Comparison Of Naugle And Reppmann

1462 Words6 Pages
Both Naugle and Reppmann reflect in the history of how the concept of “worldview” came to be adopted as an approach for Christian thinking and Christian education. What comes through most strongly for you from those historical reflections? The two authors Naugle and Reppmann made it clear that the historical relevance of the concept of worldview is one of the most important parts of Christian history and life. Christian faith is deeply rooted in the concept of one’s individual worldview. The way that people live their lives and the implications that come from how they live says a great deal about their faith and what it means to them. The history of the church is intertwined with the concept of worldview. Prussian philosopher Immanuel…show more content…
This reformed theology emphasizes the importance of the sovereignty of God and how everything else in life is connected to it. Kuyper was inspired by Orr’s works and his Christian thinking. Kuyper focused much on modernism and how scriptural thought and other aspects of life are connected to one another. Everything in people’s lives impacts their worldview and in the end, how they live their lives. Francis A. Schaeffer was also influenced by Orr and Kuyper, but took Christian worldview and thinking to a new level in one’s secular life. Naugle (2009) emphasized on Schaeffer’s belief that the teaching in the church and the Bible was a unity of thought (p.12). It is necessary for everyone to have a worldview because it is the only way to live. Without a worldview one could not be understand or practice faith. Christian worldview is the only way to understand life. It is how the world is viewed and guides us in the way we live our life. When introduced, according to Reppmann (2009), the importance of worldview could not have happened at a better time. Not only was it at its peak of fame, but also a time of need. What questions does the historical account leave with…show more content…
I never really thought about my worldview until recently but I see how I do have one, but it’s not exactly a simple statement like Naugle and Reppmann wrote. I also feel like it could change within time. Is this correct? Does one’s worldview change according to how life changes? I know it could change if you were to switch from one religion to another because belief become altered, but could times, culture, and people in your life change your worldview? Also Naugle (2009) wrote about Schaeffer’s beliefs of worldview, “He affirmed what is now a commonplace that all people have a worldview and nobody, whether ditch digger or professional thinker, can live without” (p. 12). I would think it is possible to live without a worldview. So another question I have is, is it possible to live without one? I know that if it is a possibility, a person’s life would most likely have no sense of direction, be meaningful, or even, worth, but can’t it be possible? In your own words, what are the five suggestions from Naugle about the concept of worldview? How would you “translate”

    More about Comparison Of Naugle And Reppmann

      Open Document