# Refomed Philosophy



## JS116 (Nov 17, 2011)

I was just viewing a video on the Reformed Forum and it was a discussion over theology and philosophy.It basically was an discussion between 4 christian men in the reformed faith(obviously if their on the reformed forum) haha

I agreed with one guy particularly on there named Bob LaRocca he stated these three points which summed up theology's relationship to philosophy

-Theology is authoritative over all sciences 
- Philosophy is dependent on theology,but never authoritative over theology
-Lower sciences(etc. chemistry,mathematics etc.) are dependent on philosophy but never authoritative over philosophy and definitely never over theology


I already stated where I stand,What are your views?do you agree or disagree?

You can view the video discussion in full here:

The Relationship of Philosophy to Theology - ReformedForum.org


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 18, 2011)

Well I would agree with your assesment for the most part. This issue is a hard one for anyone to consider but what it means is that our theology controls and informs our philosophy. We start with the reformed faith and work from there.


----------



## athanatos (Nov 18, 2011)

The point Bob makes is one he's made elsewhere. While his major interest in research has been on Scholastics in Reformed thought, he has been well informed and has written on the issue of the Order of Sciences -- namely, exactly what you're getting at.


----------



## dudley (Nov 18, 2011)

athanatos said:


> The point Bob makes is one he's made elsewhere. While his major interest in research has been on Scholastics in Reformed thought, he has been well informed and has written on the issue of the Order of Sciences -- Most discussion of this question presupposes an evidentialism, according to which belief in God is justified only if the balance of evidence suggests that such belief is true. The task of philosophers of religion is then seen as weighing the arguments for God’s existence against the arguments against God’s existence and determining which are the stronger.
> 
> Protestant Christian philosophers, most notably, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Nicholas Wolterstorff and Michael C. Rea.have demonstrated that Central to Reformed epistemology is the idea that belief in God is a "properly basic belief": it doesn't need to be inferred from other truths in order to be reasonable. Since this view represents a continuation of the thinking about the relationship between faith and reason that its founders find in 16th century Reformed theology, particularly in John Calvin's doctrine that God has planted in us a sensus divinitatis,
> 
> ...



Amen Jonathan.....when you said "namely, exactly what you're getting at?"

"Most discussion of this question presupposes an evidentialism, according to which belief in God is justified only if the balance of evidence suggests that such belief is true. The task of philosophers of religion is then seen as weighing the arguments for God’s existence against the arguments against God’s existence and determining which are the stronger.

Protestant Christian philosophers, most notably, Alvin Plantinga, William Alston, Nicholas Wolterstorff and Michael C. Rea.have demonstrated that Central to Reformed epistemology is the idea that belief in God is a "properly basic belief": it doesn't need to be inferred from other truths in order to be reasonable. Since this view represents a continuation of the thinking about the relationship between faith and reason that its founders find in 16th century Reformed theology, particularly in John Calvin's doctrine that God has planted in us a sensus divinitatis,

Reformed epistemologists reject this evidentialist assumption, affirming that belief in God can be rational even in the absence of evidence for God’s existence. Reformed epistemology is thus a reaction against both evidentialism and classical foundationalism.


----------



## Philip (Nov 18, 2011)

Reformed philosophy can be summed up in Anselm's dictum _fides quaerens intellectum_---faith seeking understanding.


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 20, 2011)

This is properly medieval Western 'meta'-theology/philosophy, drawn primarily from Thomas Aquinas and the Scholastics, who in turn drew from Plato, Aristotle, the Neoplatonists, and Augustine. In Aquinas' system, _theology_ is the undisputed queen of the sciences, followed by _philosophy_, its handmaiden; the _particular_ sciences (today the separate fields of biology, chemistry, astronomy, their sub-fields and sub-sub fields, etc.), which were fathered by philosophy, are the lowest on the totem pole. 

It helps to view this framework as an inverted (upside-down) pyramid, with theology and philosophy at the top dealing with the 'widest' area of knowledge and the particular sciences at the bottom the 'narrowist'. The proper object of theology and philosophy is universal/necessary/unchanging, and thus certain, knowledge. The principles of theology, in virtue of their being revealed to us by God, are the most universal/necessary/unchanging, and most certain (though least _understandable_ to us, because they are beyond reason -- enter faith); philosophy also deals in certainty, because its object is universal/necessary/unchanging knowledge (though more understandable to us -- reason suffices). The particular sciences are the least certain, or are uncertain, because they deal in particulars -- the things of the _changing_ physical world. (Plato argued that we can't have _knowledge_ proper of these things, since knowledge proper regards certainty).


----------



## Claudiu (Nov 20, 2011)

```
What the others have said:

 Theology
    /\
 Philosophy
  /    \
 Sciences
```


----------



## ChristianTrader (Nov 20, 2011)

How does one differentiate between Natural Theology/Natural Revelation and Philosophy?

CT


----------



## Reformed Thomist (Nov 21, 2011)

ChristianTrader said:


> How does one differentiate between Natural Theology/Natural Revelation and Philosophy?
> 
> CT



Natural theology is basically a bridge between philosophy and theology. It is the one point where these separate disciplines overlap or unite. It is the realm of both philosophers and theologians. Is it philosophy? Yes. Is it theology? Yes.

You might also say that natural theology is the very height of philosophy -- philosophy's end point -- and the lowest form of theology.


----------



## jwright82 (Nov 23, 2011)

ChristianTrader said:


> How does one differentiate between Natural Theology/Natural Revelation and Philosophy?
> 
> CT



From a VanTillian perspective you would make a dinstinction between natural revelation and natural theology. Natural revelation is immediate knowledge that we all have of God's existance and our required obediance to his moral law. The Reformed Scholastics, whom Van Til followed through Bavink, made a disnstinction apparently between true natural theology (regenerate natural theology) and false natural theology (unregenerate natural theology). The unbeleiver knows that there is a God to whom they owe obediance to but they warp that knowledge into the various religions that we have seen in history. In short the unbeleiver knows through natural revelation what I mentioned before but they warp it with a false natural theology that is of no use to them, in fact it is judgment for them. The regenerate on the other hand has a true natural theology that is a benifit to him or her due to their spiritual condition.

Philosophy is the logical analysis of creation and science is an empirical, or through observation, analysis of reality. The antithesis mentioned above with regard to natural theology plays itself out in philosophy and science through the attempts of men and women to interpret creation or make sense out of things. Science is trying to help us make sense out of creation by discovering natuaral laws. Philosophy asks bigger questions like metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The unbeleiver because of their core presupossitions (false natural theology) can never succeed in correctly interpreting creation in principle, that is if they were to succeed everthying they would believe would be false (hence Van Til's phrase that in principle they know nothing at all). But as we know they do know things, why?

Well Van Til gave three reasons that I can find. First the unbeleiver, like us, is made in the image of God. How absurd is it to try to use that image to disprove God, it is a contradiction everytime. Second creation is creation, so whenever we correctly interpret things we interpret them as creation (whether or not the unbeleiver wishes to confess that). This is where the phrase "thinking God's thoughts after him" comes into play. God and his archtypal knowledge "thought" up the way things would be first and than created everything. We follow in his "footsteps" and discover the way things are second, which is ectypal knowledge. Third God in his common grace restrains the evil intents of unbeleivers in their quest to interpret creation as something other than creation. 

So you see that we move from theology to philosophy to science. We don't start with a philosophical observation, that unbeleivers know truth, and use that to interpret our theology but we use theology to interpret and explain our philosophical observation. I recomend this book to anyone trying to understand Van Til's thinking:

Westminster Bookstore - Reformed Books - Low Prices - Flat Fee UPS Shipping - Revelation and Reason: New Essays in Reformed Apologetics (Paperback) Oliphint, K. Scott and Lane G. Tipton (editors) 9780875525969.

There is a wonderful essay in there on natural theology. And here is the cherry on top, a good discussion at Reformed Forum on natural theology.
Search Results for &ldquo;natural theology&rdquo; - ReformedForum.org.


----------

