This series was so insightful. I am pursuing a classical education of my kids at home, so this was initially prompted by my desire to understand the Greek philosophers, and then I found the videos so interesting and easy to listen to, I couldn't stop there. Thank you, Mr. Gore!
86 videos. Watched them all in order. I’m sorry there are no more. I may wait a couple of years and watch them again. I feel like my mind as expanded and understand the mindset of our current culture so much better. I sat in on my daughter’s college class at a Bible college called “World Views” and was fascinated. This built on that class. Thank you for posting.
@@truthisbeautiful7492 2 years ago??? At this point what do I remember. It’s about time to watch them again. I’ve been obsessed with UA-cam’s videos of medieval history. I love to keep learning.
I completed the course a while ago and I constantly refer back to my notes. I just wanted to give a belated thanks for a wonderful journey through all the great philosophers over the years and how their philosophies related to Christianity.
this is interesting. I am currently watching a (I think)...8-part series (shot in the 70's) by the late Mr. Schaeffer called "how should we then live". i got a kick out of his knee high socks, dress shoes and knickers. never-the-less, i had never heard of him but it is...a great series (not finished yet).i'm always looking documentaries on Christianity and Our Lord.as a prime member, I found it on Amazon just this weekend. I love you Mr. Gore (as a fellow Christian of course...so apologies Ms. Gore) but I learn so much from you. Even though some of it I have to think harder than normal.but that's good....right? RIGGGGGGHHHHT? now depending on what you say in this-- lecture....I might have to re-listen to his series. because more than likely lol, I will see things in a different lense and ponder more of what I was hearing.some things hard for me to grasp but i press toward the mark.
Brother Gore,why I can't find your web page anymore?! I know it"s been a long time.I have a few questions which I'm hoping you may be able to help me out.For instance,are you familiar with the e-Sword Bible program? I have been using it,but I would like to know which Bible free commentaries to download that are trust worthy,can you help me out with this? I would appreciated if you can.I hope all is well with you,and your family,as well as your ministry.
Thanks for posting all of these, I really love all of your series. I have really been getting into presup apologetics recently and seeing how powerful it is, so this lecture was great supplemental. Have you posted any other lectures on UA-cam about Van Til or on presup/evidential in general? I can't find them in the Philosophy and History of Christian Thought playlist if you have, and it sounded like from the beginning of this video you were reminding your students you just talked about this. Thanks for everything you do!
I think this is a pretty good treatment of his life:www.amazon.com/Francis-Schaeffer-Authentic-Colin-Duriez-ebook/dp/B001DDETE6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=francis+schaeffer+biography&qid=1561559470&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Bravo! Yet another well presented lecture on an important topic. I realize that the series is called Philosophy and History of Christian Thought. However, I have this burning question in my mind: Haven't theologians made fundamental mistakes by melding philosophy and theology over the years? I realize that theologians struggled with expressing eastern theological ideas in terms that western, Hellenized minds could grasp - especially within the first several hundred years of Christianity's existence. I also realize that, in a way, they could not avoid expressing Christianity in Hellenized metaphysical terms due to the transmission of the Gospel in Greek to a still largely Greek speaking world. it's what made Christianity a cosmopolitan faith, transmissible everywhere outside of Israel. I strongly suspect that this constituted part of God's plan. On the other hand, melding philosophy and theology has created two distinct problems along the way. First it created ambiguity. If one uses Greek terms to describe Christian phenomena, one always runs the risk of injecting the kind of ambiguities that lead to heresy. Very few words have single meanings. They often have ranges of meanings that carry different connotative colors or overtones. This is especially true of the Greek language, which has a very rich depth of meanings associated with many of its words. Thus, the reader of theological tracts or tomes could select one of the outlier meanings - i.e., one other than the writer intended - to support theological doctrines that did not square with the whole message. As we know from Church history, this happened many times. Exasperated Church leaders had to formulate a number of creeds and edicts to counter these heresies. Second, blending philosophical reasoning with theology seems to have painted us into a corner and reduced Christianity to a form of philosophy. Doesn't this approach make apologetics vulnerable to attack or deconstruction through the denial of the metaphysics underlying this form of Christian philosophy? Nietzsche thought so, and the postmodernists lurking around today seem to think so. And, perhaps, most importantly, I have to ask: Doesn't it reduce the entire Heilsgeschichte to a meta-narrative to justify theological legalism and morality? What happened to the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit's influence in directing our lives and sharing our faith in a reconciling God? I submit that one cannot understand Christianity without standing on the inside of this spiritual phenomenon, and that an autopsy or dissection of Christianity's literature will yield no genuine understanding of it. These thoughts came to me during your discussion of presuppositional apologetics regarding both Barth and Schaeffer. I humbly submit that scripture strongly supports their views. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 that he did not deliver his message and preaching with "persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that ... faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power." (And see Romans 10:16; Galatians 3:3:2-5, and 1 Thess. 2:13.) Jesus's parable of the sower likewise tells us that the Good News grows, or fails to grow, inside the hearer because of his or her "soil" conditions. Engaging in easily dismissed philosophical discussions with non-believers doesn't seem like it would add much to the discussion or change their soil conditions. And, yes, this is rather Calvinistic in view, but it is also one that has the independent support of scripture with resort to philosophical premises to support it. Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on this issue.
There is no true atheists, every one believes in god, and they believe they are gods themselves, though they deny that. They are the center of their lives.
His approach sounds very ad hominem. Maybe someone is a hypocrite/inconsistent: what does that show? Many Christians are hypocrites/inconsistent, too. Unless you assume Christianity (which you do: presup), it doesn't yield anything. I think it comes across as aggressive, condescending, mean, and ultimately only leads people to think of you as such. It does help you feel justified, and that's nice, but at what cost?
Dopamine. Anything else is a post-hoc rationalization. I enjoy your lectures, I think you'd be well served looking more into current understandings of neuroscience before making embarrassing claims like "just a chemical reaction". I can tell you're an intellectually voracious man, so it's a pity to mar it with misunderstandings. I see the fundamental problem again with the argument - there is no difference between "being a Christian" and "being an environmentalist". Both are attempts to find "meaning", you're just making the assumption that the "being a Christian" is somehow truth-tracking. But it basically gives the Christian the same buzz of neurotransmitters as saving whales does for the environmentalist. If it works for you, great.
Thank you very much Mr Gore, this series has been incredibly helpful! God bless.
This series was so insightful. I am pursuing a classical education of my kids at home, so this was initially prompted by my desire to understand the Greek philosophers, and then I found the videos so interesting and easy to listen to, I couldn't stop there.
Thank you, Mr. Gore!
Thank you very much. I came to know and enjoy your classroom, especially the interaction with the students. God bless, from South Africa with ❤
86 videos. Watched them all in order. I’m sorry there are no more. I may wait a couple of years and watch them again. I feel like my mind as expanded and understand the mindset of our current culture so much better. I sat in on my daughter’s college class at a Bible college called “World Views” and was fascinated. This built on that class. Thank you for posting.
Best lectures from the course? Weakest lectures?
@@truthisbeautiful7492 2 years ago??? At this point what do I remember. It’s about time to watch them again. I’ve been obsessed with UA-cam’s videos of medieval history. I love to keep learning.
I completed the course a while ago and I constantly refer back to my notes. I just wanted to give a belated thanks for a wonderful journey through all the great philosophers over the years and how their philosophies related to Christianity.
Francis Schaeffer' s Hybrid Apologetics is good. Totally new and thoughtful approach in any arguments. Thank you professor Gore.
this is interesting. I am currently watching a (I think)...8-part series (shot in the 70's) by the late Mr. Schaeffer called "how should we then live". i got a kick out of his knee high socks, dress shoes and knickers. never-the-less, i had never heard of him but it is...a great series (not finished yet).i'm always looking documentaries on Christianity and Our Lord.as a prime member, I found it on Amazon just this weekend. I love you Mr. Gore (as a fellow Christian of course...so apologies Ms. Gore) but I learn so much from you. Even though some of it I have to think harder than normal.but that's good....right? RIGGGGGGHHHHT? now depending on what you say in this-- lecture....I might have to re-listen to his series. because more than likely lol, I will see things in a different lense and ponder more of what I was hearing.some things hard for me to grasp but i press toward the mark.
Brother Gore,why I can't find your web page anymore?! I know it"s been a long time.I have a few questions which I'm hoping you may be able to help me out.For instance,are you familiar with the e-Sword Bible program? I have been using it,but I would like to know which Bible free commentaries to download that are trust worthy,can you help me out with this? I would appreciated if you can.I hope all is well with you,and your family,as well as your ministry.
Thanks for posting all of these, I really love all of your series. I have really been getting into presup apologetics recently and seeing how powerful it is, so this lecture was great supplemental. Have you posted any other lectures on UA-cam about Van Til or on presup/evidential in general? I can't find them in the Philosophy and History of Christian Thought playlist if you have, and it sounded like from the beginning of this video you were reminding your students you just talked about this. Thanks for everything you do!
Sorry. This is my only treatment of this topic at this point. The discussion referred to in the video took place off camera. Thanks for your feedback!
Bruce, I plan on teaching a Sunday school class on Schaeffer this summer. Any good bios on his life and more importantly, his thought??
Sorry. This is all I've done on the subject, but there is good material out there.
@@brucegore4373 are there any good bios you recommend?
I think this is a pretty good treatment of his life:www.amazon.com/Francis-Schaeffer-Authentic-Colin-Duriez-ebook/dp/B001DDETE6/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=francis+schaeffer+biography&qid=1561559470&s=gateway&sr=8-1
Bravo! Yet another well presented lecture on an important topic.
I realize that the series is called Philosophy and History of Christian Thought. However, I have this burning question in my mind: Haven't theologians made fundamental mistakes by melding philosophy and theology over the years? I realize that theologians struggled with expressing eastern theological ideas in terms that western, Hellenized minds could grasp - especially within the first several hundred years of Christianity's existence. I also realize that, in a way, they could not avoid expressing Christianity in Hellenized metaphysical terms due to the transmission of the Gospel in Greek to a still largely Greek speaking world. it's what made Christianity a cosmopolitan faith, transmissible everywhere outside of Israel. I strongly suspect that this constituted part of God's plan.
On the other hand, melding philosophy and theology has created two distinct problems along the way.
First it created ambiguity. If one uses Greek terms to describe Christian phenomena, one always runs the risk of injecting the kind of ambiguities that lead to heresy. Very few words have single meanings. They often have ranges of meanings that carry different connotative colors or overtones. This is especially true of the Greek language, which has a very rich depth of meanings associated with many of its words. Thus, the reader of theological tracts or tomes could select one of the outlier meanings - i.e., one other than the writer intended - to support theological doctrines that did not square with the whole message. As we know from Church history, this happened many times. Exasperated Church leaders had to formulate a number of creeds and edicts to counter these heresies.
Second, blending philosophical reasoning with theology seems to have painted us into a corner and reduced Christianity to a form of philosophy. Doesn't this approach make apologetics vulnerable to attack or deconstruction through the denial of the metaphysics underlying this form of Christian philosophy? Nietzsche thought so, and the postmodernists lurking around today seem to think so. And, perhaps, most importantly, I have to ask: Doesn't it reduce the entire Heilsgeschichte to a meta-narrative to justify theological legalism and morality? What happened to the Christian idea of the Holy Spirit's influence in directing our lives and sharing our faith in a reconciling God? I submit that one cannot understand Christianity without standing on the inside of this spiritual phenomenon, and that an autopsy or dissection of Christianity's literature will yield no genuine understanding of it.
These thoughts came to me during your discussion of presuppositional apologetics regarding both Barth and Schaeffer. I humbly submit that scripture strongly supports their views. Paul tells us in 1 Corinthians 2:4-5 that he did not deliver his message and preaching with "persuasive words of wisdom, but with a demonstration of the Spirit’s power, so that ... faith would not rest on men’s wisdom, but on God’s power." (And see Romans 10:16; Galatians 3:3:2-5, and 1 Thess. 2:13.) Jesus's parable of the sower likewise tells us that the Good News grows, or fails to grow, inside the hearer because of his or her "soil" conditions. Engaging in easily dismissed philosophical discussions with non-believers doesn't seem like it would add much to the discussion or change their soil conditions. And, yes, this is rather Calvinistic in view, but it is also one that has the independent support of scripture with resort to philosophical premises to support it.
Thank you for the opportunity to reflect on this issue.
YES !!
Yes and no. Western Christianity, yes, Eastern Christianity, no.
And John Frame modified van till. And rc Sproul isn't presuppositional.
There is no true atheists, every one believes in god, and they believe they are gods themselves, though they deny that. They are the center of their lives.
His approach sounds very ad hominem. Maybe someone is a hypocrite/inconsistent: what does that show? Many Christians are hypocrites/inconsistent, too. Unless you assume Christianity (which you do: presup), it doesn't yield anything. I think it comes across as aggressive, condescending, mean, and ultimately only leads people to think of you as such. It does help you feel justified, and that's nice, but at what cost?
Dopamine. Anything else is a post-hoc rationalization.
I enjoy your lectures, I think you'd be well served looking more into current understandings of neuroscience before making embarrassing claims like "just a chemical reaction". I can tell you're an intellectually voracious man, so it's a pity to mar it with misunderstandings.
I see the fundamental problem again with the argument - there is no difference between "being a Christian" and "being an environmentalist". Both are attempts to find "meaning", you're just making the assumption that the "being a Christian" is somehow truth-tracking. But it basically gives the Christian the same buzz of neurotransmitters as saving whales does for the environmentalist. If it works for you, great.
Thank you!