Skip to main content

Posts

Showing posts from November, 2014

A REVIEW OF BIBLICAL ETHICS

An Introduction to Biblical Ethics: Walking in the Way of Wisdom. 3rd ed. By Robertson McQuilkin and Paul Copan. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014. 667 pp. $ 45.00. ISBN 978-0-8308-2818-0.
            Whether people know it or not, and whether or not they are willing to admit it, ethical issues are some of the most highly debated issues both in the Christian church and without. For church goers, almost every single sermon and small group study will, given enough time, turn to ethical subjects – how should we live our lives in light of what the Bible says. For those who are not church goers the subject is just as important, and is discussed in political campaigns, during lunch break, at the barbers shop, and just about anywhere people take the time to stop and think. It should be of the utmost importance, therefore, for Christians (minimally – those who accept the Bible as the word of God and seek to model their lives after it) to be able to make wise ethical choices in their …

The Onto-theological difference and Marilyn McCord Adams

A while back I wrote a blog post on Martin Heidegger's short article "Identity and Difference" (which can be found here). It crossed my mind that those who had read that article might be interested in Marilyn McCord Adams lecture, on the topic of the Onto-theological difference. The lecture can be found, in transcript form here, or as a youtube video presentation below.

INTERPRETING THE FUTURE OF BIBLICAL INTERPRETATION: A BOOK REVIEW

The Future of Biblical Interpretation: Responsible Plurality in Biblical Hermeneutics. Edited by Stanley E. Porter and Matthew R. Malcolm. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2013. 165 pp. $18.00. ISBN 978-0-8308-4041-0.
            For those who believe that the Bible is the word of God, and, therefore, that not only life in the church, but the life of the church should be regulated by the Bible, it is of the utmost importance to properly understand the Bible. It seems, then, that understanding how to properly interpret the Bible should be one of the most important questions that any believer could ask. In The Future of Biblical Interpretation, the various contributors approach the question of “responsibility” in biblical interpretation and hermeneutics from a number of different angles. The idea of the editors, Stanley Porter and Matthew Malcolm, was that the contributors would present how it was possible to maintain a moderate interpretation of scriptures within the plurality of …

ARISTOTE ET LA DÉMONSTRATION DU "VRAI" DIEU

Il y a des penseurs Chrétiens qui ont dit que l'homme chuté, à moins d'être régénéré, ne pourrait pas arriver à déduire, à partir de l'univers qui les entoure, qu'un Dieu qui est infinie existe. Ils affirment qu'un personne non-régénérée ne pourrait que déduire un Dieu qui est immanente à l'univers[1] (étant un être parmi d'autres, ou « l’extension de l’univers »[2]) et finie.[3] Ils vont même à dire que les hommes non-régénéré ne peuvent pas démontrer l’existence du vrai Dieu.[4] Est-ce que c’est vrai ? Il y a 3 affirmations ici :
1.L’homme non-régénéré ne peut pas démontrer qu’un Dieu transcendant (séparé de, et non un partie de, l’univers) existe. 2.L’homme non-régénéré ne peut pas démontrer qu’un Dieu infinie existe. 3.L’homme non-régénéré ne peut pas démontrer que le vrai Dieu existe.
Chacun de ces affirmations est différent, et doit être prouver, ou réfuter, individuellement. Comment prouver ces affirmations ? Démontrer qu’il n’y a aucun homme ou femme …

PIERRE AUBENQUE, LE PROBLÈME DE L’ÊTRE CHEZ ARISTOTE: An outline with commentary

What follows is my outline of, with occasional comments (in red) on, Pierre Aubenque's book Le Problème de l'être chez Aristote, 5th ed. (Paris: PUF, 2009). Pierre Aubenque is one of the most important french Aristotelian scholars of the 20th century. His theory is deeply indebted both to Wernaer Jaeger and Martin Heidegger. Perhaps this will be helpful to some. The book is divided into two main parts, and Introduction and a Conclusion.

Introduction 1.First Philosophy = the foundational part of philosophy (p. 38-39) a.It is a part of the science of being qua being but is not equivalent to the science of being qua being. (p. 36) b.First philosophy = theology (p. 36-37) c.First philosophy is not Metaphysics (p. 68) 2.The science of being qua being = that part of Metaphysics commonly known as ontology (p. 68) 3.So, for Aubenque, Metaphysics is an umbrella term under which is found two distinct (yet connected) sciences: First philosophy (theology) and the science of being qua being (onto…