Reason, Faith, and Logos - Essay Example

? Reason, Faith and Logos Total Number of Words: 2,000 Introduction Hillar (1998) mentioned that the Greek word “logos” is commonly used in the studyof philosophy and religion. Since the term “logos” is applicable to philosophical and theological theories, logos could mean a lot of different thing to different people. In order to explore the real meaning and nature of logos, this study aims to compare and contrast the competing philosophical and theological point-of-view of Boyarin (2001) and Hillar (1998). To give the readers a better understanding with regards to the different philosophical and theological views with regards to the nature of logos, this study will first discuss the conclusion that each author aims to establish followed by discussing the arguments made by each author. As part of discussing the arguments made by each author, this study will present some self-evidence and/or empirical evidences behind the claims or arguments of each author. Comparison between the Philosophical and Theoretical Views on the Nature of Logos Plato was one of the great Greek philosophers in our history. Inspired by the theories of Parmenides, Plato mentioned that the term “logos” is a Greek term which means both the spoken and unspoken thoughts and reasoning that are rational by principles (Hillar, 1998). Since the era of Heraclitus, Audi (1999) revealed that the philosophical view of logos eventually became the basic philosophical theory of order and knowledge. The study of theology is focused on analyzing issues related to religion. As an essential part of the 1st century Jewish religious beliefs (Boyarin, 2001), the nature of logos is very much focused on revealing the truths. Given that the “logos” of theology is based on religious concept, Platonic defined logos as the divine “soul of the man Jesus Christ” (Basic Theology, 2012). It means that theological “logos” is all about thinking and uttering the word of God. Unlike the philosophical point-of-views, the Greek term “logos” (when based on a theological perspective) is simply referring to the act of speaking God’s words (Brent, 1999). It means that the nature of logos under the theological point-of-views is based on theological reasoning rather than pure rational reasoning. Conclusion that Boyarin (2001) Aims to Establish Published under the Harvard Theological Review, Boyarin (2001) wrote the article entitled “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John”. In this article, the author thoroughly discussed the nature and significance of logos based on the views of theology (i.e. Judaism and Christianity) and philosphy. Unlike in Christianity which considers Jesus Christ as the son of God, Boyarin (2001) mentioned that the Deity is considered as the ultimate form of god. Regardless of whether or not a specific religion considers a Deity or Christ as the creator of this world, it will remain a fact that the logos of theology will always be associated with the reasoning of God. On the contrary, the logos of philosophy is not based on religious concept but rather based on the reasoning that is currently being used to govern the world. In other word, the philosophy of logos is not purely based on the teachings of God but more on a set of rules that people are obliged to observe when living in a particular society. Conclusion that Hillar (1998) Aims to Establish Hillar (1998) wrote the article entitled “The Logos and its Function in the Writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of the Hebrew Myth and Foundations of Christianity”. According to Hillar (1998), Philo’s concept of logos is not clear because of his religious and mystical point-of-views. Since Philo’s religious views is very strong, God is considered as the ultimate goal whereas logos is considered as the “wisdom of God” (Hillar). Referring to God’s chief messenger, logos serve as the link between the human creatures in this world and God. Within this context, it means that the divine logos will allow the human beings to have the opportunity to bear a resemblance of God who is the creator of all beings. For this reason, the divine “logos” is considered something that is unbreakable and will continuously be present in all human beings at all times. Even though Hillar (1998) made it clear that Philo’s concept of logos is heavily moulded by theological perspective, the author mentioned that there are two types of logos known as the “earthly wisdom” and the “divine logos”. As explained by Jackson-McCabe (2001, p. 219), “earthly wisdom” is based on one’s own personal reflection of anything that can give pleasure to the human body. Since earthly wisdom is based on satisfying one’s own pleasure, there is a very high risk wherein the earthly wisdom could make the human beings violate the ultimate teachings of God. In other words, the process of following the earthly wisdom could only make human beings do immoral and demonic acts. Having in mind that there are two different types of logos, it is misconception to believe that logos alone can save souls. For this reason, it is clear that the foundation of Christianity is strongly based on divine logos rather than the usual earthly wisdom. Competing Philosophical and Theological Views of Boyarin (2001) and Hillar (1998) Borrowed from the neo-pythagoreanism, Copleston (2003, p. 451) explained that platonism was created because of its interests in contemporary religious beliefs. Even though Boyarin (2001) and Hillar (1998) acknowledges the idea that theology of logos serves as the intermediary power or a mediator between the ultimate creator of this world and the humnan beings, Hillar (1998) did not mention anything with regards to the significance of middle platonism as a mediator between the ultimate creator and the world. On the contrary, Boyarin (2001) clearly stated that the presence of middle platonism which outlines the philosophy of Hellenistic has a significant role in Philo’s concept of theology of logos. Instead of discussing the significance of middle platonism in Philo’s fundamental doctrine of logos, Hillar (1998) only stayed focus on discussing how logos can act as “an intermediary power, a messenger and mediator between God and the world”. Similar to neo-pythagoreanism, Copleston (2003, p. 451) mentioned that the middle platonism considers the practice of mysticism as a form of divine transcendence between the creator and human beings. After stating that “Mystic vision (i.e. prophetic messages) allows our soul to see the Divine Logos and achieve a union with God”, Hillar (1998) simply concludes that the doctrine of Plato with regards to the theological concept of logos is not clear because of his combined views with regards to religion and mystical issues. Upon analyzing these two articles, the issue concerning the mediator between the ultimate creator of this world and the humnan beings brings a lot of competing philosophical and theological views with regards to logos (Boyarin, 2001; Hillar, 1998). From a philosophical point-of-view, when we speak of the mediator between the creator and this world, it makes sense that mediator is referring to spiritism, mediums, occult, and psychics among others. Contrary to the theology of logos, “the Bible is strongly against the use of spiritism, mediums, the occult, and psychics (gotquestions.org, 2012a). In Bible verse of Leviticus 20:27, “a man or a woman who is a medium or a necromancer shall surely put to death. They shall be stoned with stones; their blood shall be upon them”. In other words, people who seek to gain wisdom from God should avoid using astrology, tarot card readings, fortune telling, palm reading, and horoscope. The Bible which is the basis of theological logos clearly states that people should avoid using mediators related to spiritism, mediums, occult, and psychics. Therefore, it is clear that the use of mediators such as spiritism, mediums, occult, and psychics among others is a form of communicating with the demons (gotquestions.org, 2012a). Within this context, then Philo’s idea of logos which strongly suggest that the intermediary power or a mediator between the ultimate creator of this world and the humnan beings is contrary to the logos of theology (Boyarin, 2001; Hillar, 1998). In 1 Corinthians 12:4-11, it was stated that “there are diversities of gifs, differences of mninistries, diversities of activities, word of wisdom, another faith, gifts of healings, works of miracles, and prophecy, but the same Spirit, Lord, and God”. Furthermore, Romans 12:6-7 stated that “having then gifts differening according to the grace that is given to us, let us use them: if prophecy, let us prophesy in proportion to our faith; or ministry, let us use it in our ministering”. Basically, 1 Corinthians 12:4-11 is referring to spiritual gifts as “God-given capacity of every Christian to carry out his function in the body of Christ” (Deffinbaugh, 2004). It means that logos of theology is all about making use of one’s spirititual gift in spreading the word of God through ministries. For example, in order to spread the word of God, a person who has a spiritual gift in music can actively participate in the choir of a church ministry. Hillar (1998) stated that “Mystic vision (i.e. prophetic messages) allows our soul to see the Divine Logos and achieve a union with God”. In the world of Christianity and other religion, the word mysticism is pertaining to the “spiritual life of the monk and nun who worked to purify their souls of darkness” (Parsons, 2011, p. 27). However, contemporary use of the word mysticism is refering to a wide-range of practices related to “paranormal occultism, magic, spiritualism, and Eastern or new age philosophies” (Daniels, 2003). This argument alone causes a conflict between philosophical and theological views of logos. Conclusion and Recommendation The philosophy of logos is based on earthly wisdom which means that this form of wisdom is not purely based on the teachings of God but more on a set of rules that people are obliged to observe when living in a particular society. Boyarin (2001) mentioned that the “logos” of theology is an end-product of Christianity and that the logos of theology serve as “a virtual commonplace”. It means that each and every religion in this world follows and strongly acknowledges the importance of divine reasoning before making any form of judgment or conclusion. In general, theology of logos is based on a divine wisdom. Coming directly from God through the divine interference of the prophets, theology of logos means that the reasoning of thoughts and the spoken words that are based on religious teachings. Therefore, theology of logos serves as a direct link between the creator and human beings. The Bible mentioned that “Satan disguises himself as the angel of light… it is no surprise that his servant would also disguise themselves as servants of righteousness” (see 2 Corinthians 11:14-15). In other words, Satan and his servants could easily pretend to be helpful and kind. With regards to the issue on prophetic messages, human beings should be aware of people who are practicing self prophecy because there are psychic people who are using the term “prophetic reading” in order to mislead the faith of Christians. Having in mind that the divine logos or the word of God is present in the Bible, each human being should be responsible enough to adhere to their faith and avoid seeking wisdom from wrong sources other than directly from God. In general, there is a conflicting idea between the philosophy and theology of logos. In line with this, Jackson-McCabe (2001, p. 219) clearly explained that there are different ways in which human beings can receive wisdom. First, we have the “earthly wisdom” which is dominated by the pleasures of the flesh. Second, the “psychic or demonic wisdom” which comes directly from Satan. And last, is the “divine wisdom” which comes directly from God. Also related to divine wisdom, it is through prayers that each human being is able to establish a direct link with God. Since there are different sources of logos, human beings should clearly understand that “logos” and “faith” alone is not enough to save our souls from death. Instead, the right path to salvation is to combine faith and the divine logos into our daily lives. References Audi, R. (1999). Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. 2nd Edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Basic Theology (2012). The Doctrine of the Person of Christ in the Early Church. [Online] Available at: http://www.basictheology.com/articles/PersonofChrist_Early/full/ [Accessed 20 March 2012]. Boyarin, D. (2001). The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John. Harvard Theorlogical Review , 94(3), pp. 243-284. Brent, A. (1999). John as theologos: the imperial mysteries and the Apocalypse. Journal for the Study of the New Testament , 75, pp. 87-102. Copleston, F. (2003). A history of philosophy, Volume 1. London: Continuum. Daniels, M. (2003). Making Sense of Mysticism. Transpersonal Psychology Review , 7(1), pp. 39-55. Deffinbaugh, B. (2004, May 26). Bible.org. Worship (Part 2). [Online] Available at: http://wap.bible.org/seriespage/spiritual-gifts-1-corinthians-121-11 [Accessed 22 March 2012]. gotquestions.org. (2012a). What is the Christian view of psychics? [Online] Available at: http://www.gotquestions.org/psychics-Christian.html [Accessed 22 March 2012]. Hillar, M. (1998). The Logos and its function in the writings of Philo of Alexandria: Greek Interpretation of the Hebrew Myth and Foundations of Christianity. A journal from the Radical Reformation A Testimony to Biblical Unitarianism , 7(3), pp. 22-37 (Part I); 7(4), pp. 36-53 (Part II). Jackson-McCabe, M. (2001). Logos and law in the letter of James: the law of nature, the law of Moses and the law of freedom. MA: Brill. Parsons, W. (2011). Teaching Mysticism. NY: Oxford University Press. Read More