made were done so with a very broad brush. Not all, in fact, probably a majority, of Christians hold to what you say we do.
I look forward to further dialogue.