# Plato and scripture compatible in physical world?



## jwithnell (Aug 24, 2010)

Can/should Christian use the terms of the Greeks, specifically Plato, to describe the physical vs non-physical world? I have some specific thoughts on the matter, but was curious to see what y'all would say. This is not just a hypothetical; it has come up recently among folks I highly respect and I don't want to jump in until I'm more sure of my position. Thanks!


----------



## Skyler (Aug 24, 2010)

John used the terms of the Greeks to describe Jesus.

"The logos became flesh", etc.


----------



## Skyler (Aug 24, 2010)

A little bit of a warning though. Even though John used the Greeks' philosophical terminology, he didn't subscribe to their philosophy. Likewise, although we can use philosophical terminology derived from unbelievers, we need to derive our philosophy from the Bible.


----------



## Grillsy (Aug 24, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Can/should Christian use the terms of the Greeks, specifically Plato, to describe the physical vs non-physical world? I have some specific thoughts on the matter, but was curious to see what y'all would say. This is not just a hypothetical; it has come up recently among folks I highly respect and I don't want to jump in until I'm more sure of my position. Thanks!


 
Plato can be compatible with Scripture only in-so-far as natural revelation can take a man.


----------



## torstar (Aug 24, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Can/should Christian use the terms of the Greeks, specifically Plato, to describe the physical vs non-physical world? I have some specific thoughts on the matter, but was curious to see what y'all would say. This is not just a hypothetical; it has come up recently among folks I highly respect and I don't want to jump in until I'm more sure of my position. Thanks!


 

Certain denominations have spent several centuries doing this.

The interest has ebbed and flowed historically as the culture went along.


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 24, 2010)

> John used the Greeks' philosophical terminology, he didn't subscribe to their philosophy.


 Yes, and Paul too definitely drew from what was around him to engage the Gentile world.



> Plato can be compatible with Scripture only in-so-far as natural revelation can take a man.


 That's along the lines I was considering -- the line is drawn between general and special revelation.

But would it be accurate to say that the Hellenistic influences affected the wordings of the creeds?


----------



## Philip (Aug 24, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> But would it be accurate to say that the Hellenistic influences affected the wordings of the creeds?


 
Sure---but the Syriac tradition was also quite involved, at least at Nicaea. Ephesus proved that communication between the Syriac and Greek-speaking churches was extremely difficult due to distance, which is why the Syriac contingent at Chalcedon was small (though quite influential, as it turned out) and after Ephesus the Syriac tradition developed more or less independently of the Greek. The point is that while yes, the Nicene Creed was originally written in Greek, other "traditions" (for lack of a better term) contributed to the overwhelming consensus at the council.


----------



## MW (Aug 24, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Can/should Christian use the terms of the Greeks, specifically Plato, to describe the physical vs non-physical world?


 
If by "term" is meant something more than a mere word, and includes in it the mode of expressing a thought, no, I do not believe we can use such terms as Plato used. His worldview was fatally flawed. Nor do I believe the apostles John or Paul ever used his terms. John was most certainly making use of biblical terms when he spoke of the Logos. Paul merely utilised what was not known in order to convey a more certain knowledge. Acts 17, far from endorsing a neutral and shared knowledge, shows the futility and unknowability of the gods which human philosophy had created for itself. As verse 27 states, "That they should seek the Lord, *if haply they might feel after him*, *and find him*, though he be not far from every one of us." It expresses a groping for what cannot be found. Any validation of human knowledge is therefore a valid argumentum ad hominem, showing the uncertainty of knowledge derived from "nature."


----------



## Christusregnat (Aug 24, 2010)

jwithnell said:


> Can/should Christian use the terms of the Greeks, specifically Plato, to describe the physical vs non-physical world? I have some specific thoughts on the matter, but was curious to see what y'all would say. This is not just a hypothetical; it has come up recently among folks I highly respect and I don't want to jump in until I'm more sure of my position. Thanks!


 
Are you referring to Plato's allegory of the cave? Such as the reality of ideas, and the nature of particulars in relation to ideas?


----------



## jwithnell (Aug 25, 2010)

> the reality of ideas, and the nature of particulars in relation to ideas


Yes 

I hope I haven't caused confusion regarding Paul and the Greeks. His manner of discussion on Mars Hill and reference to the unknown God were clearly used to aid in interacting in a Greek/Roman world. That could certainly be done without embracing the philosophy behind it.


----------



## Philip (Aug 25, 2010)

> If by "term" is meant something more than a mere word, and includes in it the mode of expressing a thought, no



How can we separate a word from the thought behind it? Unless Paul and John were using different definitions from that of normal parlance (in which case they were not speaking _to_ the culture but past it) they were indeed using the terminology of the Greeks. I don't see how words are separate from terms insofar as definition and meaning are concerned.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I don't see how words are separate from terms insofar as definition and meaning are concerned.


 
Perhaps a dictionary might help.


----------



## Philip (Aug 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I don't see how words are separate from terms insofar as definition and meaning are concerned.
> ...


 
From Webster's 1828:

Word: 1. An articulate or vocal sound, or a combination of articulate and vocal sounds, uttered by the human voice, and by custom expressing an idea or ideas

Term: 7. In grammar, a word or expression; that which fixes or determines ideas.

I see no difference.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> I see no difference.


 
You might take a word and fill it with new ideas, but a term is determinative of the idea.


----------



## Philip (Aug 25, 2010)

armourbearer said:


> P. F. Pugh said:
> 
> 
> > I see no difference.
> ...


 
This statement makes little sense. Are you you simply saying that a term is a more precise sort of word? The statement you made seems to imply that words could change and terms not change---an idea which is, frankly, absurd from an ordinary-language standpoint.

Let's bring this back to John: when John uses the term _Logos_ is he using it as it was used in the ordinary language of the day (ie: Platonic usage) and redefining it or was he inventing a new language-game it which it had no relation to previous usage? If the former, then it is quite fair to say that he was using Platonic terminology. If the latter, then he communicated nothing to his audience.


----------



## MW (Aug 25, 2010)

P. F. Pugh said:


> This statement makes little sense.



Fine. I don't have time to waste clarifying basic "terms" of discussion. I stated two alternatives in which "term" might be taken. If it were synonymous with word, then fine; but if it is referring to the expression of an idea, then there are problems. You've been referred to a dictionary and the dictionary has distinguished the difference. If you can't make sense of the difference, I can live with it; I don't expect every person to show equal skill in utilising the English language.



P. F. Pugh said:


> Let's bring this back to John: when John uses the term _Logos_ is he using it as it was used in the ordinary language of the day (ie: Platonic usage) and redefining it or was he inventing a new language-game it which it had no relation to previous usage? If the former, then it is quite fair to say that he was using Platonic terminology. If the latter, then he communicated nothing to his audience.


 
Before such a question even becomes viable one must be able to trace a "Platonic usage" with which John would be familiar. Why associate it with Plato rather than the earlier Heraclitus? Why not rather associate it with the later Stoics, who are really the ones who conceptually developed the term? The reality is that John's use of Logos shows little acquaintance with the philosophical use of the word. He does not detach God from the world in the way the philosophers were wont to do. He associates the Logos with the work of creation, and thereby indicates the true source of the belief. For these and such like reasons conservative commentators reject the "speculation" that John is using a term of Greek philosophy. See, for example, the Commentary by Leon Morris in the NICNT series.


----------

