Good video. When I was going to an IFB church a couple years ago, they openly spoke against a classical education involving philosophy. I was also warned against taking a philosophy class in high school because a relative thought it would cause me to lose my faith. This seems inconsistent to me because St. Paul quotes pagan philosophers in a positive way (e.g., Acts 17:28). St. Justin Martyr also speaks very highly of the philosophers. I think it's safe to conclude that philosophy is a useful tool, it just needs to be subject to the Scriptures.
Off topic. There has been this Catholic channel named "Since AD 33" that has been attacking Lutheranism on multiple doctrines, and I don't know why Lutherans aren't responding to him, I don't think it's a good idea to let this go unchallenged.
Could you guys please check out the figure of Rudolph Goclenius. He is a lutheran scholastic philosopher that coined the term "ontology" and made some contributions to the field of psychology, he belonged to the school of Peter Ramus. Looks pretty interesting.
@ScholasticLutherans oh, really? I couldn't find anything in his internet biographies that suggested he was reformed, and chatgpt told me twice that he was firmly lutheran 😅.
Good point! However, aren't we addressing Two different matters here? Couldn't a Christian use philosophy to understand or explain his faith, yet at the same time _not_ think himself wise? In the spirit of Christian humility?
Scholastic philosophy came out of the Christian body though in order to give a reason and understanding of their faith. So 1, it’s not “worldly” philosophy and philosophy itself is not inherently bad. And 2, scripture tells us to come and reason together and to be ready to be able to give an answer for the hope that lies within us.
@@drewpanyko5424 maybe i'm wrong. Of course we should have some understanding on basic greek concepts and ideas of that time and beyond to understand scripture. But I personally don't think diving into philosophy would help much to understand faith. Imo it is a little bit of wasting my time, when i could study scripture, greek, theology or work instead.
@@twarozek1410 It doesn't seem particularly useful? Was it not particularly useful in the first six councils that actively had to discuss extensively concepts of substance, nature, hypostasis, personhood and unity? It always frustrates me when we relegate philosophy as if it's irrelevant to Christian theology. As Lutherans, do we not confess three creeds ? Do we find that these terms like substance, nature, unity, and being came from nowhere? I'm genuinely so curious how we can defend a position about philosophy not being particularly useful, when as lutherans, we literally add three creeds, two of which use extensive language, especially the Athanasian, that is inherently baked into a Greek philosophical context Additionally, when we go to the Augsburg confession and there's discussion of original sin, when he says form and material to distinguish between hereditary guilt and hereditary corruption, do those terms also just come from nowhere? When we, as lutherans, articulate our view on the Lord's supper. We literally necessarily have to use philosophical terms, think of one of the greatest inventions of the Lutheran theological tradition, the third genus of the communication of attributes, that we use to explain our view of the Lord's Supper to others. When Augustine formulates original sin in the proper context, it literally comes explicitly from a discussion with the Manicheans that's about whether or not evil its own equivalent substance to Good, or a privation of Good. In fact, Augustine's entire claim to fame is the fact that he was a scholar who managed to put forth so much theological development that's collectively inherited by the entire western tradition. The question then becomes, do we have a case as Christians to deny the use, or relegate philosophy to an entirely tertiary position? And if so, would this be consistent with all of the views of the church collectively in the past, both in matters that we agree and disagree on? Would this even be consistent with the Lutheran figures of our tradition itself? I just feel like when you consider the total evidence, Christianity clearly uses Greek concepts for the sake of extrapolating and explaining doctrines that we pull from revealed scripture. The burden of proof is on the other person to give a justification as to why we should relegate the use of philosophy not only lower to the general Church Catholic, which in some cases we might agree to, but also lower than the actual most important theologians of our entire tradition, people like Philip Melancthon using form and material in Ap. AC and Martin Chemnitz using substance and accident in the Formula. Our Lutheran forefathers never had to make a choice between multiple fields of theological study, and realized that different fields pertain to different doctrines in different parts of theology as a whole. I just don't see why we would relegate it lower arbitrarily now.
I tend to find that it’s usually the goofier IFB/evangelicals/non denominationals who are hyper anti-intellectual, not Lutherans. Though, I admit I may be a bit biased.
@@natewagner5746 The fact you are taking such a position on philosophy means you are using philosophy implicitly… indicating you don’t actually think it’s useless.
@TitusCastiglione1503 🤓, you're right I think it's harmful to society just like the Enlightenment was, women end up going to college instead of taking care of things at home and having a family
@ I’m sorry I find that outrageously absurd. “Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." - C.S. Lewis
Just use the cheat codes. A lot of books give new age summaries that make it more palatable and unless you are trying to get a degree it will give you all the main takeaways without the mundane.
Thank for this. Great to see sunshine with you. We have been in a dark damp space for months here in UK.
Those who opposed philosphy end up doing it poorly.
Some of those who promote it successfully can lead to heresy.
Good video. When I was going to an IFB church a couple years ago, they openly spoke against a classical education involving philosophy. I was also warned against taking a philosophy class in high school because a relative thought it would cause me to lose my faith. This seems inconsistent to me because St. Paul quotes pagan philosophers in a positive way (e.g., Acts 17:28). St. Justin Martyr also speaks very highly of the philosophers. I think it's safe to conclude that philosophy is a useful tool, it just needs to be subject to the Scriptures.
Some people could end up idolizing philosophy due to original sin and decide to worship that rather than follow what the Bible says
@@natewagner5746 Very true, anything can become an idol for sure!
Off topic.
There has been this Catholic channel named "Since AD 33" that has been attacking Lutheranism on multiple doctrines, and I don't know why Lutherans aren't responding to him, I don't think it's a good idea to let this go unchallenged.
@@EcclesiaInvicta we could look into it. It seems to be a small channel which is why nobody has responded to it probably
It would be awesome to have and read a book on Lutheran Philosophy.
@@joharr4406 I am translating primary sources like Posewitz right now, and soon I will be translating public domain secondary sources too.
- Jared
Could you guys please check out the figure of Rudolph Goclenius. He is a lutheran scholastic philosopher that coined the term "ontology" and made some contributions to the field of psychology, he belonged to the school of Peter Ramus. Looks pretty interesting.
@@peccatorjustificatus777 I see that he's actually Reformed.
@ScholasticLutherans oh, really? I couldn't find anything in his internet biographies that suggested he was reformed, and chatgpt told me twice that he was firmly lutheran 😅.
@@peccatorjustificatus777 PRDL lists him as Reformed.
Theology uses philosophical concepts and categories. Those underlying assumptions can be incoherent and lead to false theology.
Do you have an IA car?
And here I just heard from an EO acquaintance that we are too beholden to Western philosophy. How about that.
The EO has an irrational hatred for Western Christianity as a whole.
They're right, most Lutherans think the Enlightenment was a good thing when it actually hurt Christianity, and this is coming from a Wels Lutheran
I am
Based
Colossians 2:8. Paul warns against wordly philosophy. As christians we shouldn't think that we are wise.
Good point! However, aren't we addressing Two different matters here? Couldn't a Christian use philosophy to understand or explain his faith, yet at the same time _not_ think himself wise? In the spirit of Christian humility?
Scholastic philosophy came out of the Christian body though in order to give a reason and understanding of their faith. So 1, it’s not “worldly” philosophy and philosophy itself is not inherently bad. And 2, scripture tells us to come and reason together and to be ready to be able to give an answer for the hope that lies within us.
@@hjc1402 well said! Thank you, brother!
@@drewpanyko5424 maybe i'm wrong. Of course we should have some understanding on basic greek concepts and ideas of that time and beyond to understand scripture. But I personally don't think diving into philosophy would help much to understand faith. Imo it is a little bit of wasting my time, when i could study scripture, greek, theology or work instead.
@@twarozek1410 It doesn't seem particularly useful? Was it not particularly useful in the first six councils that actively had to discuss extensively concepts of substance, nature, hypostasis, personhood and unity?
It always frustrates me when we relegate philosophy as if it's irrelevant to Christian theology. As Lutherans, do we not confess three creeds ?
Do we find that these terms like substance, nature, unity, and being came from nowhere? I'm genuinely so curious how we can defend a position about philosophy not being particularly useful, when as lutherans, we literally add three creeds, two of which use extensive language, especially the Athanasian, that is inherently baked into a Greek philosophical context
Additionally, when we go to the Augsburg confession and there's discussion of original sin, when he says form and material to distinguish between hereditary guilt and hereditary corruption, do those terms also just come from nowhere?
When we, as lutherans, articulate our view on the Lord's supper. We literally necessarily have to use philosophical terms, think of one of the greatest inventions of the Lutheran theological tradition, the third genus of the communication of attributes, that we use to explain our view of the Lord's Supper to others.
When Augustine formulates original sin in the proper context, it literally comes explicitly from a discussion with the Manicheans that's about whether or not evil its own equivalent substance to Good, or a privation of Good. In fact, Augustine's entire claim to fame is the fact that he was a scholar who managed to put forth so much theological development that's collectively inherited by the entire western tradition.
The question then becomes, do we have a case as Christians to deny the use, or relegate philosophy to an entirely tertiary position? And if so, would this be consistent with all of the views of the church collectively in the past, both in matters that we agree and disagree on?
Would this even be consistent with the Lutheran figures of our tradition itself?
I just feel like when you consider the total evidence, Christianity clearly uses Greek concepts for the sake of extrapolating and explaining doctrines that we pull from revealed scripture. The burden of proof is on the other person to give a justification as to why we should relegate the use of philosophy not only lower to the general Church Catholic, which in some cases we might agree to, but also lower than the actual most important theologians of our entire tradition, people like Philip Melancthon using form and material in Ap. AC and Martin Chemnitz using substance and accident in the Formula.
Our Lutheran forefathers never had to make a choice between multiple fields of theological study, and realized that different fields pertain to different doctrines in different parts of theology as a whole. I just don't see why we would relegate it lower arbitrarily now.
If you try and talk to the Lutherans on places like reddit or whatever you'd think that we were opposed to philosophy lol
Reddit is likely elca though right. Can't imagine lcms there
@michaels7325 yeah maybe you're right
@@WizardOfTheDezert Reddit is a blight upon humanity.
@@ScholasticLutherans That is true. I cannot contest that.
I tend to find that it’s usually the goofier IFB/evangelicals/non denominationals who are hyper anti-intellectual, not Lutherans. Though, I admit I may be a bit biased.
Most definitely. I used to attend such churches and now I attend an Anglican Church and thinking about studying philosophy at university.
@incertosage lol, just become a pastor if you're that dedicated, not something useless like philosophy that the communist atheists study
@@natewagner5746 The fact you are taking such a position on philosophy means you are using philosophy implicitly… indicating you don’t actually think it’s useless.
@TitusCastiglione1503 🤓, you're right I think it's harmful to society just like the Enlightenment was, women end up going to college instead of taking care of things at home and having a family
@ I’m sorry I find that outrageously absurd.
“Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered." - C.S. Lewis
I just find reading philosophy really boring
Just use the cheat codes. A lot of books give new age summaries that make it more palatable and unless you are trying to get a degree it will give you all the main takeaways without the mundane.
@ thx