LESSON 3: Christian & Secular Thinking
Objective: To clarify what the Christian Mind is by contrasting it with the Secular Mind.
REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
“AS YOU DO PHILOSOPHY, BE DILIGENT TO DISCERN GODLY THINKING FROM UNGODLY. THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN MIND.”
Ephesians 4:17-18 “Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”
THIS WEEKS READING: Chapter 2: Christian vs. Secular Thinking
Contrasts. Note that anything we say about the Christian mind has its opposite in the world. “Acceptance of Christ as Messiah/rejection” “Devotion to Christ/despisal” “Submission to God/rebellion” “Authority of Scripture/self-autonomy”
That thinking can be done secularly about Christian things, or Christian about secular things. (Eg taking a Bible from or putting a Bible on a bookshelf, vs. opening it and being enlightened. Both are necessary to a Christian and therefore both are acceptable. But thinking secularly when doing either is vain, and there is a lot of secular thinking about religious things these days. Discuss his, or other current examples (Brian Clarke in Edmonton at U of A?).
p. 45 “There is nothing in our experience however trivial, worldly or even evil, that can not be thought of Christianly. There is likewise nothing in our experience, however sacred, that can not be thought about secularly.”
Quotes for discussion:
p. 45 “field of discourse.”
“..it touches me preeminently as a Christian.” Ch. 1
p. 48 “…we are not thinking Christian except over a very narrow field. We are thinking secularly a great deal, even on Christian matters.”
p. 44 “You can think Christianly about …a petrol pump.” How? P. 45
p. 49 “fence-sitting”
THE CHRISTIAN AS PHILOSOPHER
“Politics as Christian Vocation; Faith and Democracy Today” by Franklin I. Gamwell. p. 63 “We misunderstand the Greco-Roman world….philosophy was a “way of life” . Stoic life, Platonic life, Skeptical life. Why do philosophers of today not live their lives consistently with their philosophy? Why do they treat it as a topic of discussion vs. a way of life?
It was the practice of the 18th century Scottish empiricist David Hume, when his doubts about the human ability to know anything (skepticism), to go hang with his friends and play backgammon at the pub. As Bahnsen notes in his lectures on Transcendental Arguments, “that’s a commentary on our times.” Discuss.
Why does worldly philosophy get people down? Why is it a topic for them and not a way of life?
In Kant’s Wake: Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. p. 159 “There is no reliable way to claim that one or another theory has in fact finally solved the problem of knowledge. All the “solutions” so far proposed have always led to counter arguments, which only extend the debate with apparently no real prospect of ever bringing it to an end.
Further, “It seems difficult to measure progress in philosophy by linking it to a proposed ‘answer’ to the problem of knowledge.”
This misery can extend to Christians as well:
Galatians 4:8-9 “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?”
THE WARNING
Martin Lloyd-Jones and the problem of reason, scholarship. “What Is An Evangelical?” Lloyd Jones writes that the Christian “distrusts reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy.” (p.44) Why? “philosophy means, ultimately, a trusting to human reason and human understanding.” Yet consider 1 Corinthians 1:
1Corinthians 1:18: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Is this warning against wisdom saying we should avoid wisdom? Is this warning against discernment suggesting the Christian should not be discerning? No.
v. 26: “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards”
v. 24: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”
v. 30: “Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom”
Conclusion: there is a kind of wisdom, a kind of discerning, a kind of philosophy to avoid. There is a kind that is right.
To me, to say “distrust reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy” is a little like Gump philosophy saying “life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get.” In other words reason (chocolate) is never encountered directly, only particular kinds of reason (chocolate) like God-fearing reason (milk chocolate), secular reason (bitter chocolate), etc.. Therefore, when generic reason is approached, one must be careful to ensure the tool of right and Godly reason is used. If reason is not diligently handled, disaster awaits the Christian to enslave. Thus philosophy is treated with a warning:
Colossians 7:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Conclusion: Lloyd Jones is too mild with wrong reason, and too double minded with reason in general
Lloyd-Jones tries to echo this again, saying some Christians having given themselves over to “reason” abrogating its proper use. p. 49“The business of reason is to teach us how to believe. It is an instrument and the trouble always arises when people allow reason to determine what to believe.”
-but this is short-sighted: secular reasoning will ultimately lead us to wrong ideas of what to believe because such thinking is futile. Christian reasoning will lead us to right ideas. But since reasoning is a process it only offers presuppositions, not particular conclusions. Lloyd Jones does not understand the power of presuppositions in reasoning and so becomes a little confused about whether it should be accepted or rejected.
Conclusion: The Christian must approach reasoning with an inherent distrust so he may cling to Christian reasoning which is the wisdom of God and shun secular reasoning which is the wisdom of this world. Christian philosophy presupposes
God as its ultimate authority and foundation, secular reasoning presupposes man as the ultimate authority and foundation. Thus the importance for Christians in being able to know the difference, to be able to see errors in their own thinking, the thinking of others, of the Church, of society.
CONCLUSION
What is the distinguishing mark of Christian thinking? P.44“…to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man’s eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God”
In our first lesson we talked about the kind of person who finds this subject fascinating. What is the role of a modern day thinker/prophet/philosopher? What does Blamires suggest this person will be like?
Do you see any of yourself in his descriptions so far?
Do you mark your average everyday thinking with a Christian perspective of the eternal?
“AS YOU DO PHILOSOPHY, BE DILIGENT TO DISCERN GODLY THINKING FROM UNGODLY. THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN MIND.”
REVIEW
INTRODUCTION
“AS YOU DO PHILOSOPHY, BE DILIGENT TO DISCERN GODLY THINKING FROM UNGODLY. THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN MIND.”
Ephesians 4:17-18 “Now this I say and testify in the Lord, that you must no longer walk as the Gentiles do, in the futility of their minds. They are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart.”
THIS WEEKS READING: Chapter 2: Christian vs. Secular Thinking
Contrasts. Note that anything we say about the Christian mind has its opposite in the world. “Acceptance of Christ as Messiah/rejection” “Devotion to Christ/despisal” “Submission to God/rebellion” “Authority of Scripture/self-autonomy”
That thinking can be done secularly about Christian things, or Christian about secular things. (Eg taking a Bible from or putting a Bible on a bookshelf, vs. opening it and being enlightened. Both are necessary to a Christian and therefore both are acceptable. But thinking secularly when doing either is vain, and there is a lot of secular thinking about religious things these days. Discuss his, or other current examples (Brian Clarke in Edmonton at U of A?).
p. 45 “There is nothing in our experience however trivial, worldly or even evil, that can not be thought of Christianly. There is likewise nothing in our experience, however sacred, that can not be thought about secularly.”
Quotes for discussion:
p. 45 “field of discourse.”
“..it touches me preeminently as a Christian.” Ch. 1
p. 48 “…we are not thinking Christian except over a very narrow field. We are thinking secularly a great deal, even on Christian matters.”
p. 44 “You can think Christianly about …a petrol pump.” How? P. 45
p. 49 “fence-sitting”
THE CHRISTIAN AS PHILOSOPHER
“Politics as Christian Vocation; Faith and Democracy Today” by Franklin I. Gamwell. p. 63 “We misunderstand the Greco-Roman world….philosophy was a “way of life” . Stoic life, Platonic life, Skeptical life. Why do philosophers of today not live their lives consistently with their philosophy? Why do they treat it as a topic of discussion vs. a way of life?
It was the practice of the 18th century Scottish empiricist David Hume, when his doubts about the human ability to know anything (skepticism), to go hang with his friends and play backgammon at the pub. As Bahnsen notes in his lectures on Transcendental Arguments, “that’s a commentary on our times.” Discuss.
Why does worldly philosophy get people down? Why is it a topic for them and not a way of life?
In Kant’s Wake: Philosophy in the Twentieth Century. p. 159 “There is no reliable way to claim that one or another theory has in fact finally solved the problem of knowledge. All the “solutions” so far proposed have always led to counter arguments, which only extend the debate with apparently no real prospect of ever bringing it to an end.
Further, “It seems difficult to measure progress in philosophy by linking it to a proposed ‘answer’ to the problem of knowledge.”
This misery can extend to Christians as well:
Galatians 4:8-9 “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more?”
THE WARNING
Martin Lloyd-Jones and the problem of reason, scholarship. “What Is An Evangelical?” Lloyd Jones writes that the Christian “distrusts reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy.” (p.44) Why? “philosophy means, ultimately, a trusting to human reason and human understanding.” Yet consider 1 Corinthians 1:
1Corinthians 1:18: “For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written, "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”
Is this warning against wisdom saying we should avoid wisdom? Is this warning against discernment suggesting the Christian should not be discerning? No.
v. 26: “For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards”
v. 24: “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God”
v. 30: “Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom”
Conclusion: there is a kind of wisdom, a kind of discerning, a kind of philosophy to avoid. There is a kind that is right.
To me, to say “distrust reason and particularly reason in the form of philosophy” is a little like Gump philosophy saying “life is like a box of chocolates, you never know what you’re going to get.” In other words reason (chocolate) is never encountered directly, only particular kinds of reason (chocolate) like God-fearing reason (milk chocolate), secular reason (bitter chocolate), etc.. Therefore, when generic reason is approached, one must be careful to ensure the tool of right and Godly reason is used. If reason is not diligently handled, disaster awaits the Christian to enslave. Thus philosophy is treated with a warning:
Colossians 7:8 “See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental principles of the world, and not according to Christ.”
Conclusion: Lloyd Jones is too mild with wrong reason, and too double minded with reason in general
Lloyd-Jones tries to echo this again, saying some Christians having given themselves over to “reason” abrogating its proper use. p. 49“The business of reason is to teach us how to believe. It is an instrument and the trouble always arises when people allow reason to determine what to believe.”
-but this is short-sighted: secular reasoning will ultimately lead us to wrong ideas of what to believe because such thinking is futile. Christian reasoning will lead us to right ideas. But since reasoning is a process it only offers presuppositions, not particular conclusions. Lloyd Jones does not understand the power of presuppositions in reasoning and so becomes a little confused about whether it should be accepted or rejected.
Conclusion: The Christian must approach reasoning with an inherent distrust so he may cling to Christian reasoning which is the wisdom of God and shun secular reasoning which is the wisdom of this world. Christian philosophy presupposes
God as its ultimate authority and foundation, secular reasoning presupposes man as the ultimate authority and foundation. Thus the importance for Christians in being able to know the difference, to be able to see errors in their own thinking, the thinking of others, of the Church, of society.
CONCLUSION
What is the distinguishing mark of Christian thinking? P.44“…to accept all things with the mind as related, directly or indirectly, to man’s eternal destiny as the redeemed and chosen child of God”
In our first lesson we talked about the kind of person who finds this subject fascinating. What is the role of a modern day thinker/prophet/philosopher? What does Blamires suggest this person will be like?
Do you see any of yourself in his descriptions so far?
Do you mark your average everyday thinking with a Christian perspective of the eternal?
“AS YOU DO PHILOSOPHY, BE DILIGENT TO DISCERN GODLY THINKING FROM UNGODLY. THIS IS THE CHRISTIAN MIND.”
posted by Tulipman @ 3/18/2006 02:38:00 p.m.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home