A very exciting collection on pre-pub

He's probably my most favorite Christian writer/philosopher of the current century. If you don't know much about him, I invite you to listen to one of his lectures. He writes in a very similar style to how he talks and teaches. He has a way of conveying information that keeps you engaged and entertained even when the subject matter is utterly serious. And he happens to be extremely intelligent as well.

Yes he's Catholic and if you're among those who are sensitive to this, please take courage and do not make that deter you from discovering his rich writings. There's a lot of common-place Christianity there much like C.S. Lewis; one of his most favorite Christian figures (the others are probably Chesterton and Sts Augustine and Aquinas).

You probably already own one of his works: he co-authored the Handbook of Christian Apologetics logosres:hca;art=title. He also contributed to one of Geisler's apologetic books.

To get another taste of his style of writing, check out a story he made up where C.S. Lewis during his writing of "Mere Christianity" was surprised by Martin Luther and Thomas Aquinas debating. There is a snippet of it here and also in this forum post. And if you search hard enough on the internet, you can find the entire story.

Still not convinced? Why not check out the sample pages and let me know what you think.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

Rosie Perera

I've ordered it, but it's missing all but one of Kreeft's titles that I have in my print library, which is quite disappointing. I hope they come out with a Kreeft Upgrade collection that includes the following:

Between Heaven and Hell
Christianity for Modern Pagans (Pascal's Pensees)
Making Sense out of Suffering
Socrates Meets Jesus
Back to Virtue
C.S. Lewis for the Third Millennium
The Shadowlands of C.S. Lewis

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509819#Comment_509819

I've ordered it, but it's missing all but one of Kreeft's titles that I have in my print library, which is quite disappointing.

I know what you mean. But Kreeft is a prolific writer his Amazon Author page lists 65 book results. I want them all in Logos.

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509823#Comment_509823

Wonderful! [:)] I've pre-ordered. Thanks for bringing this to our attention!

Deacon Steve

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/509823#Comment_509823

I want them all in Logos.

[Y][Y]

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510121#Comment_510121

Ok... I'm on a mission: I will keep bumping this thread up with quotes from Peter Kreeft until the collection is in development! [6]

Here's the first one:

“America does not know the difference between money and sex. It treats sex like money because it treats sex as a medium of exchange, and it treats money like sex because it expects its money to get pregnant and reproduce.”
How to Win the Culture War: A Christian Battle Plan for a Society in Crisis

Sogol

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510727#Comment_510727

I guess we'll just have to get this one published first and then maybe we'll get the rest of the titles in versions 2, 3, 4, 5....

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510727#Comment_510727

Fundamentals of the Faith">So the saints are right. If I am nothing, nothing that is mine is anything. Nothing is mine by nature. But one thing is mine by my free choice: the self I give away in love. That is the thing even God cannot do for me. It is my choice. Everything I say is mine is not. But everything I say is yours is mine. C. S. Lewis, asked which of his many library books he thought he would have in heaven, replied, "Only the ones I gave away on earth and never got back". The same is true of our very self. It is like a ball in a game of catch: throw it and it will come back to you; hold onto it and that ends the game.

fgh

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511171#Comment_511171

Have you seen http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2413/finding_god_at_the_beach_an_interview_with_peter_kreeft.aspx?

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511310#Comment_511310

Have you seen http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2413/finding_god_at_the_beach_an_interview_with_peter_kreeft.aspx?

Thanks for the link, I have not seen it before. But I've heard similarly from Kreeft talks particularly his conversion story (which you can find on youtube).

Today's quote is from his book on prayer[quote]Let's get very, very basic and very, very practical about prayer. The single most important piece of advice I know about prayer is also the simplest: Just do it!

How to do it is less important than just doing it. Less-than-perfect prayer is infinitely better than no prayer; more perfect prayer is only finitely better than less perfect prayer.

Nancy Reagan was criticized for her simple anti-drug slogan: "Just say no." But there was wisdom there: the wisdom that the heart of any successful program to stop anything must be the simple will to say no. ("Just say no" doesn't mean that nothing else was needed, but that without that simple decision nothing else would work. "Just say no" may not be sufficient but it is necessary.)

Similarly, no program, method, book, teacher, or technique will ever succeed in getting us to start doing anything unless there is first of all that simple, absolute choice to do it. "Just say yes."

The major obstacle in most of our lives to just saying yes to prayer, the most popular and powerful excuse we give for not praying, or not praying more, or not praying regularly, is that we have no time.

The only effective answer to that excuse, I find, is a kind of murder. You have to kill something, you have to say no to something else, in order to make time to pray. Of course, you will never find time to pray, you have to make time to pray. And that means unmaking something else. The only way to install the tenant of prayer in the apartment building of your life is to evict some other tenant from those premises that prayer will occupy. Few of us have any empty rooms available.

Deciding to do that is the first thing. And you probably won't decide to do it, only wishto do it, unless you see prayer for what it is: a matter of life or death, your lifeline to God, to life itself.

Is this exaggerated? Are there more important things? Love, for instance? We need love absolutely; but the love we need is agape, the love that only God has and is; so unless we go to God for it, we won't get it. And going to God for it means prayer. So unless we pray, we will not love.

Having got that clear and having made prayer your number one priority, having made a definite decision to do it, we must next rearrange our lives around it. Rearranging your time, preparing time to pray, is like preparing your house to paint. As everyone knows who has done any painting, preparation is three-quartersthe work, three-quarters the hassle, and three-quarters the time. The actual painting is a breeze compared with the preparation. The same is true of prayer: the hardest step is preparing a place, a time, a sacred and inviolable part of each day for it. Prayer is like Thanksgiving dinner. It takes one hour to eat it and ten hours to prepare it. Prayer is like Christmas Day: it took a month of preparation, decoration, and shopping to arrange for that one day. Best of all, prayer is like love. Foreplay is, or should be, most of it. For two people truly and totally in love, all of their lives together is foreplay. Well, prayer is like spiritual love-making. God has waited patiently for you for a long, long time. He longs for you to touch the fringe of his being in prayer, as the woman touched the hem of Christ's garment, so that you can be healed. How many hours did that woman have to prepare for that one-minute touch?

The first and most important piece of practical preparation is scheduling. You absolutely must schedule a regular time for prayer, whether you are a "scheduler" with other things in your life or not. "Catch as catch can" simply won't work for prayer; it will mean less and less prayer, or none at all. One quick minute in the morning to offer your day to God is better than nothing at all, of course, but it is as radically inadequate as one quick minute a day with your wife or husband. You simply must decide each day to free up your schedule so you can pray.

How long a time? That varies with individuals and situations, of course; but the very barest minimum should certainly be at least fifteen minutes. You can't really count on getting much deep stuff going on in less time than that. If fifteen minutes seems too much to you, that fact is powerful proof that you need to pray much more to get your head on straight.

After it becomes more habitual and easy, expand it, double it. And later, double it again. Aim at an hour each day, if you want radical results. (Do you? Or are you only playing?)

What time of day is best? The most popular time—bedtime—is usually the worst possible time, for two reasons. First, it tends not to be prime time but garbage time, when you're the least alert and awake. Do you really want to put God in the worst apartment in your building? Should you offer him the sickest sheep in your flock?

Second, it won't work. If you wait until every other obligation is taken care of first before you pray, you simply won't pray. For life today is so cruelly complicated for most of us that "every other obligation" is never taken care of. Remember, you are going to have to kill other things in order to pray. No way out of that.

The most obvious and usually best time is early in the morning. If you can't delay the other things you do, you simply must get up that much earlier.

Should it be the very first thing? That depends. Some people are alert as soon as they get up; others need to shower and dress to wake up. The important thing is to give God the best time, and "just do it."

Place is almost as important as time. You should make one special place where you can be undisturbed. "Catch as catch can" won't work for place either.

What place? Some people are not very sensitive to environment and can even use a bathroom. Others naturally seek beauty: a porch, yard, garden, or walk. (I find praying while you take a walk a good combination of spiritual and physical exercise.)

You probably noticed I haven't said a word about techniques yet. That's because three-quarters is preparation, remember? But what about methods?

I can only speak from my own experience as a continuing beginner. The two most effective that I have found are very simple. One is praying Scripture, reading and praying at the same time, reading in God's presence, receiving the words from God's mouth. The second is spontaneous verbal prayer. I am not good at all at silent prayer, mental prayer, contemplative prayer; my thoughts hop around like fleas. Praying aloud (or singing) keeps me praying, at least. And I find it often naturally leads to silent prayer often, or "mental prayer," or contemplation.

Most advice on prayer focuses on higher levels: contemplative prayer. But I suspect many of my readers are prayer infants too and need to learn to walk before they can run. So these are some lessons from one man's prayer kindergarten. Let's "just do it" even if "it" is only crawling towards God.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511474#Comment_511474

Is this exaggerated? Are there more important things? Love, for instance? We need love absolutely; but the love we need is agape, the love that only God has and is; so unless we go to God for it, we won't get it. And going to God for it means prayer. So unless we pray, we will not love.

*sigh*

agape is NOT the love that only God has and is. From D.A. Carson Exegetical Fallacies - Second Edition, available in Logos:

But most of those who insist that there is a distinction to be made in John’s use of the two verbs do so on one of two grounds. First, they argue that translators of the Septuagint and New Testament writers have invested61 ἀγαπάω (agapaō, to love) and ἀγάπη (agapē, love) with special meaning to provide an adequate expression by which to talk about the love of God; and only this accounts for the word’s rapid rise to prominence in our literature. But this argument has been overturned by the diachronic study of Robert Joly, who presents convincing evidence that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) was coming into prominence throughout Greek literature from the fourth century b.c. on, and was not restricted to biblical literature.62 This development was fostered by a number of changes in the language (linguists call them structural changes) in which ἀγαπάω (agapaō) was becoming one of the standard verbs for “to love” because φιλέω (phileō) had acquired the meaning to kiss as part of its semantic range. The reasons for these developments need not detain us;63 but the evidence is substantial and effectively disqualifies this first ground.

The second ground on which many build their argument that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) is to be distinguished from φιλέω (phileō) in John 21:15–17—and the one that concerns us most directly at the moment—is well illustrated by William Hendriksen’s commentary.64 Hendriksen shows that although there is considerable semantic overlap between ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō), once one considers all the biblical passages in which these two words occur there is clear evidence for a little semantic “overhang” in each case. For instance, φιλέω (phileō) can be used when Judas kisses Jesus (Luke 22:47); ἀγαπάω (agapaō) is never used in such a context. On this sort of basis, then, Hendriksen concludes that ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and φιλέω (phileō) are not complete synonyms, and therefore that they preserve slightly differently semantic thrusts in John 21:15–17.

Whatever the outcome of the continued debate on this passage, it should by now be obvious that Hendriksen’s argument will not stand up, precisely because he mishandles the difficult questions surrounding synonymy. The heart of his argument is that the total semantic range of each word is slightly different from the other, and therefore that there is a semantic difference in this context. But if we decide contextually specific questions of synonymy on the basis of the total semantic range of each word, any synonymy in any context is virtually impossible. Hendriksen’s treatment illegitimately forecloses the question.65

- - -

61 The less sophisticated, of course, will not use the word invested, but will say that the writers of the Septuagint and the New Testament chose ἀγαπάω (agapaō) and cognates as the only adequate term with which to talk about God’s love. But this is a return to the root fallacy, already discussed.

62 Robert Joly, Le vocabulaire chrétien de l’amour est-il original? Φιλεὶν ετ ἀγαπάν dans le grec antique (Brussels: Presses Universitaires, 1968).

63 Briefly, Joly demonstrates that φιλέω (phileō) acquired this new and additional meaning because an older verb for “to kiss,” κυνέω (kyneō), was dropping out; and the reason for this latter disappearance was the homonymic clash with yet another verb, κύνω (kynō, which means “to impregnate”), particularly in the aorist, where both κυνέω (kyneō, to kiss) and κύνω (kynō, to impregnate) have the same form ἔκυσα (ekysa). This would encourage various salacious puns and gradually force κυνέω (kyneō) into obsolescence.

64 William Hendriksen, The Gospel of John, 2 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1953–54), especially 2:494–500.

65 Perhaps I should add that I am not suggesting there is nothing distinctive about God’s love. The Scriptures insist there is. But the content of God’s love is not connected on a one-to-one basis with the semantic range of any single word or word group. What the Bible has to say about the love of God is conveyed by sentences, paragraphs, discourses, and so forth; that is, by larger semantic units than the word.

Hapax Legomena

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511480#Comment_511480

I am looking forward to this collection. I do wish Logos could get the rights to more of his works.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511480#Comment_511480

*sigh*

agape is NOT the love that only God has and is.

Hey Eric, this seems like a pet peeve to you. I'm not bothered so much by it but I understand you. Kreeft is not a Greek scholar, he's a philosopher so excuse him

If we just delete the word agape from the sentence it will still convey the whole message: [quote]Is this exaggerated? Are there more important things? Love, for instance? We need love absolutely; but the love we need is [...] the love that only God has and is; so unless we go to God for it, we won't get it. And going to God for it means prayer. So unless we pray, we will not love.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510727#Comment_510727

Today's quote is from his book "The philosophy of Jesus":

[quote]THERE ARE FOUR PERENNIAL philosophical questions. “Philosophy” means “the love of wisdom,” and wisdom, if we had it, would give us answers to at least these four great questions:

What is? What is real? Especially, what is most real?
How can we know what is real, and especially the most real?
Who are we, who want to know the real? “Know thyself.”
What should we be, how should we live, to be more real?

They are the questions about being, truth, self, and goodness. The divisions of philosophy that explore these four questions are called by four technical names: metaphysics, epistemology, philosophical anthropology, and ethics.

1. First things first: everything is relative to metaphysics. The first thing every baby wants to know is: What’s there? My son’s first question was “Wot dat?” He kept shooting the question at everything, like a machine gun, until he got a catalog of answers, a universe.

If we are wise, we never grow up.

2. But we do change. Around the beginning of adolescence we turn critical: we want to know not just the difference between cats and dogs but the difference between truth and falsehood. We want to know how we can know, how we can be sure. We become epistemologists. And since the most interesting question of metaphysics is about ultimate reality, the most interesting question of epistemology is about knowing ultimate reality: how can we finite fools know infinite wisdom? How can man know God? Or even that there is a God?

3. A little later, we also turn inward. We wonder who we really are once we stop playing with our masks on other people’s stages. Why is it so hard to “know thyself ”? Obviously, what we are is human beings, but what is that? (“Wot dat?”) Once we know the known, we want to know the knower.

4. Finally, when we realize that this self that knows is fundamentally different from everything else in the known universe because it alone can failto be its true self, we then demand to discriminate not only between truth and falsehood but also between good and evil. We can be bad or good. Nothing else in the universe has that choice. Our selves, unlike acorns or stars, are not wholly given to us but made by our choices. Once we realize that, we ask how we can become our true selves, our real selves, our good selves. How can bad people become good people? And what is it to be a good person? (“Wot dat?”)

The logical order of questions is this: we must first know something real before we can know how we know it; and we must first know who we are before we can know what is good for us. The order is also an order of increasing concreteness, increasing practicality, and increasing accessibility and interest to ordinary people. Ethics is based on metaphysics, it is logically posterior to metaphysics; but it is psychologically more compelling.

Philosophers have thought profoundly about these four questions for over two millennia. Why have they not found answers that are adequate, final, and universally acknowledged? Why is one of the best definitions of a philosopher “one who contradicts other philosophers”? H.L. Mencken said, “Philosophy consists largely of one philosopher arguing that all the others are jackasses. He usually proves it.”

The Christian answer: because the only adequate and final answer to all four great philosophical questions is Christ. The most philosophical writer in the Bible, John, begins his Gospel by identifying Jesus with the Logos (“In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logoswas with God and the Logos was God . . . and the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us.”) What is the Logos? It is an incredibly rich Greek word. Here are some of its meanings: the Logos means the Word of God, the Revelation of God, the Speech of God, the Wisdom of God, the Mind of God, the Truth of God, the Reason of God, the Philosophy of God.

Jesus is God’s philosophy.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511800#Comment_511800

*sigh*

agape is NOT the love that only God has and is.

Hey Eric, this seems like a pet peeve to you. I'm not bothered so much by it but I understand you. Kreeft is not a Greek scholar, he's a philosopher so excuse him If we just delete the word agape from the sentence it will still convey the whole message: [quote]Is this exaggerated? Are there more important things? Love, for instance? We need love absolutely; but the love we need is [...] the love that only God has and is; so unless we go to God for it, we won't get it. And going to God for it means prayer. So unless we pray, we will not love.

Not a particular pet peeve, but reciting disproven hoary old "preacher Greek" chestnuts, whether from the pulpit or in print, does irritate me. If you haven't had a few years of NT Greek or Biblical Hebrew or don't check with up-to-date lexical/grammatical information, don't say or write "In the original Greek [Hebrew], it says/this word means...." as if you're now giving your audience or readers some arcane knowledge. Kreeft isn't doing that here, but his premise that agape is a special possession of God's, which it's not, means his conclusion can be faulted. [H]

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511800#Comment_511800

*sigh*

agape is NOT the love that only God has and is.

Hey Eric, this seems like a pet peeve to you. I'm not bothered so much by it but I understand you. Kreeft is not a Greek scholar, he's a philosopher so excuse him If we just delete the word agape from the sentence it will still convey the whole message: [quote]Is this exaggerated? Are there more important things? Love, for instance? We need love absolutely; but the love we need is [...] the love that only God has and is; so unless we go to God for it, we won't get it. And going to God for it means prayer. So unless we pray, we will not love.

This is a matter which has been noted on the b-greek forum on numerous occasions though I think that was on the old forum (change in format). I believe Eric is / was a participant in the forum so I can understand his reservations on that score. Old myths die hard, and the myth that agape is only related to God and that it means something entirely different from fileo is one that continues to hang on so, no, don't cut him any slack—drive a stake through the heart of this notion.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511861#Comment_511861

*sigh*

agape is NOT the love that only God has and is.

Hey Eric, this seems like a pet peeve to you. I'm not bothered so much by it but I understand you. Kreeft is not a Greek scholar, he's a philosopher so excuse him If we just delete the word agape from the sentence it will still convey the whole message: [quote]Is this exaggerated? Are there more important things? Love, for instance? We need love absolutely; but the love we need is [...] the love that only God has and is; so unless we go to God for it, we won't get it. And going to God for it means prayer. So unless we pray, we will not love.

Thanks, George. [H]

Bye-bye, Trench's Synonyms (or at least caveat emptor).

fgh

More Kreeft: Peter Kreeft’s Socratic Dialogues (7 vols.)

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511861#Comment_511861

Old myths die hard, and the myth that agape is only related to God and that it means something entirely different from fileo is one that continues to hang on so, no, don't cut him any slack—drive a stake through the heart of this notion.

Agree. Here's Pope Benedict's words on the subject (from Deus Caritas Est also in Logos):

This in turn led us to consider two fundamental words: eros, as a term to indicate “worldly” love and agape, referring to love grounded in and shaped by faith. The two notions are often contrasted as “ascending” love and “descending” love. There are other, similar classifications, such as the distinction between possessive love and oblative love (amor concupiscentiae—amor benevolentiae), to which is sometimes also added love that seeks its own advantage.

In philosophical and theological debate, these distinctions have often been radicalized to the point of establishing a clear antithesis between them: descending, oblative love—agape—would be typically Christian, while on the other hand ascending, possessive or covetous love—eros—would be typical of non-Christian, and particularly Greek culture. Were this antithesis to be taken to extremes, the essence of Christianity would be detached from the vital relations fundamental to human existence, and would become a world apart, admirable perhaps, but decisively cut off from the complex fabric of human life. Yet eros and agape—ascending love and descending love—can never be completely separated. The more the two, in their different aspects, find a proper unity in the one reality of love, the more the true nature of love in general is realized. Even if eros is at first mainly covetous and ascending, a fascination for the great promise of happiness, in drawing near to the other, it is less and less concerned with itself, increasingly seeks the happiness of the other, is concerned more and more with the beloved, bestows itself and wants to “be there for” the other.

[...]

Fundamentally, “love” is a single reality, but with different dimensions; at different times, one or other dimension may emerge more clearly. Yet when the two dimensions are totally cut off from one another, the result is a caricature or at least an impoverished form of love.

Benedict XVI. (2005). Deus Caritas Est. Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana.

Therefore Agape is not only God's love and also God's love is not only agape. No argument with me. Cool?

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512222#Comment_512222

Here's the passage that settles the matter completely—Jn 1.20

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/511902#Comment_511902

Thanks, George.

Bye-bye, Trench's Synonyms (or at least caveat emptor).

Wow... ok I feel a little compelled to reply and so I apologize in advance if I sound rude, I don't intend to. Eric, I agree with you about the meaning of agape but that's as far as agreement goes. You should have stopped there and not insinuate that Kreeft's works are now doubtful because that's certainly how I read your comments.

Not a particular pet peeve, but reciting disproven hoary old "preacher Greek" chestnuts, whether from the pulpit or in print, does irritate me.

Ok I understand, but to me equally irritating is drifting off topic, appointing one's self as judge over "faulty" conclusions because of an error in the meaning of a word, turning discussion into a more-intelligent-than-thou attitude and almost insinuating debate.

Kreeft isn't doing that here

So what's the point of your rhetoric?

, but his premise that agape is a special possession of God's, which it's not, means his conclusion can be faulted.

Only if it's a premise that the conclusion depends on. In this case, that does not apply. How does the misunderstanding about agape's meaning undermine the point made in the quote that prayer is needed inasmuch as love is needed? The meaning of agape has no bearing on the conclusion.

I think this hullabaloo about agape's meaning is a little over board. Yeah let's correct the myth, but that does not mean boycotting Kreeft. If it does no one should buy any book here. For example, I know some of Spurgeon's sermons are very offending to me and are totally wrong. I didn't go screaming "caveat emptor" in the thread promoting his works. Instead I bid on his books because I know he has good stuff there.

Kreeft happens to be a bit popular among Catholics; why don't you put an order and find out why?

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512240#Comment_512240

Here's the passage that settles the matter completely—Jn 1.20

ὁ γὰρ πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ ἃ αὐτὸς ποιεῖ, καὶ μείζονα τούτων δείξει αὐτῷ ἔργα, ἵνα ὑμεῖς θαυμάζητε.

[Y]

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510727#Comment_510727

Kreeft about heaven:

[quote]But even if this theory is true it does not entail our omniscience. Even if there is no curtain in Heaven, even if our consciousness there dashes against no wall or limit, still we remain like the tiny figures in a Chinese landscape: small subjects in an enormously larger objective world. Even if we then escape from the tiny hut in which we are now imprisoned and through whose smudged windows or chinks in whose walls we now must look — even if we wander freely in the country of light — we are in the light, not the light in us. Our first and last wisdom in Heaven is Socratic, just as it is on earth: to know how little we know. If there is no end of the need for humility in the moral order (the saint is the one humble enough not to think he is a saint), the same is true of the intellectual order (the wise man is the one humble enough to know he has no wisdom). It all depends on the standard of judgment: by earthly standards most of us are moderately saintly and moderately wise; by Heavenly standards all of us, even in Heaven, are children. And by the standard of the infinite, inexhaustible perfection of God, we remain children forever. Happy children, fulfilled children, but children.

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512366#Comment_512366

Eric Weiss

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512242#Comment_512242

Thanks, George.

Bye-bye, Trench's Synonyms (or at least caveat emptor).

Wow... ok I feel a little compelled to reply and so I apologize in advance if I sound rude, I don't intend to. Eric, I agree with you about the meaning of agape but that's as far as agreement goes. You should have stopped there and not insinuate that Kreeft's works are now doubtful because that's certainly how I read your comments.
Not a particular pet peeve, but reciting disproven hoary old "preacher Greek" chestnuts, whether from the pulpit or in print, does irritate me.
Ok I understand, but to me equally irritating is drifting off topic, appointing one's self as judge over "faulty" conclusions because of an error in the meaning of a word, turning discussion into a more-intelligent-than-thou attitude and almost insinuating debate.
Kreeft isn't doing that here

So what's the point of your rhetoric?

, but his premise that agape is a special possession of God's, which it's not, means his conclusion can be faulted.
Only if it's a premise that the conclusion depends on. In this case, that does not apply. How does the misunderstanding about agape's meaning undermine the point made in the quote that prayer is needed inasmuch as love is needed? The meaning of agape has no bearing on the conclusion.
I think this hullabaloo about agape's meaning is a little over board. Yeah let's correct the myth, but that does not mean boycotting Kreeft. If it does no one should buy any book here. For example, I know some of Spurgeon's sermons are very offending to me and are totally wrong. I didn't go screaming "caveat emptor" in the thread promoting his works. Instead I bid on his books because I know he has good stuff there.

Kreeft happens to be a bit popular among Catholics; why don't you put an order and find out why?

Slieman:

I never insinuated that Kreeft's works are doubtful, just faulted him for making a perhaps questionable conclusion based on a faulty premise regarding agape. I was not criticizing anything more than that or saying more than that one should be careful about using "preacher Greek." I like some of what I've read from Kreeft. My caveat emptor was about Trench's Synonyms, not Kreeft's works. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512402#Comment_512402

My caveat emptor was about Trench's Synonyms, not Kreeft's works. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

Oh! I now see how that makes sense... duh [:$]. I'm so sorry I misunderstood you; it's embarrassing [:$] because I did the exact thing that I accused you of: making a big deal out of nothing! All is good I hope.

There are also collections of his Socratic dialogues, and a collection of more apologetic works. Three cool collections by Dr. Kreeft. (sorry I don't know hyperlinking, but if you search they show up in top).

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/512568#Comment_512568

There are also collections of his Socratic dialogues, and a collection of more apologetic works. Three cool collections by Dr. Kreeft. (sorry I don't know hyperlinking, but if you search they show up in top).

You're right, thank you. Here are the hyperlinks:

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/510727#Comment_510727

From Heaven, the Heart’s Deepest Longing:

[quote]Of course it is God we want. But not everyone knows that. How does one come to know it? Not merely by being preached at, nor by rational argument, but by experience - the Ausustinian experience of the restless heart and the Ecclesiastes experience of the vanity of everthing else. we find the presence of the absence of God, the God-shaped hole that nothing else can fill. Everyone, not just "religious people" (whoever they are), is born, built, and designed to feed on God-food; and when we try to feed on other food, we starve.

There lives in us, deep down in the heart, a little nightingale that keeps calling for its birdseed. It is a bothersome but infinitely precious little bird. The nightingale lives way down under a host of larger, louder animals, each demanding its food; so it is easy to ignore. It has a "still, small voice" (1 Kings 19:12). But when we ignore it, even if we feed all the other animals (which is impossible), we are not satisfied, because we are that nightingale and we are starving.

[....]

So we try to quiet this terrible, tiny voice. We feed the nightingale dog food and cat food and monkey food (especially monkey food). But it keeps crying for nightingale food, and we cannot find nightingale food. Yet, though we do not feed it, it does not die. We can muffle it, but like Bergman's knight, we cannot kill it.

This is our deepest failure, the failure to satisfy our deepest desire. To cover up our failure, we compensate with other successes: we feed the other animals. We have a wonderfully efficient animal-feeding machine: that prolific diversion factory, that endlessly self-perpetuating game we call our modern technological society. It keeps us too busy ever to hear our nightingale, for we hear that voice only in silence.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513278#Comment_513278

Rev. Michael J. Albrecht (author of Mathew - the People's Bible Commentary) had this to say about Kreeft's Love is Stonger Than Death in the July 1994 issue of Logia. He also compared Kreeft's idea of death as birth with that of Luther's. You can find the complete context of this review of the book in the attached pdf.2273.127_Death as a Mother.PDF

[quote]A professor of philosophy at Boston College, Kreeft earned his PhD at Fordham. His uncanny ability
to ask the right questions grows out of his training in philosophy and combines with his
disarming sense of humor to make him a formidable apologist for Christianity. Among
his published works are Between Heaven and Hell, The Unaborted Socrates, and
Making Sense Out of Suffering.
One of Kreeft’s earlier books, entitled Love is Stronger than Death, was originally
published by Harper & Row in 1979. Ignatius Press republished it in 1992. In his
introduction Kreeft makes four vital points. First, “life is either totally meaningful or
totally meaningless, depending on what death is. Therefore we had better try to find out
what death is.”
This leads logically to his second point: “Much has been written lately on the medical
and psychological aspects of death, and on the cultural and sociological aspects of
death; but the primary question is surely the philosophical one, What is death? How we
approach death, feel about death, cope with death, and actually die depends on what
death is. What is its essence, its meaning? That is what we explore in this book.”

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513848#Comment_513848

Thank you, Good Brother, for that .pdf link ...

Peace! *smile*

Brian Losabia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/515941#Comment_515941

My brother-in-law passed along a couple of Kreeft's lectures on CD, and I liked the lectures so much that I promptly logged on to the Logos website and placed a pre-order for the Kreeft theology collection. You can listen to one of the talks that I heard, on Time and Eternity, here.

George Somsel

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/520096#Comment_520096

My brother-in-law passed along a couple of Kreeft's lectures on CD, and I liked the lectures so much that I promptly logged on to the Logos website and placed a pre-order for the Kreeft theology collection. You can listen to one of the talks that I heard, on Time and Eternity, here.

It reminds me of the old Remington shaver ad where the guy says "I liked it so much I bought the company." [:D]

Brian Losabia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/520101#Comment_520101

Well, I did like shaving with a DE razor (old fashioned "safety razor") so much that I gave one as a Christmas gift to a different brother-in-law. Which reminds me: I need to mail my (paper) copy of the Ignatius Catholic Study Bible NT to the Kreeft CD BIL, since I have that resource in Logos now.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/513848#Comment_513848

Rev. Michael J. Albrecht (author of Mathew - the People's Bible Commentary) had this to say about Kreeft's Love is Stonger Than Death in the July 1994 issue of Logia. He also compared Kreeft's idea of death as birth with that of Luther's. You can find the complete context of this review of the book in the attached pdf.2273.127_Death as a Mother.PDF

[quote]A professor of philosophy at Boston College, Kreeft earned his PhD at Fordham. His uncanny ability
to ask the right questions grows out of his training in philosophy and combines with his
disarming sense of humor to make him a formidable apologist for Christianity. Among
his published works are Between Heaven and Hell, The Unaborted Socrates, and
Making Sense Out of Suffering.
One of Kreeft’s earlier books, entitled Love is Stronger than Death, was originally
published by Harper & Row in 1979. Ignatius Press republished it in 1992. In his
introduction Kreeft makes four vital points. First, “life is either totally meaningful or
totally meaningless, depending on what death is. Therefore we had better try to find out
what death is.”
This leads logically to his second point: “Much has been written lately on the medical
and psychological aspects of death, and on the cultural and sociological aspects of
death; but the primary question is surely the philosophical one, What is death? How we
approach death, feel about death, cope with death, and actually die depends on what
death is. What is its essence, its meaning? That is what we explore in this book.”

Peace, Brother Sleiman, so! You read Logia (http://logia.org/) Good for you!

I DID appreciate your post and your reference to Kreeft and thought I'd share one section of Luther's Works that might be apropos to our discussion here -- just in case you do not have Luther's Works, which I as a retired Lutheran pastor (LCMS) truly relish .... I read the .pdf and this .... so hope this is helpful and a blessing ........ *smile*

logosres:lw42;ref=VolumePage.V_42,_pp_99-102;off=0;ctx=~A_SERMON_ON_PREPARING_TO_DIE$0AMartin_Luth

A Sermon on Preparing to Die

Martin Luther, Augustinian Monk

First, since death marks a farewell from this world and all its activities, it is necessary that a man regulate his temporal goods properly or as he wishes to have them ordered, lest after his death there be occasion for squabbles, quarrels, or other misunderstanding among his surviving friends. This pertains to the physical or external departure from this world and to the surrender of our possessions.

Second, we must also take leave spiritually. That is, we must cheerfully and sincerely forgive, for God’s sake, all men who have offended us. At the same time we must also, for God’s sake, earnestly seek the forgiveness of all the people whom we undoubtedly have greatly offended by setting them a bad example or by bestowing too few of the kindnesses demanded by the law of Christian brotherly love. This is necessary lest the soul remain burdened by its actions here on earth.

Third, since everyone must depart, we must turn our eyes to God, to whom the path of death leads and directs us. Here we find the beginning of the narrow gate and of the straight path to life [Matt. 7:14]. All must joyfully venture forth on this path, for though the gate is quite narrow, the path is not long. Just as an infant is born with peril and pain from the small abode of its mother’s womb into this immense heaven and earth, that is, into this world, so man departs this life through the narrow gate of death. And although the heavens and the earth in which we dwell at present seem large and wide to us, they are nevertheless much narrower and smaller than the mother’s womb in comparison with the future heaven. Therefore, the death of the dear saints is called a new birth, and their feast day is known in Latin as natale, that is, the day of their birth. However, the narrow passage of death makes us think of this life as expansive and the life beyond as confined. Therefore, we must believe this and learn a lesson from the physical birth of a child, as Christ declares, “When a woman is in travail she has sorrow; but when she has recovered, she no longer remembers the anguish, since a child is born by her into the world” [John 16:21]. So it is that in dying we must bear this anguish and know that a large mansion and joy will follow [John 14:2].

Fourth, such preparation and readiness for this journey are accomplished first of all by providing ourselves with a sincere confession (of at least the greatest sins and those which by diligent search can be recalled by our memory), with the holy Christian sacrament of the holy and true body of Christ, and with the unction. If these can be had, one should devoutly desire them and receive them with great confidence. If they cannot be had, our longing and yearning for them should nevertheless be a comfort and we should not be too dismayed by this circumstance.³ Christ says, “All things are possible to him who believes” [Mark 9:23]. The sacraments are nothing else than signs which help and incite us to faith, as we shall see. Without this faith they serve no purpose.

Fifth, we must earnestly, diligently, and highly esteem the holy sacraments, hold them in honor, freely and cheerfully rely on them, and so balance them against sin, death, and hell that they will outweigh these by far. We must occupy ourselves much more with the sacraments and their virtues than with our sins. However, we must know how to give them due honor and we must know what their virtues are. I show them due honor when I believe that I truly receive what the sacraments signify and all that God declares and indicates in them, so that I can say with Mary in firm faith, “Let it be to me according to your words and signs” [Luke 1:38]. Since God himself here speaks and acts through the priest, we would do him in his Word and work no greater dishonor than to doubt whether it is true. And we can do him no greater honor than to believe that his Word and work are true and to firmly rely on them.

Sixth, to recognize the virtues of the sacraments, we must know the evils which they contend with and which we face. There are three such evils: first, the terrifying image of death; second, the awesomely manifold image of sin; third, the unbearable and unavoidable image of hell and eternal damnation.⁵ Every other evil issues from these three and grows large and strong as a result of such mingling.

Death looms so large and is terrifying because our foolish and fainthearted nature has etched its image too vividly within itself and constantly fixes its gaze on it. Moreover, the devil presses man to look closely at the gruesome mien and image of death to add to his worry, timidity, and despair. Indeed, he conjures up before man’s eyes all the kinds of sudden and terrible death ever seen, heard, or read by man. And then he also slyly suggests the wrath of God with which he [the devil] in days past now and then tormented and destroyed sinners. In that way he fills our foolish human nature with the dread of death while cultivating a love and concern for life, so that burdened with such thoughts man forgets God, flees and abhors death, and thus, in the end, is and remains disobedient to God.

We should familiarize ourselves with death during our lifetime, inviting death into our presence when it is still at a distance and not on the move. At the time of dying, however, this is hazardous and useless, for then death looms large of its own accord. In that hour we must put the thought of death out of mind and refuse to see it, as we shall hear. The power and might of death are rooted in the fearfulness of our nature and in our untimely and undue viewing and contemplating of it.

Seventh, sin also grows large and important when we dwell on it and brood over it too much. This is increased by the fearfulness of our conscience, which is ashamed before God and accuses itself terribly. That is the water that the devil has been seeking for his mill. He makes our sins seem large and numerous. He reminds us of all who have sinned and of the many who were d^{^[1]} end of copied quote, although the article continues....

^{^[1]} Luther, M. (1999). Luther’s works, vol. 42: Devotional Writings I. (J. J. Pelikan, H. C. Oswald, & H. T. Lehmann, Eds.) (Vol. 42, pp. 99–102). Philadelphia: Fortress Press.

Sleiman

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/520178#Comment_520178

so hope this is helpful and a blessing

It is [:)] thanks Milford! I like Luther's likening of death (to birth) as a narrow gate to a wider/larger life (heaven). Although I don't own Luther's works, they are now in my wish list [:O]

so! You read Logia (http://logia.org/) Good for you!

Not a subscriber but it's fortunate that they offer some good articles for free online. I've got to confess Milford: I was looking for reviews of Kreeft's book from non Catholics as a way to promote his works when I found that article (downloadable pdf) on the LCMS website. I liked it and thought of sharing it here.

Brian Losabia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/520190#Comment_520190

It looks like the Kreef theology collection is going to ship on 10/15. :-) for my Logos library, and :-( for my wallet. Even from the handful of Kreeft's lectures and essays which I've heard/read, there have been a few pearls of wisdom which have stuck with me. For example: after hearing Kreeft propose that the true enemies of a Christian are demons and dark spiritual forces, it became somewhat easier for me to try to get inside of some of the Psalms which speak of God crushing the heads of our foes, smiting our enemies, etc.

Kreeft's catechism/commentary on the CCC is included in the theology collection as well.

Milford Charles Murray

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528064#Comment_528064

Thanks for your post, Brian! *smile* Peace! I personally didn't know much about Kreeft prior to this, so I'm quite excited about getting to know him!

Nick Steffen

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528064#Comment_528064

It's too bad, though, that for all of his works coming in these pre-pub collections his Socratic Logic textbook is not included.

http://www.amazon.com/Socratic-Logic-Questions-Aristotelian-Principles/dp/1587318083

Brian Losabia

https://community.logos.com/discussion/comment/528072#Comment_528072

In case anyone was on the fence, I just wanted to give this thread a bump before the Kreeft theology collection ships (probably tomorrow, 10/29). I'm most excited to read Angels and Demons, Prayer for Beginners, and the Catechism. I've been behind on my Logos reading lately, and I think that this collection might just provide the impetus for me to hunker down and get the queue moving again.