Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

bouncer99
Registered Member

Date Joined Sep 2001
Total Posts : 14

Posted 4/10/2003 10:33 AM (GMT -6)

hey everyone! I wanted to start a thread about an Idea I read recently. I believe it was Justin Martyr, who said, "that Socrates was a christian before christ." Does anyone have an opinon that they want to share? I am also reading the apology by Plato. I am looking for Feedback on that as well. I look forward to reading your responses.

Blessings

"Show the world your a christian by what you do not by what you say" Mother Thersa

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 4/10/2003 2:23 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
I believe it was Justin Martyr, who said, "that Socrates was a Christian before Christ."

Hmmm. I'm not sure what to say about that. Maybe we need to define "Christian" first.

Socrates is a pretty cool character in my opinion. Boston College philosopher Peter Kreeft has written a number of excellent modern Socratic dialogues in which Socrates looks something like a proto-Christian.

Alan

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/10/2003 6:45 PM (GMT -6)

Bouncer99,

I think Dr. Boyd might take issue with several of (Socrate's) Plato's really misguided notions of the Divine and Forms that influenced Christian theology. Several of the Pro-open view books have documented this well.

Socrates/Plato was wrong about soooo much, but he did presage some ideas that match up pretty well with a Christian ethic and theology--certainly more than did the popular opinion of the time. On the other hand, I think he seems closer to being a Christian than he is because Platonic ideas so infiltrated the church after the apostolic age.

True, 'he' was more monotheistic than most of his contemporaries, but that view of God was probably not a Christian one. His view of how one 'gets to' or comes to understand God--through philosophy--doesn't strike me as particularly Christian either.

To narrow (or change?) the question a bit, I think it's interesting to ponder whether Socrates' writings might be more pro-open view than we've been led to believe. Is there more to his thought than the Unmoved Mover hoohah that has become mainstream Christianity? With his views on how love and words (in the Phaedrus) can enchant or control the soul, my first inclination is to say "no."

Now my boy Aristotle? There's a more useful Christian ethic and maybe, proto-Christian theology.

But that's for another thread, perhaps.

Terry
"Be God's"

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/17/2003 7:32 PM (GMT -6)

Would anyone be interested (and would the board admins allow) a semi-regular discussion of classical texts that relate to OT or Christianity?

Boyd has Plato in his sig, Alan and Ross keep mentioning it (along with a yearning to discussing deep issues). And of course we have bouncer99's question here. It might be a hoot.

I have an idea or two for classical texts (that are readable online, or at least were a few years ago) that we could discuss. I could start us out with an excerpt, a few pithy observations, etc. Or, if Alan or someone else has something in mind, that'd be cool too.

Terry

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/18/2003 12:46 AM (GMT -6)

I've been steeped in Greek Philosophy the last year in preparation for a book I'm working on, tentatively titled The Myth of the Blueprint. I want to thoroughly document the enormous influence certain Greek conceptions of God and fate had on the theology of the early Church, especially via Augustine. So the topic does interest me.

In answer to bouncers question:
Justin did call Socrates a Christian. In his view, anyone who participated in the LOGOS was saved.... and the LOGOS was "divine reason." Indeed, in the passage you site, Martyr continues and says something to the effect that "all who participate in reason (logos) like Socrates and Abraham are Christians.

The admiration for Greek philosophers among the early Christians was significant. Augustine went so far as to say of the Platonist, "change a few words of theirs and they are Christians" as well as "their writings are almost divine."

The early Church generally (though hardly universally) held to an inclusivist understanding of salvation. They all believed salvation was only through Christ, but did not hold that one had to consciously place trust in the historical Jesus to be saved through him. Christ was "the World (Logos) of God," and this word was incarnated in the historical Jesus. But the work of the Logos was not limited to the historical Jesus.

The aspect of Greek philosophy that most influenced the early Church's theology was the general view of God as utterly unchanging, unknowable, purely actual, timeless, and above "passions" (impassable). With Augustine, the stoic concept of the logos as all determining became central as well.

The Greek understanding of God tends toward a "blueprint" understanding of history, where time is merely the moving shadow of eternity (as Plato says) -- the REAL reality is timeless. My thesis is that this blueprint perspective replaced the warfare perspective of apostolic Christianity in Augustine (though it was making inroads with the early apologists). A number of people have argued along these lines, but to date it has not been thoroughly substantiated.

Blessings

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Tom
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353

Posted 4/18/2003 1:47 AM (GMT -6)

Terry: I think Dr. Boyd might take issue with several of (Socrate's) Plato's really misguided notions...and Socrates/Plato was wrong about soooo much, but he...

Tom: Am I missing something or do you think Socrates and Plato were one and the same person?

Terry: I think it's interesting to ponder whether Socrates' writings might be more pro-open view than we've been led to believe. Is there more to his thought than the Unmoved Mover hoohah that has become mainstream Christianity?...Now my boy Aristotle? There's a more useful Christian ethic and maybe, proto-Christian theology.

Tom: The notion of the "unmoved mover" hoohah is not Socrates', it's Aristotle's. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Tom

Love never ends

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/18/2003 12:40 PM (GMT -6)

Its Aristotle

And Socrates didn't write anything. His dialogues are recorded (and/or created) by Plato.

And there's nothing in Plato that is "pro-openness" per se, though I didn't find one interesting passage where he asks, "How can anything unmoving and unreacting be said to be alive" (refering to God... oh that he would have followed through on THAT intuition!)

Greg

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

Alan Rhoda
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 680

Posted 4/18/2003 1:01 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Would anyone be interested (and would the board admins allow) a semi-regular discussion of classical texts that relate to OT or Christianity?

I'm interested, Terry, provided that 'semi-regular' is not too regular. The next four months are not too good for me, but after that I think I could participate in such a discussion. Any particular texts you were thinking of?

Alan

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 4/18/2003 4:14 PM (GMT -6)

Terry, the "read and discuss" idea with a classical text would be cool! What do you have in mind. (I have found many of Aristotle's works online)

So...what are we reading and when do we start?

Ross

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/18/2003 11:19 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
Tom: Am I missing something or do you think Socrates and Plato were one and the same person?

Please forgive an old habit that comes from being corrected many times for arguing about what "Socrates said"--since we have no idea what he said, only the words Plato put in his mouth. I've read articles that try to parse the differences between Socrates and Plato (early period Plato is closer to Socrates' teachings, etc.) so it's not just a moot point. For the most part, though, it's just hard to know. I should just refer to Plato, but the original question mentioned both.

So, no, you're not missing anything. I was just typing quickly and didn't explain why I combined them.

quote:
Tom: The notion of the "unmoved mover" hoohah is not Socrates', it's Aristotle's. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well, the term is Aristotle's and he takes some pains to show that his notion is different from Plato's. I was responding more to the pun on "unmoved" in the sense of "unemotional" or "impassive", not the technical theory of motion that Aristotle develops and uses to argue that god is the Unmoved Mover. The fundamental qualities of the unemotional god are still Plato's, summarized by Boyd:

quote:
[...]the general view of God as utterly unchanging, unknowable, purely actual, timeless, and above "passions" (impassable).

I'd add that this summary refers more to the god described in the Republic. In the Phaedrus (a later work, I think) the good/god changes a bit. The topic of Motion comes up, so Plato can make the argument that "that which moves itself is soul" and therefore immortal. (and by immortal he means throughout time, as in our souls existed with the god before they entered our bodies, one of the many things I mentioned that I think he 'gets wrong' from a Christian view.) Ph. 245-6

Oddly enough, the Phaedrus also presents the argument that passions and vulnerability (the opposite of impassability) are part of the Good, and qualities of Love.

Greg said:

quote:
there's nothing in Plato that is "pro-openness" per se

Well, that settles that. Guess I'll throw my Plato books down in the basement since there's nothing in the whole of Plato's works to look at there.

But then there's that Phaedrus...

Terry

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/18/2003 11:33 PM (GMT -6)

Haven't thought about what to read at great length.

I guess I'd rather stay away from the ethics stuff for now.

If we focus on passages that relate to either God (the nature of ultimate Good) and the human will, I think we'll have a better ability to manage the source material.

Top of my head-- a three parter, starting with the Symposium, moving on to the Republic, and ending with the Phaedrus. Again, I'm not up for discussing every time some awestruck Athenian gasps in amazement "yes, it seems so Socrates!" Let's just tackle samll pieces, with secondary material only as necessary.

So for those interested, I'll try to come up with a passage or two (probably from the Symposium), a weblink to the text, as well as some clever conversation starter ("the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an Empire: discuss"). After the first few tries, we can refine our approach or abandon it altogether.

I'd like to rely on Alan's rigor and conciseness as much as possible since he is a trained philosopher among us. But, I understand if he's not available.

I'm excited!

Terry
Make those tuition checks out to: Christus Victor ministries...

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 4/21/2003 5:54 AM (GMT -6)

Terry,
I'm ready to go! One problem, I'm running a little short on cash this week so if I could get an extension on the tuition...

Ross

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 4/21/2003 10:16 AM (GMT -6)

Terry, both the Timaeus and Laws were more influential historically than the Symposium. Book 10 of Laws is fascinating in that Plato here postulates an evil world spirit to account for evil.

hmmmmmmm

Doc

"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 4/23/2003 5:34 AM (GMT -6)

Terry,
I'm ready to go with our discussion. You got the reading assignment yet?

Ross

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/25/2003 5:47 AM (GMT -6)

Sorry all, was on a business trip this week. I'll post the first "assignment" this weekend and we can go from there.

Regards,

Terry

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 4/28/2003 5:03 AM (GMT -6)

I will interject something here. Kierkegaard loved Socrates because Socrates knew what it meant to pursue the truth with his whole being. His heart, soul and mind. I think I could make a decent case, though from a VERY limited breadth of awareness of Socrates, that he WOULD have been a Christian and perhaps is one now. After all, one can hardly blame the guy for being born before Christ.

I would be doing this via SK's assertion that goes something like this:"Socrates may not have been a Christian, but he certainly has become one."

Again, the heart of the argument is the integrity with which Socrates searches for the truth ("seek and you shall find...") and the humility ("know thyself" is the famous socratic/delphic dictum and it gives rise to the consciousness of finitude at least and perhaps hints at an awareness of "sin"...though not in the strong Christian sense that must be revealed) that Socrates is famous for. These are not simply philosophical strengths, but human strengths which Socrates serves as a symbol of. He wanted to know what it means to be a human being. Are we more than the animals? Do we have something of the divine in us? Socrates refused to ponder mythological creatures and lofty ideas until he had a better idea of what it means to be a human being. THAT is a profound insistence on getting the first things first. Very cool. We make assertions that we must know oneself in Christ, well, Socrates didn't have that info, but he gets pretty far, as far as one can get, without revelation.

He asked profound questions that more Christians SHOULD ask. Like: since I obviously don't possess the truth (the criterion for the good, the just, the right...), when I pray, I do better to ask the gods to do what is right and good rather than pressume to know what that is and tell the gods what to do. This is my wording, but the question is raised at the end of the Alcabiades dialogue where he finally ends in a plea for grace on the part of the gods!!!

Of course, if you simply look at the propositions that Socrates affirmed in the writings of Plato, then you might make all sorts of assertions and condemnations of the man. But if you pay attention to the man (real or created is irrelavent) I think he is more Christian than most Christians I know.

"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 4/28/2003 5:10 AM (GMT -6)

I just realized that I blew by Terry's suggestions for organizing this discussion. Sorry! I don't mean to derail anything. I would like to talk about Socrates generally, but have a more particular interest in his role as a proto-existentialist. SK is frequently regarded as the father of existentialism, but this is ironic because he claims that Socrates is an exemplary existentialist. By this "existentialism" I will generalize it to mean, keeping the thinker connected to existence. Remembering to acknowledge that you are still existing here on planet earth in the thinking process. Attending to the inwardness and appropriation that is necessary not to simply think a true thought but to live it. etc....

"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc

Terry_Baxter
Registered Member

Date Joined Jan 2002
Total Posts : 187

Posted 4/28/2003 6:55 PM (GMT -6)

Modes wrote:

“…and the humility ("know thyself" is the famous socratic/delphic dictum and it gives rise to the consciousness of finitude at least and perhaps hints at an awareness of "sin"...though not in the strong Christian sense that must be revealed) that Socrates is famous for”

Terry responds:

I like the redemptive hermeneutic you are adopting. It does have limits, though. We can find examples of just about every philospher, from Marx to Nietzsche “getting it right” on occasion. I don’t think that means we can laud them as examples of Christian living. I do tend to agree that Socrates’ seeming humility was a great quality.

Modes wrote:

We make assertions that we must know oneself in Christ, well, Socrates didn't have that info, but he gets pretty far, as far as one can get, without revelation.
[and]
You simply look at the propositions that Socrates affirmed in the writings of Plato, then you might make all sorts of assertions and condemnations of the man. But if you pay attention to the man (real or created is irrelavent) I think he is more Christian than most Christians I know.

Terry responds:

I’d disagree. I think the method is as hopelessly flawed as most of the conclusions. Propositional logic is just not the way to “know God.” I’m also not at all impressed with the anti-social aspects of his thought. You and I have almost diametrically opposite views of Socrates if you see him as an existentialist. He put his philosophy in to praxis in his own life, but wanted to deny the body, experience, sensation, and emotions to get to the truth. He had no use for practical wisdom (phronesis), prefering theoretical knowledge (episteme). Similarly, he had no regard for the will and beliefs of the masses (democracy anyone?).

I much prefer the socially responsible rhetorics of Isocrates or Cicero (one of my heroes).

I suspect, part of what’s at play in our dialogue is our notions of what a Christian is or does, as much as whether Socrates fits that mold.

I wonder…if we used as our standard the Corinthian verses on love, how would Socrates stack up?

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 4/29/2003 7:06 AM (GMT -6)

Modes,
I have been interested in your study of Kierkegaard and have been meaning to hear more about why you have chosen to study him. My only exposure to him until recently was fairly harsh criticisms by people like Francis Schaeffer and Norm Geisler. But then I read some of C Stephen Evan's work, and found out that he was a SK scholar, so I've been trying to get some more info on SK. But enough about that....

The reason I'm posting is a question about this whole "Socrates being a Christian" thing. I was reading an article by C Stephen Evans in "The Grace of God and the Will of Man." The article is entitled "Salvation, Sin, and Human Freedom in Kierkegaard" and specifically at the section entitled "Salvation in Philosophical Fragments" Heres what he says in the opening paragraph of that section

quote:
Kierkegaard's pseudonym Johannes Climacus gives an excellent illustration of the characteristic Kierkegaardian view of salvationin Philosophical Fragments. This work is directed toward a crucial comparison of Christianity with Philosophical idealism. The major differences are clear: philosophical idealism presupposes that the truth (the essential truth, which if possessed is equivalent to salvation) is present at bottom in every individual; Christianity asserts that this essential truth must be brought to human beings in an authoritative revelation. Philosophical idealism assumes that since all humans have the truth, the most one human being can do for another when it comes to discovering the essential truth about life is to be a Socratic teacher who helps the individual discover the truth buried within. The teacher is only an "occasion", a Socratic mid-wife. Christianity asserts that since individuals are caught in sin, God himself must become the teacher, and that only if God entered human history as a human being could the truth be grasped by human beings. In this case the teacher must also be a savior, who not only brings the truth but transforms humans so they can receive that truth.

Here is my question (or questions)

1. do you consider this an accurate understanding of SK's view of salvation?

2. How does this view interact with an "inclusive" view of salvation, such as the salvation of Socrates. Socrates had no knowledge of Christ, his teachings and his works. This seems to lave little hope for poor old Socrates with Sk's view of salvation (as explained by Evans)

3. Did SK ever specifically address salvation of the pagan- those who have no knowledge of Christ and his work.

Here's what it comes down to-- SK, from my limited understanding, saw Natural Theology as useless at best and idolatry at worst. However, most defenses of "inclusive" views of salvation rely on some sort of knowledge of God that is available to all, without the particular knowledge of Christ required. There seems to be tension between these to positions.

But again, I'm definitely not an expert on SK and his thought, so I would appreciate any help you (or anyone else) can give.

Ross

I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen, not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else. - C.S. Lewis

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 4/29/2003 8:38 AM (GMT -6)

Sorry, I fear I may have derailed the conversation, this is a thread on Socrates and Plato. I really am no expert on these two, though I do know something about Kierkegaard. But that is not what this thread is about. Just as many read SK through Schaeffer or Barth and get him almost completely wrong (in my opinion) I am definitely guilty of reading Socrates through Kierkegaard. For that reason, I cannot really argue effectively with you, Terry. I can only express how SK reads Socrates and then add the little bit I have read of the primary lit. in Plato. Not much help.

SK does read Socrates as an existentialist and as an exemplar in the sphere of ethics. It seems you, Terry, would really disagree with this assessment. Fine. But I am not prepared to mediate a conversation like that. Of course, SK's own dissertation was entitled, "The Concept of Irony: with continual reference to Socrates." So I assume he was familiar with the guy. The argument would not be about the content of the philosophy or beleifs, but the congruity of life and thought. The passion that drove the person in their pursuit of the truth. Do you deny that this was truer of Socrates than many others historcally? If so, then we don't even have page one to start with.

"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 4/29/2003 8:49 AM (GMT -6)

Ross,

Thanks so much for expressing interest. I wonder if we should start another thread where I would be very happy to address your questions. Do you mind perhaps cutting and pasting what you asked to a new thread so I don't sabatogue this one? The quick response is: Evans reads SK sympathetically and, I think, largely accurately. Schaeffer and Geisler are unsympathetic doing their usual watchdogging. But it is silly to attack SK on theological grounds. He is completely orthodox. What they don't like is SK's way of shifting the focus from simply affirming certian things as true to actually expecting the individual and the church to imitate Christ. He won't let you have the theological debate without the self-examination that requires either action or confession. Acedemics don't appreciate this.

1. Yes. That is accurate of the Fragments and of SK's thought generally. VERY strong doctrine of revelation and our need of it.

2. Actually, I doubt Evans would say what you suppose here. SK clearly takes a "universal opportunity" position. All will encounter Christ and all will have to make a choice about it. SK puts this in the imperative: "You SHALL have an opinion."

3. Yes. And it is consistent with the response to #2 above. Christ's work is eternal in nature. The date of your birth in relation to it is of no importance.

As I mentioned, please consider picking this up by starting a new thread. I'd love to pursue any interest you or others have in SK.

Blessings,
Modes

I would stop short of saying that SK saw natural theology as useless... but lets take that to the new thread...

"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc

rossfadeinout
Registered Member

Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428

Posted 4/29/2003 9:18 AM (GMT -6)

Modes, got that new thread going...

Ross

0CT0R0K
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 50

Posted 5/6/2003 6:50 PM (GMT -6)

does anyone have any good sites to refer me to that i could go and learn about this topic a bit more? would be greatly appreciated!

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:32 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual