# Modern World System



## A S (May 20, 2009)

Hi, today I read the verse,

"We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ" -2Cor.10:5 (ESV)

And I've been thinking that perhaps it would help if I fully understood these "arguments" which I am supposed to "destroy", in order to actually destroy them...

The list below is who I think are probably the top five most influential thinkers on the modern world system, but please correct me if I am wrong or make additions to the list...

*einstein / relativity / relativism
freud / modern psychology & sexuality
marx / communism & political science & economics
nietzsche / existentialism & postermodernism, power
darwin / evolution / atheistic naturalism*

I figure I should both go to the original sources and read some modern reformed Christian apologetics / polemics on the subjects (in order that I do not attempt to reinvent the wheel!) *Please post your book recommendations and / or thoughts on how we as Christians should be tackling these godless world views which are basically presupposed as fact in our society...*

*AND how do we approach people who have these philosophies ingrained in their minds?* For example, if I go up to someone on a university campus who holds the stereotypical worldview set forth by the people mentioned above, and if I begin to preach Christ crucified-- I think that except for the grace of God, would it not be completely irrelevant to them? Should I not first find a way to dismantle their current philosophy, (in effect, shutting the mouth of our opponent...), and then proclaim the truth of God's sovereignty in salvation and man's total depravity along with the call for repentance and faith?

Ok, Thanks to anyone for your time!


----------



## steven-nemes (May 20, 2009)

The Veritas Forum <-- plenty of good mp3 resources on different lectures by different professors who deal with such topic. bethinking.org - Engage with Culture also has great resources.


----------



## christianyouth (May 20, 2009)

I don't know if it was the practice of Paul and the early Christians to engage in the types of debates that we see today. I mean, I think the two earliest apologetic writings, one from Jutsin Martyr and some other writer(I forget the name right now), both seem to be more about explaining what Christians believe and not so much arguing for it. 

So I want to know, maybe from others on this board but also from the OP, why do we think that Paul and his companions(the 'we' in the verse) were destroying arguments and lofty opinions through the use of reason/debate?


----------



## steven-nemes (May 20, 2009)

christianyouth said:


> I don't know if it was the practice of Paul and the early Christians to engage in the types of debates that we see today. I mean, I think the two earliest apologetic writings, one from Jutsin Martyr and some other writer(I forget the name right now), both seem to be more about explaining what Christians believe and not so much arguing for it.
> 
> So I want to know, maybe from others on this board but also from the OP, why do we think that Paul and his companions(the 'we' in the verse) were destroying arguments and lofty opinions through the use of reason/debate?



I think Scripture tells us that Paul regularly visited the synagogue when he came to a city and debated with the Jews. We also have Apollos (in Acts 18?) who debated the Jews publicly, refuted them, and the Christians came and taught him more accurate doctrine, etc. So it was the practice of some Christians, early Christians, to debate and argue with the other religious representatives.


----------



## christianyouth (May 20, 2009)

steven-nemes said:


> christianyouth said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know if it was the practice of Paul and the early Christians to engage in the types of debates that we see today. I mean, I think the two earliest apologetic writings, one from Jutsin Martyr and some other writer(I forget the name right now), both seem to be more about explaining what Christians believe and not so much arguing for it.
> ...



This is a good point, but I'm still not sure that this means that the verse the OP posted was speaking about tearing down unbelieving world views via logic and debate. They could have been tearing down those world views through spiritual means, IE through prayer and the preaching of the Gospel.


----------



## steven-nemes (May 20, 2009)

I think it could be a mixture of argumentation and disciplined moral performance as well as prayer and such, too. Though I do see examples of Paul and Apollos, at least, who did argue and debate the Jews regularly. Paul's approach to spreading the gospel seems to be via argumentation and appealing to the intellect of his audience, so I wouldn't doubt that he would do his fair share of debating and such.

Not related to this, but I think a quote along these lines from J.P. Moreland is particularly interesting: [in response to the common objection to the gospel call along the lines of "I have no need of religion/Jesus/etc"] "If we presented the gospel the way the apostles did [through rational argumentation and presenting of facts, etc.], this response would make no sense and would not be a valid reason to not believe." Paraphrase, but that's about it.


----------



## A S (May 20, 2009)

A good point has been made about the war being spiritual in nature and the necessity for prayer. The verse exactly before the verse I quoted in the OP is this one, *"4For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds." 2Cor 10:4*

Wow.

So what do we make of this?


----------



## christianyouth (May 20, 2009)

Ah, good point Adam. I think that verse reinforces my position that the means of tearing down strong holds and taking thoughts captive to Christ were preaching and prayer. I think that can be found throughout Paul's writings, especially at the beginning of 1 Corinthians where he speaks of God choosing to save people through the _foolishness_ of preaching, or in the letter to the Romans where he speaks of the Gospel as the power of God unto salvation.

But Steve, I know we don't have real detailed accounts of how Paul presented the Gospel, but from what I see, he doesn't really argue in the sense that we argue today. When he goes to the Greeks to preach his doctrine at Mars Hill, he doesn't argue his points, he just more proclaims(at least in the text we have).

I would like to see other peoples opinions on this, and I bet the OP and Steve would too.


----------



## MrMerlin777 (May 20, 2009)

Relativity and Relativism are two different things.


----------



## Hadassah (May 20, 2009)

That made me think about:
"our task as ambassadors is to bring good news to people. Our mission as soldiers is to overthrow false ideas. We must keep those objectives straight; we are not entitled to wage warfare against people or to enter into diplomatic relations with anti-Christian ideas. Our warfare is not against flesh or blood (Ephesians 6:12); and our duty as ambassadors does not permit us to compromise or align ourselves with any kind of human philosophies, religious deceit, or any other kind of falsehood (Colossians 2:8). 
If those sound like difficult assignments to keep in balance and maintain in proper perspective, it is because they are indeed." Quote from "The Truth War", John MacArthur.

Hope it isn´t totally of topic...


----------



## steven-nemes (May 20, 2009)

christianyouth said:


> But Steve, I know we don't have real detailed accounts of how Paul presented the Gospel, but from what I see, he doesn't really argue in the sense that we argue today. When he goes to the Greeks to preach his doctrine at Mars Hill, he doesn't argue his points, he just more proclaims(at least in the text we have).



I suppose the account of Paul's speech at Mars Hill is more a less a summary of his actual speech; I have read that back then, a person presenting his philosophy before the Areopagus would be given an entire day to prepare and memorize their speech, and no doubt it would be longer than what Paul is recorded as saying. If that is the case, then it could be that Luke omitted the arguments in favor of Paul's points and simply included his positive assertions.

Also, I see no reason to suppose that Paul didn't debate and present argumentation in favor of Jesus being the Christ. He is clearly one of the more intellectual of the earliest Christians.

And we know for a fact that at least Apollos did debate and argue.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

MrMerlin777 said:


> Relativity and Relativism are two different things.





I don't think it would be right to attribute relativism to Einstein. Also, why is Immanuel Kant not mentioned? The most influential theologian in the Neo-Orthodox movement is Karl Barth and I believe that Barth himself was employing Kantian epistemology.


----------



## awretchsavedbygrace (May 20, 2009)

Tell them repent and believe or else  Just kidding. I'v just been wanting to use that smiley face and this was the best time.


----------



## A S (May 20, 2009)

Chippy said:


> MrMerlin777 said:
> 
> 
> > Relativity and Relativism are two different things.
> ...



Regarding Einstein's theory of relativity and moral relativism-- I guess that's just what I have been told and so I assumed it was true. Maybe his theory was something that did help spawn the philosophy, but he himself did not hold the belief?

And about Kant-- I really do not know much about him. Tell me what to write in a similiar format and i'll ammend it to the original post... Ok thanks.


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

First, I am not certain of what you mean by the phrase "modern world system." I am familiar with the term "worldview" which you can read about in the writings of Van Til and Francis Schaeffer. According to the Wikipedia page of the World-systems approach,



> The World-systems approach is a post-Marxist view of world affairs, one of several historical and current applications of Marxism to international relations.





> Technically speaking, World-systems analysis is not a theory, but an approach to social analysis and social change.



I think that the more proper term is not world system but worldview. Or, if you do not like that term and if your approach is more philosophical then why not use the term philosophical system?

Second, I would suggest that instead of attributing these systems/schools of thought to influential thinkers, it might be better to just list down their major proponents.

For example, regarding relativism, the Wikipedia page ([ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativism"]Wikipedia page[/ame]) on that subject matter doesn't even mention Einstein's name. However, it does provide a list of proponents some of which I am familiar with and I would agree that some of the names mentioned like Feyerabend and Kuhn would have something to do with Relativism. Yet, I don't think that it can be attributed to one influential thinker as the one who started the approach.

And, the difficult thing with men like Immanuel Kant is that their influence is vast that we cannot simply narrow them down to any one of the systems mentioned. On the subject of Kant's influence, Wikipedia states the following:



> The vastness of Kant's influence on Western thought is immeasurable.[66] Over and above his specific influence on specific thinkers, Kant changed the framework within which philosophical inquiry has been carried out from his day through the present in ways that have been irreversible.





> Some or all of these Kantian ideas can be seen in schools of thought as different from one another as German Idealism, Marxism, positivism, phenomenology, existentialism, critical theory, linguistic philosophy, structuralism, post-structuralism, and deconstructionism.


----------



## A S (May 20, 2009)

Thanks Chippy-- that was very helpful! It looks like I might be on the wrong track as far as my approach to this goes... What do you think I should do to best educate myself?

Maybe I should just get to work and keep studying my Bible, theology, philosophy, apologetics, and history, etc...? But what exactly should I be studying, as far as these subjects go... For example: History according to who? Philosophy according to who?  Now obviously I have the theology one covered-- this being the puritan board and all... 

All of this completely covered in prayer, of course...


----------



## Oecolampadius (May 20, 2009)

Have you read any book by Van Til? Here are some books of his I would recommend:

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Christian Theory of Knowledge
and
[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Defense-Faith-Cornelius-Van-Til/dp/0875526446/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1242869518&sr=8-2]Amazon.com: The Defense of the Faith: Cornelius Van Til, K. Scott Oliphint: Books[/ame]

I have read both books and I highly recommend them because I believe that Van Til provides a consistently biblical Christian philosophy. In his books, Van Til lumps all these worldly philosophical systems together into one worldview: the non-Christian worldview. Van Til says that all these have one ultimate presupposition: autonomy from God or man's supposed autonomy. I'm not suggesting that we should disregard the fact that these systems do differ from one another but it is important that we are able to view them from the presuppositional level.

I'm no fan of John Frame but he does have some lectures on the History of Philosophy and Christian Thought which you can get from iTunes for free through this LINK. John Frame is an able scholar and so I don't doubt that you will learn much from his lectures.


----------



## steven-nemes (May 22, 2009)

Read Alvin Plantinga's stuff.


----------

