# Benefits of studying philosophy



## Toasty

I have heard that one of the benefits of studying philosophy is that it will help to improve one's reasoning skills. Can other fields of study help one to improve their reasoning skills just as well as philosophy? 

Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?


----------



## RamistThomist

Toasty said:


> I have heard that one of the benefits of studying philosophy is that it will help to improve one's reasoning skills. Can other fields of study help one to improve their reasoning skills just as well as philosophy?
> 
> Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?



Logic is usually seen as a sub-discipline of philosophy. Studying mathematics would help, though the leading mathematicians of the 20th century were also philosophers (Whitehead, Russell). I suppose studying economics would help one's reasoning, but economics has traditionally been called moral philosophy.

It also depends what kind of philosophy. Platonic dialogues help, as would some of Aristotle.


----------



## KeithW

There is a thread which might be helpful: Relationship between philosophy and theology.

Philosophy is normally man trying to figure out himself and the universe from his perspective. Consider the story of Paul visiting Athens in Acts 17. The Greeks in that city gave themselves to nothing but philosophies and the study of new ideas. What did their best get them? Paul said, let me tell you about the God you do not know, the "God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;" (Acts 17:24,25)

I have heard men who develop their doctrine from the study of the Bible, theology and apologetics interact with men who develop their "Christian" doctrine from the rules of philosophy. The former describe men made in the image of God, and the latter describe a god made in the image of man.


----------



## Philip

"Theology is the Queen of the Sciences and Philosophy is her handmaid." ~Scholastic Proverb


----------



## RamistThomist

If you want to understand Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Aquinas, anything related to Prolegomena in theology (Bavinck, volume 1) you need to be fairly well acquainted with basic philosophy.


----------



## MW

Toasty said:


> Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?



The modern preoccupation with "method" means that the study of any discipline, including theology, will be full of philosophical speculation. Knowing the basic issues and schools of thought enables one to discern philosophical trends and have a sense of where they will lead.


----------



## RamistThomist

If you want to "sharpen" your thinking without getting into vain areas in philosophy, here's what worked for me (and these are in no particular order).

1. Pick up a copy of Plato's dialogues. They are actually quite fun. There are always hidden assumptions and Plato teaches you how to spot them (while having a few himself). 
2. Get JP Moreland's _Love your God with all your Mind_. He has a logic course within the book.
3. The standard text on Logic is Copi & Cohen. Don't buy the $175 edition. Earlier editions can be found for a handful of pennies. 
4. Analytic philosophy is probably more helpful than continental stuff. Though there are dangers in both.
5. Acquaint yourself with the classics of philosophy. I already mentioned Plato. Find works like the _Pocket Aristotle_, Also Descartes' _Meditions_. 
6. Zoom in on problems in philosophy (like Universals).


----------



## KeithW

Developing reasoning skills can start with understanding language, definitions, grammar, context, logic. If this sounds overly simplistic, I would ask this question. How can any of us understand or reason without the basic tools of language?



The Westminster Confession of Faith said:


> CHAPTER I. Of the Holy Scripture.
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded [offered for consideration] and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
> 
> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 
> IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold [many in number], but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
> 
> X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.


So the _Westminster Confession of Faith_ says it is possible through ordinary means that the average man (the unlearned man) can understand what the Bible says about salvation. But be aware that knowing and understanding what God has said in the Bible about what is necessary for salvation is a completely different thing from the heart accepting and believing what God has said about salvation.

In his "Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans", Martin Luther wrote, 



Martin Luther said:


> To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter [of Paul to the Romans] and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.



L. W. Grensted in his book _A Short History of the Doctrine of Atonement _tells that in the writings of the early Christian church, the words of the Bible such as sacrifice, propitiation, and redemption were understood and needed no explanation. This is quite different from modern times.



L. W. Grensted said:


> During the first two centuries after Christ little or no attempt was made to advance beyond or to interpret the statements of the New Testament. It was not in theory but in life that the Living Fact approved itself to men, and so it is natural that the earliest days of the Church should be marked by emphasis upon the Atonement as a fact. Of theory there is none. The subject is treated in the main devotionally, and the language of the New Testament is used freely and without comment. Such terms as "sacrifice," "propitiation," "redemption," recur again and again, but no conscious effort is ever made to work out what is implied in them. They were felt to suffice as they stood to express the Christian experience of the Cross. The age of doubts and questionings had not yet begun.



Here are excerpts from an article entitle "A Word Of Warning" written by Arthur W. Pink in his monthly publication called _Studies In The Scriptures_, August 1934.



Arthur W. Pink said:


> "Take heed what you hear." Mark 4:24
> 
> The word hear obviously includes what is read, for that which is written or printed is addressed to the ears of our intellect. Few people today realize the urgent need for 'taking heed' unto what they read. Just as the natural food which is eaten either helps or hinders the body; so the mental food we receive either benefits or injures the mind, and that, in turn, affects the heart. Now just as it is harmful to listen to the rubbish and poison which is being served from the great majority of present-day pulpits, so it is exceedingly injurious to the soul to read most of what is now being published. Take heed what you hear--and read!
> 
> "Those who are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh" (Romans 8:5), and are charmed with oratorical eloquence, catchy sayings, witty allusions, and jocular displays. On just such husks do the religious swine feed; but the penitent prodigal can find no nutriment therein!
> 
> Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless--no matter what prominent or popular name is attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which profits not.
> 
> Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed! Take heed what you hear--and read!


There is no substitute for spending time in God's Word. All other writing must be judged against God's Word.


----------



## Toasty

ReformedReidian said:


> Toasty said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have heard that one of the benefits of studying philosophy is that it will help to improve one's reasoning skills. Can other fields of study help one to improve their reasoning skills just as well as philosophy?
> 
> Would studying logic be sufficient for improving one's reasoning skills? Would it be necessary to study the works of ancient, medieval, and modern philosophers in order to improve one's reasoning skills?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Logic is usually seen as a sub-discipline of philosophy. Studying mathematics would help, though the leading mathematicians of the 20th century were also philosophers (Whitehead, Russell). I suppose studying economics would help one's reasoning, but economics has traditionally been called moral philosophy.
> 
> It also depends what kind of philosophy. Platonic dialogues help, as would some of Aristotle.
Click to expand...


You are right about math. Solving math problems requires one to think logically.


----------



## ZackF

I second the "Spending time in God's Word." You don't want to fall for an elaborate philosophical system in place of the truth. Philosophy can ensnare people anywhere from Rome to atheism (Thomism to Marxism).


----------



## Toasty

KeithW said:


> Developing reasoning skills can start with understanding language, definitions, grammar, context, logic. If this sounds overly simplistic, I would ask this question. How can any of us understand or reason without the basic tools of language?
> 
> 
> 
> The Westminster Confession of Faith said:
> 
> 
> 
> CHAPTER I. Of the Holy Scripture.
> 
> VII. All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded [offered for consideration] and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
> 
> VIII. The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God who have right unto, and interest in, the Scriptures, and are commanded, in the fear of God, to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and, through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, may have hope.
> 
> IX. The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold [many in number], but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly.
> 
> X. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> So the _Westminster Confession of Faith_ says it is possible through ordinary means that the average man (the unlearned man) can understand what the Bible says about salvation. But be aware that knowing and understanding what God has said in the Bible about what is necessary for salvation is a completely different thing from the heart accepting and believing what God has said about salvation.
> 
> In his "Preface to the Letter of St. Paul to the Romans", Martin Luther wrote,
> 
> 
> 
> Martin Luther said:
> 
> 
> 
> To begin with, we have to become familiar with the vocabulary of the letter [of Paul to the Romans] and know what St. Paul means by the words law, sin, grace, faith, justice, flesh, spirit, etc. Otherwise there is no use in reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> L. W. Grensted in his book _A Short History of the Doctrine of Atonement _tells that in the writings of the early Christian church, the words of the Bible such as sacrifice, propitiation, and redemption were understood and needed no explanation. This is quite different from modern times.
> 
> 
> 
> L. W. Grensted said:
> 
> 
> 
> During the first two centuries after Christ little or no attempt was made to advance beyond or to interpret the statements of the New Testament. It was not in theory but in life that the Living Fact approved itself to men, and so it is natural that the earliest days of the Church should be marked by emphasis upon the Atonement as a fact. Of theory there is none. The subject is treated in the main devotionally, and the language of the New Testament is used freely and without comment. Such terms as "sacrifice," "propitiation," "redemption," recur again and again, but no conscious effort is ever made to work out what is implied in them. They were felt to suffice as they stood to express the Christian experience of the Cross. The age of doubts and questionings had not yet begun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here are excerpts from an article entitle "A Word Of Warning" written by Arthur W. Pink in his monthly publication called _Studies In The Scriptures_, August 1934.
> 
> 
> 
> Arthur W. Pink said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Take heed what you hear." Mark 4:24
> 
> The word hear obviously includes what is read, for that which is written or printed is addressed to the ears of our intellect. Few people today realize the urgent need for 'taking heed' unto what they read. Just as the natural food which is eaten either helps or hinders the body; so the mental food we receive either benefits or injures the mind, and that, in turn, affects the heart. Now just as it is harmful to listen to the rubbish and poison which is being served from the great majority of present-day pulpits, so it is exceedingly injurious to the soul to read most of what is now being published. Take heed what you hear--and read!
> 
> "Those who are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh" (Romans 8:5), and are charmed with oratorical eloquence, catchy sayings, witty allusions, and jocular displays. On just such husks do the religious swine feed; but the penitent prodigal can find no nutriment therein!
> 
> Christian reader, if you value the health of your soul, cease hearing and quit reading all that is lifeless, unctionless, powerless--no matter what prominent or popular name is attached thereto. Life is too short to waste valuable time on that which profits not.
> 
> Ninety-nine out of every hundred of the religious books, booklets, and magazines now being published, are not worth the paper on which they are printed! Take heed what you hear--and read!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no substitute for spending time in God's Word. All other writing must be judged against God's Word.
Click to expand...


I agree. Knowing God's Word can help you to discern between truth and error.


----------



## Toasty

ReformedReidian said:


> If you want to "sharpen" your thinking without getting into vain areas in philosophy, here's what worked for me (and these are in no particular order).
> 
> 1. Pick up a copy of Plato's dialogues. They are actually quite fun. There are always hidden assumptions and Plato teaches you how to spot them (while having a few himself).
> 2. Get JP Moreland's _Love your God with all your Mind_. He has a logic course within the book.
> 3. The standard text on Logic is Copi & Cohen. Don't buy the $175 edition. Earlier editions can be found for a handful of pennies.
> 4. Analytic philosophy is probably more helpful than continental stuff. Though there are dangers in both.
> 5. Acquaint yourself with the classics of philosophy. I already mentioned Plato. Find works like the _Pocket Aristotle_, Also Descartes' _Meditions_.
> 6. Zoom in on problems in philosophy (like Universals).



The books by Moreland and Copi & Cohen look good.


----------



## RamistThomist

PA053


----------



## Cymro

Sarfati wrote, if we marry theology to today's science ,we will well be widowed tomorrow!
That could also be used for philosophy. Whilst I would not denigrate minds that can investigate
philosophically, I think that too much dalliance in that realm can injure ones religous life.
Warfield comments, 'Theology is stamped in each age with the traits of the philosophy ruling at
the time'. Theology and philosophy can so easily begin a war. As long as we know and are confident
in bible truth, this is the sword to wield.
Our own Phillip Henry stated,'The true learning of a gospel minister consists, not in being able
to talk Latin fluently, and to dispute in philosophy, but in being able to speak a word in season
to weary souls. He that knows how to do that well, is a learned minister'.


----------



## RamistThomist

People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.


----------



## RamistThomist

Without using philosophy and only the bible, please define the following:

1. Being 
2. Hypostasis
3. Form
4. Soul


----------



## JimmyH

ReformedReidian said:


> People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.



Can you offer any suggestions for an introductory volume that might be beneficial for someone not well versed in the basic concepts, and the specialized vocabulary ?


----------



## RamistThomist

JimmyH said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you offer any suggestions for an introductory volume that might be beneficial for someone not well versed in the basic concepts, and the specialized vocabulary ?
Click to expand...


Philosophy Made Slightly Less Difficult: A Beginner's Guide to Life's Big Questions: Garrett J. DeWeese, J. P. Moreland: 9780830827664: Amazon.com: Books
http://www.amazon.com/Terms-Philoso...=1432767552&sr=8-6&keywords=kelly+james+clark
And the aforementioned work by Moreland.


----------



## Toasty

JimmyH said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> People who categorically reject studying any kind of philosophy are probably the most captive to it. They cannot see their own assumptions. And if you don't study philosophy, the first 150 pages of any systematic theology will probably be incoherent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you offer any suggestions for an introductory volume that might be beneficial for someone not well versed in the basic concepts, and the specialized vocabulary ?
Click to expand...



http://www.amazon.com/The-Love-Wisdom-Introduction-Philosophy/dp/0805447709


----------



## MW

For a basic introduction from a reformed perspective I recommend Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash.


----------



## RamistThomist

MW said:


> For a basic introduction from a reformed perspective I recommend Life's Ultimate Questions by Ronald Nash.



I second that, and if you have access to Itunes, I recommend all the courses by Nash. He was a wonderful teacher.


----------



## Toasty

ReformedReidian said:


> If you want to understand Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Aquinas, anything related to Prolegomena in theology (Bavinck, volume 1) you need to be fairly well acquainted with basic philosophy.



Augustine was influenced by Platonism and Aquinas was influenced by Aristole's philosophy. Knowing about Plato and Aristotle would help one to understand Augustine and Aquinas.


----------



## RamistThomist

Toasty said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you want to understand Augustine, Origen, Anselm, Aquinas, anything related to Prolegomena in theology (Bavinck, volume 1) you need to be fairly well acquainted with basic philosophy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augustine was influenced by Platonism and Aquinas was influenced by Aristole's philosophy. Knowing about Plato and Aristotle would help one to understand Augustine and Aquinas.
Click to expand...


And the Reformed scholastics used Aristotelian terminology.


----------



## Kaj

I thought someone would mention Vern Poythress's work on Logic. The book is available for free as a .pdf

If there is any qualm with Poythress' works, please point me to it. I hope it is fine to share his work here on PB. I know many have issues with Frame, with whom Poythress shares a blog.


----------



## Toasty

Kaj said:


> I thought someone would mention Vern Poythress's work on Logic. The book is available for free as a .pdf
> 
> If there is any qualm with Poythress' works, please point me to it. I hope it is fine to share his work here on PB. I know many have issues with Frame, with whom Poythress shares a blog.



This is a great book. Thanks for the link.


----------



## RamistThomist

Another line of approach:

Get _Analytic Theology_ by Crisp and Rea. The contributors do a fine job of showing how philosophy can help. It also raises issues that aren't easily dismissed. Highly recommended (and it isn't that difficult to read).

The next is to invest in some works by Alvin Plantinga. Not so much for his conclusions (though I think he is more or less correct) but because he shows you how to work through some tough issues. I would start with _God and Other Minds_ or _God, Freedom, and Evil_, and Kelly James Clark's _Return to Reason_.

Finally, and be afraid, for this is _hard_, is to get Moreland and Craig's _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_. It took me ten years to comprehend it, but it has one of the best chapters on logic from a Christian perspective ever penned.


----------



## Toasty

John Frame has a forthcoming book entitled _A History of Western Philosophy and Theology_. This syllabus from RTS contains a reference to this book: https://www.rts.edu/SharedResources/Documents/Charlotte/Spring2015/ST504 - Syllabus and SLOs.pdf

I contacted the publisher and I received a response saying that the book will not be released until late 2015.


----------



## RamistThomist

Toasty said:


> John Frame has a forthcoming book entitled _A History of Western Philosophy and Theology_. This syllabus from RTS contains a reference to this book: https://www.rts.edu/SharedResources/Documents/Charlotte/Spring2015/ST504 - Syllabus and SLOs.pdf
> 
> I contacted the publisher and I received a response saying that the book will not be released until late 2015.



Should be interesting. I Had the history of philosophy course with him under ItunesU


----------



## Toasty

I just found out that the University of New Orleans has several philosophy courses on iTunes such as philosophy of mind, ethics, philosophy of natural science, philosophy of religion, logic, and so on.


----------



## Toasty

ReformedReidian said:


> Another line of approach:
> 
> Get _Analytic Theology_ by Crisp and Rea. The contributors do a fine job of showing how philosophy can help. It also raises issues that aren't easily dismissed. Highly recommended (and it isn't that difficult to read).
> 
> The next is to invest in some works by Alvin Plantinga. Not so much for his conclusions (though I think he is more or less correct) but because he shows you how to work through some tough issues. I would start with _God and Other Minds_ or _God, Freedom, and Evil_, and Kelly James Clark's _Return to Reason_.
> 
> Finally, and be afraid, for this is _hard_, is to get Moreland and Craig's _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_. It took me ten years to comprehend it, but it has one of the best chapters on logic from a Christian perspective ever penned.



Thank you for the suggestions. Moreland and Craig's _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_ cover a wide range of topics.


----------



## RamistThomist

Toasty said:


> ReformedReidian said:
> 
> 
> 
> Another line of approach:
> 
> Get _Analytic Theology_ by Crisp and Rea. The contributors do a fine job of showing how philosophy can help. It also raises issues that aren't easily dismissed. Highly recommended (and it isn't that difficult to read).
> 
> The next is to invest in some works by Alvin Plantinga. Not so much for his conclusions (though I think he is more or less correct) but because he shows you how to work through some tough issues. I would start with _God and Other Minds_ or _God, Freedom, and Evil_, and Kelly James Clark's _Return to Reason_.
> 
> Finally, and be afraid, for this is _hard_, is to get Moreland and Craig's _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_. It took me ten years to comprehend it, but it has one of the best chapters on logic from a Christian perspective ever penned.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for the suggestions. Moreland and Craig's _Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview_ cover a wide range of topics.
Click to expand...


I am not going to lie. It.Is.Hard. But it's one of the best tools on the market.


----------



## RamistThomist

http://realdialektik.blogspot.com/p/epistemologians-destination.htmlWhen J.P. Moreland prepared himself to debate Kai Nielsen, the world's then-leading atheist, he read all of the key literature on the topic. While I have no forensic intentions, I am trying to work through a list Moreland and Craig came out with. It will take about ten years.

Epistemologian's Destination.


----------



## Toasty

Reading the non-Christian classics of philosophy can help one to get practice evaluating arguments. They can help one to understand history and various theologians. I do not believe that they help one to be more godly or more sanctified.


----------



## TrustGzus

Henry/Toasty,

I can't give thumbs-up for posts yet as I'm too new. I appreciate this thread. Great topic. I appreciate Jacob's/ReformedReidian's comments too and that he can positively recommend Craig and Moreland on the subject. I listen to various Reformed podcasts and some people have a hard time saying anything that isn't negative about Craig. It's nice to see a Reformed person say something positive about Craig's contributions. They've helped me a lot though obviously I think he needs to do some work on his soteriology.


----------



## Toasty

Some people might ask, "Doesn't the practice of philosophy assume that one must find truth without God's special revelation?" One does not have to do philosophy as non-Christians would. One can use the Bible to test everything. If something contradicts what the Bible, then it should be rejected. Some people think that if you use the Bible to test everything, then you are really doing theology, not philosophy. However, everyone has a worldview and everyone uses what they consider to be the final authority. Christians and non-Christians are not going to agree with what the final authority should be.

Both Christians and non-Christians can study about the philosophy of science. They can think about its nature, its assumptions, its limitations, and so on. When the Christian studies about the philosophy of science, he will test everything against the Bible and reject everything that is contrary the Bible. When the non-Christian studies the philosophy of science, he does not consider that the Bible teaches. He doesn't care if he contradicts the Bible.


----------



## TrustGzus

If by Special Revelation you mean Scripture, then even Scripture teaches that one can discover some truth without Special Revelation. Romans 1 & 2 seem pretty clear about that. 

It's obvious that people recognize laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle without having Special Revelation.


----------



## MW

TrustGzus said:


> It's obvious that people recognize laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle without having Special Revelation.



But would they have a justifiable basis for them without special revelation? If reason is a gift of God it should be used to the glory of God, and special revelation is needed to bring man to this blessed goal.


----------



## Toasty

TrustGzus said:


> If by Special Revelation you mean Scripture, then even Scripture teaches that one can discover some truth without Special Revelation. Romans 1 & 2 seem pretty clear about that.
> 
> It's obvious that people recognize laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle without having Special Revelation.



Special Revelation is Scripture. I should have written, "Some people think that doing philosophy entails rejecting Special Revelation."


----------



## RamistThomist

Toasty said:


> Reading the non-Christian classics of philosophy can help one to get practice evaluating arguments. They can help one to understand history and various theologians. I do not believe that they help one to be more godly or more sanctified.



And it is hard to imagine the Western intellectual tradition without reading Plato, Aristotle, or Descartes (to just name a few). Plato has lyrical moments. Not exactly sanctification, but neither a waste of time. And he is actually _enjoyable_ to read. Reading Augustine on truth, being, and divine simplicity without first understanding Plato is to miss a lot of what is going on.



> I appreciate Jacob's/ReformedReidian's comments too and that he can positively recommend Craig and Moreland on the subject. I listen to various Reformed podcasts and some people have a hard time saying anything that isn't negative about Craig. It's nice to see a Reformed person say something positive about Craig's contributions.


Glad I could help. I wouldn't go to Craig on some points, to be sure, but he is the Evangelical world's leading apologist at the moment. If you want to see a positively critical evaluation, get James Anderson's course on ITunesU and he deals with Craig.


----------



## TrustGzus

MW said:


> TrustGzus said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious that people recognize laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle without having Special Revelation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But would they have a justifiable basis for them without special revelation? If reason is a gift of God it should be used to the glory of God, and special revelation is needed to bring man to this blessed goal.
Click to expand...


Greetings Matthew, in order to read and comprehend special revelation, people must employ the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. If a person attempts to deny any of them, one will employ the law in the denial of the law. Thus, they are self-affirming. Scripture just assumes them. Scripture never supplies a justifiable basis for them.


----------



## MW

TrustGzus said:


> Greetings Matthew, in order to read and comprehend special revelation, people must employ the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle. If a person attempts to deny any of them, one will employ the law in the denial of the law. Thus, they are self-affirming. Scripture just assumes them. Scripture never supplies a justifiable basis for them.



You haven't answered the question. How do you justify them without special revelation? And now that you have pronounced them necessary for understanding special revelation, how do you explain things which are beyond reason?

The fact is, reason was never intended to function without special revelation.


----------



## jwithnell

> in order to read and comprehend special revelation, people must employ the laws of identity, non-contradiction and excluded middle.


Perhaps it would be useful to flip this assertion around. Ours is a God of order. Reason has discover-able laws just as the physical world has discover-able laws, because they reflect something of the glory of God. In as much as logicians have discovered the orderliness of our God, what they say (non-contradiction, the use of a syllogism, etc.) is accurate and describes a reasonable way to approach knowledge, it can be useful to believers and non-believers alike. What is alarming is the way the way the western world has first abandoned God and is now abandoning reason altogether. Look at what's going on in the common core curriculum: 7+3 can equal 13! When math for the last zillion years has asserted that A cannot be non-A


----------



## VictorBravo

TrustGzus said:


> Thus, they are self-affirming. Scripture just assumes them. Scripture never supplies a justifiable basis for them.



Those laws are justified by Scripture. Genesis 1:1, 1:26. Implied in Romans 1:20 and elsewhere. God's Word plainly explains that reason is a faculty imparted to the creature known as man.

As Calvin notes in his _Institutes_:



> That there exists in the human minds and indeed by natural instinct, some sense of Deity, we hold to be beyond dispute, since God himself, to prevent any man from pretending ignorance, has endued all men with some idea of his Godhead....



Book 1, Chapter 3, section 1

We don't necessarily have to be aware of these abilities while learning how to read, but certainly the reason we can learn how to read is justified by Scripture.


----------



## TrustGzus

jwithnell, great post. Thank you. 

VictorBravo, I agree and I thought of posting a post along similar lines stating that the nature of God is the justifiable basis for basic laws used in logic and philosophy. Logic and reasoning flow from him and out of him. 

However, if that's what we are looking for, I can't help but wonder the point of Matthew asking the question about their justifiable basis because if we simply point to Genesis 1:1, then we can ask anyone in any thread about the justifIable basis of any useful thing in life and point back to the existence of God and the nature of God.


----------



## MW

TrustGzus said:


> the nature of God is the justifiable basis for basic laws used in logic and philosophy.



God is transcendent, which is obvious from the fact that there are truths about God which transcend reason. A divine act of creation must be the basis for these laws. Creation, though, is a doctrine of special revelation and is understood by faith.


----------

