Biblical Philosophy: 1 Born Again Philosophy

Table of Contents

1 Born Again Philosophy

2 Born Again Knowing

3 Born Again Believing

4 Born Again Reasoning

5 Born Again Learning

6 Born Again Certainty

7 A Critique of Historical Skepticism

8 A Critique of Reformed Epistemology

9 A Critique of Rationalism

10 A Critique of Fideism

11 A Critique of Postmodernism

12 Reason & Apologetics

Appendix A Detailed Contents

Chapter 2.1

Born Again Philosophy

Thinking Hard about Life’s Most Important Questions

Table of Topics

A) The Importance of Philosophy

A.1) Introduction to Philosophy

A.2) Scripture & Philosophy

A.3) The Complexity of Philosophy

A.4) The Abuse of Philosophy

A.5) Philosophy & Thinking

A.6) Philosophy & Theology

B) A Practical Christian Epistemology

B.1) Book 2: Biblical Philosophy: How Do We Know What We Know?

B.2) Book 3: Biblical Authority: Who or What Really Directs Our Life?

B.3) Book 4: Biblical Psychology: Understanding & Appreciating the Human “Heart”

B.4) Book 5: Biblical Apologetics: How Can We Be Sure of Christianity?

B.5) Book 6: Biblical Faith: God Pleasing Reason

Extras & Endnotes

Primary Points

  • Philosophy is thinking hard about life’s most important questions.
  • Epistemology is a branch of philosophy and the study of how humans perceive and process our knowledge of things or persons.
  • Epistemology reminds us that there is a human being between us and God.
  • One reason to study philosophical issues such as epistemology is that they are also very important biblical issues.
  • It is important to focus such discussions on Scripture instead of philosophers.
  • While such a topic is necessarily somewhat complex, studying Scripture instead of the philosophers will help to simplify it.
  • It is “hollow and deceptive philosophy” (Col 2:8) that Scripture warns us against, not philosophical issues in general. A biblical philosophy will even enable us to recognize such bad philosophy.
  • Philosophy sharpens our ability to state and understand things precisely, which are important in representing God and Scripture accurately.
  • It is helpful to understand how we know what is true (epistemology), before deciding what is true (systematic theology).

A) The Importance of Philosophy

A.1) Introduction to Philosophy

“What is truth?” Pilate, the crucifier of the Truth asked (John 18:38). More specifically, how do we know what is true? Such questions are primarily the domain of Christian philosophy, of which Christian philosophers William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland write:

[P]hilosophy is the attempt to think hard about life, the world as a whole and the things that matter most in order to secure knowledge and wisdom about these matters. Accordingly, philosophy may be defined as the attempt to think rationally and critically about life’s most important questions in order to obtain knowledge and wisdom about them. [1]

Accordingly, we define philosophy as “thinking hard about the most important questions in life.”

An important subset of philosophy is epistemology which, simply stated, is the study of how we know what we know. This is obviously one of the most important questions about life. As the well known Christian apologist Josh McDowell puts it, “Remember that whenever anyone asks a How? question regarding knowledge, they are asking about epistemology.” [2] More formally, the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology defines epistemology as:

The branch of philosophy that is concerned with the theory of knowledge. It is an inquiry into the bounds of knowledge, and the justification of claims to knowledge. [3]

While this may immediately sound like merely a philosophical issue, it will be demonstrated below and throughout this section of Knowing Our God (KOG) to be a very practical one. Accordingly, Arthur Holmes, Chairman of the Philosophy department at Wheaton remarks:

Time and time again the question arises, whether we are discussing the latest international news or another political scandal. In courts of law, the fate of people depends on it. In the marketplace of ideas where the claims of Christianity confront every other conceivable belief, it poses the basic question for Christian apologetics. No university student can long avoid asking the question: How do you know it’s true? [4]

And that is the question that epistemology attempts to answer by answering several related questions.

Epistemology reminds us that there is a human being between us and God. The mere presence of divine revelation is not enough for us to know God, we must also receive, evaluate, and choose to believe the revelation for it to have any meaning or value to us. Far too many theologians speak of our relationship with God in terms of only revelation, as if properly recognizing, interpreting, believing, and applying it are rather automatic. [5] We’ll say it again. There is a human being involved in the process. Accordingly, epistemology reminds us of the vital relationship between divine revelation and human reason which is the God-given vehicle for properly processing the former. Understanding this relationship is the realm of epistemology.

NT scholars can tell you that the Greek text of the NT controls the English text that most of us read. Variations in the Greek text will affect the English text, and not recognizing the nuances of the Greek will cause a distortion of what is being communicated in English. Likewise, epistemology and a person’s view of it will affect their theology. This is why we would say epistemology is the Greek of theology. From a software engineer’s perspective, it is the assembly language of computer programming. Accordingly, not recognizing the foundational role epistemological issues play in our beliefs causes the same vulnerabilities in our theology as ignoring the Greek text in interpreting Scripture.

While epistemology is very practical and essential to our lives, it is also a difficult subject. Daniel Taylor, Professor of English at Bethel College writes:

How to find truth, that is the question, and how to know that one has found it. Nothing has so occupied reflective men and women for as long as we have record; nothing has elicited more anguish and struggle. Nothing, also, has created such a climate for despair and irresponsibility as the modern conviction that the word no longer has much meaning. [6]

Therefore, while epistemology has many practical implications, it is obviously a philosophical subject as well, and unfortunately philosophy is a disparaged discipline in Christian culture today. Nonetheless, if philosophy is thinking hard about life’s most important questions, then it is obvious that philosophy can be a very important part of loving God with all of our mind (cf. Matt 22:37).

A.2) Scripture & Philosophy

One of the first reasons that a Christian may be reluctant to study a topic such as epistemology is that they perceive it to be primarily a philosophical one rather than a biblical one. And unfortunately this is reinforced in many discussions of it even in Christian literature. Accordingly, it is virtually impossible to find a book on Christian philosophy or epistemology that has, or even needs, an index to Scripture references. [7] They will have a rather long index of philosophers, because the book is filled with the thoughts of men, [8] but there are few references to the thoughts of God as provided in Scripture. While there is a place for studying the philosophies of humans, one is hard pressed to find a book that relates Scripture to epistemological questions. [9] We would suggest that if Scripture does not discuss such questions, then maybe they are questions that we neither can, nor need to answer. [10]

However, if one focuses on the important elements of philosophy and epistemology, one finds that the Bible does speak repeatedly and clearly to these issues. There is, in fact, a lot of philosophy in the Bible, so that we can say these are not simply philosophical issues, but actually biblical ones. Such topics as the meaning of truth, beliefs, faith, the importance of certainty, and how we are to be certain, and the God-ordained purpose and nature of the human mind, are all topics that God has revealed His perspective on in Scripture, and yet this source of knowledge is often ignored even in attempts at Christian philosophy.

And it is a good thing to center philosophical discussions on Scripture rather than philosophers. First of all, as the great Christian mathematician Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) so memorably put it, (and actually had sewn into the lining of his jacket), the God we are studying is the “God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob, not of the philosophers and wise men.” While the views of several different philosophers will be noted throughout KOG, and many of their thoughts can be helpful, that is not as important as whether or not our conclusions accurately reflect Scripture.

Recognizing the difference between pagan philosophy and Christian theology, and their relationship to one another, is important. Martin Luther (1483-1546) was close to the mark when he called mere philosophy the “theology of the pagans.” [11] Accordingly, in Luther’s Heidelberg Disputation he wrote:

He who wishes to philosophize by using Aristotle without danger to his soul must first become thoroughly foolish in Christ. Just as a person does not use the evil of passion well unless he is a married man, so no person philosophizes well unless he is a fool, that is, a Christian. [12]

The third century Church leader and teacher Origen (c. 185-c. 254) is a good example of a Christian genius who seemed more interested in philosophy than Christian theology. In his systematic theology De Principiis he elaborates a summary of what the Apostles taught and there is no mention of anything concerning the Gospel, and there is even an implication that humans can earn their way to Heaven by doing good deeds. Even in his chapter on Christ, there is only a discussion of the nature of His deity and nothing of His work on the cross. Origen was a very committed Christian, and a knowledgeable and valuable Church historian and textual critic, but a borderline heretical theologian, perhaps because of the influence of pagan philosophy in his life.

In contrast, Origen’s near contemporary Tertullian (c. 160–225) was one of the first and most noteworthy Christian apologists who criticized the value of pagan philosophy. His concern is clearly communicated in the following rather famous statement:

Wretched Aristotle! who taught them dialectic [philosophical debate]. . . so far-fetched in conjecture, so unyielding in controversy, so productive of disputes; self-stultifying, since it is ever handling questions but never settling anything. . . . What is there in common between Athens and Jerusalem? What between the Academy and the Church? What between heretics and Christians? . . . Away with all projects for a ‘Stoic,’ a ‘Platonic’ or a ‘dialectic’ Christianity! After Christ Jesus we desire no subtle theories, no acute enquiries after the gospel. [13]

There is no doubt a great deal of truth in Tertullian’s statement; however, the well known Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch probably rightly softens this view a little when he describes his perspective between Christian theology and philosophy:

In its efforts to define itself in relation to the world of secular or philosophical thought, theology has often made two mistakes: on the one hand there has been a wholesale condemnation of philosophy, and on the other an attempted synthesis of faith and philosophy. In our view theology must be open to the authentic insights that philosophy offers but it must be critical of the philosophic bent to include all things in a conceptual framework.

Philosophy has been defined as the “effort toward a maximum organization of ideas around a minimum of principles,” and such an attempt is a tribute to the human spirit as well as a sign of human hubris. . . . The true God cannot be conceived by human reason, and this is why He must reveal Himself if we are ever to know Him. . . . Philosophers can notice the dark flaws within the church, but they cannot perceive its light; they can know something of the goodness within creation, but they have no knowledge of the miracle of the incarnation. [14]

It becomes very evident then why we are interested particularly in a specifically biblical philosophy, rather than philosophy in general.

The second reason it is good to base our discussion on Scripture rather than the philosophers is that, simply put, God’s thoughts are infinitely more insightful. And why would we doubt that God’s explanations in Scripture would be more profound than man’s speculations, when we believe that the former is supernaturally provided by God? Accordingly, someone has said:

Socrates taught for 40 years, Plato for 50, Aristotle for 40, and Jesus for only 3. Yet the influence of Christ’s 3-year ministry infinitely transcends the impact left by the combined 130 years of teaching from these men who were among the greatest philosophers of all antiquity. [15]

 

While humans are able to ask the most weighty philosophical questions, they are simply over their head when it comes to actually answering them. God has made us both capable of asking them, but unable to answer them, so that we must seek Him. And seek Him we might if we were more honest about our limitations. It is well known that twenty-first century philosophers have no significantly better understanding of epistemological issues than the Greek philosophers of over 2500 years ago. As the Dutch theologian Hendrikus Berkhof (1914-1995) put it: “Philosophical connoisseurs have said that modern philosophy has done little else than write footnotes to the [ancient] Greek [philosophers].” [16] Likewise, S. R. Obitts notes, “Epistemology has seen surprisingly little progress in moving past the issues raised by the first philosophers over two and a half millennia ago.” [17]

This is an astounding fact. Imagine if this were the case in any other field of human endeavor. Imagine how scientists would be humbled if they had “seen little progress” since the mathematics of Pythagoras (c. 500 B.C.), the medicine of Hippocrates (c. 400 B.C.), the atomic theories of Democritus (c. 400 B.C.), or the astronomy of Aristotle (c. 350 B.C.). And yet this is essentially the case with modern philosophy. The very influential eighteenth century philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) could hardly boast that he possessed more philosophical truth than the fifth century B.C. Socrates. The nineteenth century G. F. W. Hegel (1770-1831) could not claim a better understanding than the fourth century B.C. Plato. The twentieth century Bertrand Russell (1872-1970) advanced nothing beyond the fourth century B.C. Aristotle.

In fact, the writings of such modern men often represent a significant set back to the advance of truth, rather than making any progress beyond their ancient Greek counterparts. If progress were how we would evaluate modern philosophers, one would think they would be more humble, and yet philosophers seem to be getting more self-assured and arrogant. It would seem those who claim to “see” the most, actually understand the least.

Accordingly, the respected Bible teacher John MacArthur has written:

Elaborate epistemologies have thus been proposed and methodically debunked one after another-like a long chain in which every previous link is broken. After thousands of years, the very best of human philosophers have all utterly failed to account for truth and the origin of human knowledge apart from God. In fact, the one most valuable lesson humanity ought to have learned from philosophy is that it is impossible to make sense of truth without acknowledging God as the necessary starting point. [18]

Human wisdom, epitomized in philosophy has always been a threat to revelation. Martyn Lloyd-Jones has commented, “The whole drift toward modernism that has blighted the church of God and nearly destroyed its living gospel may be traced to an hour when men began to turn from revelation to philosophy.” But the trust in human wisdom that we call modernism is hardly modern. It began with Adam and Eve, when they set their own judgment above God’s, and was in full bloom in Paul’s day. Whenever human wisdom, whether a definite philosophical system or not, gets mixed with divine revelation, revelation loses. [19]

 

A.3) The Complexity of Philosophy

When discussing philosophical matters, no matter how important or practical, it is impossible to avoid some complexity. William Abraham, Professor of Philosophy and Theology at SMU, describes Christian philosophy in general as: “a field of enquiry wherein we are forced to pursue a series of questions which perplex, if not torture, the very best of human minds.” [20]

Likewise, John Frame, longtime Professor of Systematic Theology at Westminster says:

[T]here is certainly much virtue in the idea of discussing epistemology toward the beginning of a student’s theological course of study, since it does provide him with concepts and methods that will enrich the rest of his study. On the other hand, the lack of philosophical, linguistic, and catechetical background of many seminary students makes me wonder if first-year students are ready to tackle an area of study as difficult as this can be. [21]

Finally, the renowned Christian philosopher, Gordon H. Clark (1902-1985) admitted, “The intricacies of theology and philosophy are very difficult. Epistemology is terrifyingly technical.” [22] Some may question Dr. Clark’s claim and suggest that good philosophy is simply a matter of good common sense. In other words, is it really necessary to debate with postmodernists that human language can effectively and reliably communicate truth? Advocates of simple common sense no doubt have a point. However, as will be demonstrated in the following chapters, such deceptively simple questions such as “How do we know what we know?” or “What is faith?” demand some detailed discussion. This is because the simple answers that people commonly offer for the important philosophical questions people are asking are often too simple, and therefore, turn out to be half-truths.

Yandall Woodfin, a Professor of Philosophy of Religion at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary remarks:

Some people think of philosophy like the two little ladies who once heard a lecture by Paul Tillich [very influential 20th century Lutheran philosopher]. One said to her friend “Isn’t he confusing?” whereupon she replied wistfully, “Yes, but isn’t he confusing on a high level?” While philosophy is a challenging venture it cannot be blamed for the complexities and depth of the reality it seeks to understand. [23]

This is because the questions that are being asked in even a Christian philosophy are not simple ones, and therefore they require more complex answers.

Still, Dr. Woodfin’s anecdote reveals something that makes philosophy unnecessarily complicated. As we already noted, there is too often a focus on the speculations of men, rather than the explanations of God which are usually significantly more simple, profound, and useful. As one philosopher put it, “philosophical problems are often due to confusion in the mind of the philosopher rather than the difficulties inherent in the subject.” [24]

It would seem Solomon was pondering the difference between the writings of men and those of God as well when he remarked, “The words of a man’s mouth are deep waters, but the fountain of wisdom is a bubbling brook” (Prov 18:4). Accordingly, Peter Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli, Professors of Philosophy at Boston College can remark, “Philosophy in our century is seldom both clear and profound.” [25] Indeed, the charge of at least obscurity could be extended to philosophers of every century, as is readily recognized by anyone who has attempted to not only read, but to actually understand, even the writings of Christian philosophers such as Augustine, Aquinas, Barth, Carnell, Edwards, Kierkegaard, Locke, Plantinga, Schliermacher, or Van Til.

Consider, for example, the following from the great St. Augustine (354-430), who wrote in his monumental work, City of God:

Without any delusive representation of images or phantasms, I am most certain that I am, and that I know and delight in this. In respect of these truths, I am not at all afraid of the arguments of the Academicians, who say, What if you are deceived? For if I am deceived, I am. For he who is not, cannot be deceived; and if I am deceived, by the same token, I am. And since I am if I am deceived, how am I deceived in believing that I am?

Since, therefore, I, the person deceived, should be, even if I were deceived, certainly I am not deceived in this knowledge that I am. And, consequently, neither am I deceived in knowing that I know. For as I know that I am, so I also know this also, that I know. [26]

One senses here that this great thinker is making an important point. Still, we cannot help thinking that such philosophizing has little, if anything, to offer beyond good common sense. And we can rejoice that God does not talk like the philosophers.

A.4) The Abuse of Philosophy

The very influential seventeenth century mathematician and philosopher René Descartes (1595-1650), remarked once that the one thing that really impressed him when he studied philosophy at the university was that it was impossible to imagine any ideas that could be more bizarre than those that had already been seriously taught by some philosopher. If that was true in the seventeenth century, it is exponentially true today. Leave it to the most intelligent geniuses to come up with the most inaccurate philosophies. And the reason is that they are just that, philosophies, based on the best humans can think up, rather than intelligent and reasoned interpretations of Scripture.

The results of reasoning are the highest good that unregenerated humans can obtain, as evidenced by Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) who believed in God, and promoted morals, all from reason. But the most critical facts cannot be known by mere reasoning, such as the Gospel. Accordingly, Aristotle, in spite of all his great and even accurate reasoning, is destined for the eternal lake of fire (cf. Rev 20:15). While the understanding, processing, and application of all truth requires the human faculty of reason, mere reasoning without divine revelation will leave humans ignorant of the most important truths. Accordingly, Dr. Bloesch writes:

Philosophy can be said to signify the pinnacle of natural human wisdom. . . . Philosophy might be defined as the attempt to bring all of reality under the domain of understanding. Even those philosophies that preach skepticism nonetheless seek to give an intelligible and coherent explanation of reality. . . . Theology, on the other hand, is the systematic endeavor to render a compelling and faithful witness to the truth of divine revelation. [27]

Likewise, the Baptist theologian Henry Thiessen wrote concerning the difference between philosophy and theology:

Theology and philosophy have practically the same objectives, but they differ very much in their approach to, and method of, attaining the objectives. They both seek for a comprehensive world and life view. But while theology begins with the belief in the existence of God and the idea that he is the cause of all things, excepting sin, philosophy begins with some other given thing and the idea that it is sufficient to explain the existence of all other things. For some ancients this thing was water, air, or fire; for others it has been mind or ideas; for still others it has been nature, personality, life, or some other thing.

Theology does not merely begin with the belief in the existence of God, but also holds that he has graciously revealed himself. Philosophy denies both these ideas. From the idea of God and the study of the divine revelation, the theologian develops his world and life view. From the thing given and the supposed powers inherent in it, the philosopher develops his world and life view. [28]

This is precisely the pagan philosophy that the Apostle was warning us about when he wrote the Colossians: “See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ” (Col 2:8). Obviously, the Apostle was not speaking of biblical philosophy, as he wrote a good deal that could be categorized as such. In fact, he implies here that there can be a philosophy that “depends on . . . Christ.” It was the erroneous speculations of humans, not the trustworthy explanations of God, he was concerned about. And indeed, philosophy quickly becomes “hollow and deceptive” when it attempts to work apart from, or beyond, Scripture.

However, the philosophy revealed in Scripture is valuable, and we therefore should not dismiss it automatically. Accordingly, Christian philosopher James Sire writes:

Many Christians have interpreted these passages [1 Cor 1:20-25 [29]; Col 2:8] to mean that Christians should avoid the world of scholarship and philosophy. This is surely not a proper understanding of Paul’s word. He is not objecting to good thinking but to inaccurate thinking, especially of the sort that insists on its accuracy. Paul is rather pitting God’s genuine knowledge against claims to human knowledge. [30]

Along these lines, popular Christian apologists Norman Geisler points out that, in fact, we need to study biblical philosophy in order to even obey the Apostle’s injunction:

[O]ne cannot really “beware” of false philosophy unless he is first aware of it. A Christian must recognize error before he can counter it, just as a doctor must study disease before he can knowledgeably treat it. The Christian church has on occasion been penetrated by false teaching precisely because Christians have not adequately been trained to detect the “disease” of error. [31]

This is, no doubt, why even the Apostle Paul endeavored to have some understanding of the philosophers of his day. Not only did he know them well enough to counter them, but he could even quote them when it was useful for his purposes (cf. Acts 17:28; Tit 1:12). Contemporary philosophy had some importance for the Apostle because it reflected, as it does today, how people are thinking.

In fact, many of the important religious discussions occurring in our day are along the lines of epistemological issues. As a result, Dr. Abraham claims that there has been a “revival of philosophy of religion as a discipline in the last twenty years. There has been a veritable revolution in debates concerning the epistemology of Christian belief.” [32] While we would be among the first to argue that philosophical wrangling is among the least effective methods of evangelism, we would support the claim that we should be able to speak intelligently about philosophy, at least for the sake of other Christians. The well known Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof suggests, in fact:

Not every theologian has to wade deeply into philosophical questions. But sometime in the course of his training he needs to deal, under one heading or another, with the philosophy of religion. . . . [A]nyone seeking to think through the Christian faith and to put it in conceptual form for his own time has to ask repeatedly how the philosophers, first of all the classic but then also the contemporary ones, looked at the realities of God, man, and the world. [33]

On this point, Drs. Craig and Moreland add:

[I]t is not just those who plan to enter the academy professionally who need to have training in philosophy. Christian philosophy is also an integral part of training for Christian ministry. A model for us here is a man like John Wesley, who was at once a Spirit-filled revivalist and an Oxford-educated scholar. In 1756 Wesley delivered “An Address to the Clergy,” which we commend to all future ministers when commencing their seminary studies. . . . [I]t is extremely instructive to look at the abilities that Wesley thought a minister ought to acquire. One of them is a basic grasp of philosophy. He challenged his audience to ask themselves:

Am I a tolerable master of the sciences? Have I gone through the very gate of them, logic? If not, I am not likely to go much farther when I stumble at the threshold. . . . Rather, have not my stupid indolence and laziness made me very ready to believe, what the little wits and pretty gentlemen affirm, “that logic is good for nothing?” It is good for this at least . . . to make people talk less; by showing them both what is, and what is not, to the point . . .

Wesley’s vision of a pastor is remarkable: a gentleman, skilled in the Scriptures and conversant with history, philosophy and the science of his day. How do the pastors graduating from our seminaries compare to this model? [34]

In addition, we should not overlook the value that philosophical study regarding God can have for our relationship with Him. Accordingly, Drs. Craig and Moreland write:

Philosophical reflection is, indeed, a powerful means of kindling the life of the mind in Christian discipleship and in the church. Again, the authors of this book can testify that our worship of God is deeper precisely because of, not in spite of, our philosophical studies. As we reflect philosophically on our various areas of specialization within the field of philosophy, our appreciation of God’s truth and awe of his person have become more profound. We look forward to future study because of the deeper appreciation we are sure it will bring of God’s person and work. Christian faith is not an apathetic faith, a brain-dead faith, but a living, inquiring faith. As Anselm put it, ours is a faith that seeks understanding. [35]

A.5) Philosophy & Thinking

In the quotes above, we are reminded of the importance of clear thinking in relation to our Christian faith. We will be discussing this some more in the chapters that follow, but let us say here that learning and studying how we think (epistemology) is good preparation for learning how and what God thinks (theology). Philosophy sharpens our thinking skills and our ability to state and understand things precisely, which are all important in representing God and Scripture accurately. Logical and consistent arguments are essential for teaching people truth, (at least thinking, prudent people), and Christian philosophy can serve to train the mind to think and teach properly. The reasons then for finding philosophy courses in Christian education include: 1) exposure to how people have thought about the most important questions humanity is asking, and 2) training in clear, concise, and consistent thought. [36]

In fact, we would suggest that anyone who is serious about pursuing Christian scholarship will be severely deficient in such a pursuit until they have grappled with the issues addressed in five books of the Knowledge of God series that we introduce and describe below.. Accordingly, Dr. Woodfin has remarked:

Socrates maintained at his trial that “the unexamined life is not worth living” and soon sealed this conviction with his death. Surely the Christian, in the light of Christ’s conquest of death, should be prepared to demonstrate with intellectual discipline and integrity that the unexamined faith is not worth believing. [37]

Finally, we wish to point out here that the study of philosophy can be synonymous with loving God. The word “philosophy” in fact comes from two Greek words that literally mean “loving wisdom.” If that wisdom is found in divine Scripture instead of human speculations, then it is indeed a legitimate aspect of loving God with all of our mind (cf. Matt 22:37).

Pastoral Practices

Logical thinking is incredibly important to the work of a Teacher. Illogical thinking will cause one to misinterpret God’s word and therefore misrepresent Him. Therefore, studying a systematic theology such as Knowing Our God is at least valuable for training our minds in logic.

To get an idea on how logic “feels” you might try a “logic test” such as the rather brief and simple one at http://www.begriffslogik.de/logiktest_en.html.

A.6) Philosophy & Theology

 

There are obviously many different ways of beginning a systematic theology. For example, some will suggest that it is premature to bring in Scripture as a basis for philosophical thought before its authority has been demonstrated. We answer in several ways. First, any discussion of anything must begin somewhere. If we began with a demonstration of the authority of Scripture, others would suggest that we have not yet demonstrated how humans can really know or be certain of anything at all. Secondly, in subsequent sections of KOG, we will thoroughly discuss and demonstrate the authority of Scripture and the foolhardiness of neglecting it as a source of truth. [38] Finally, we are writing for Christians who know that Scripture is the word of God, not skeptics inside and outside the Church who think it is just the words of men.

Beginning a systematic theology with epistemology is certainly nothing new as John Calvin’s Institutes dealt first with the knowledge of our self, before the knowledge of God. The opening lines of his systematic theology are as follows:

Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of god and of ourselves. There is no proper knowledge of god that does not involve self-understanding. [39]

Subsequent systematic theologies have reflected the same. As the respected theologian Thomas Oden has put it, “No study of God is complete without dealing with the limits and resources of human reasoning in God’s presence.” [40] More fully, Louis Berkhof wrote:

Can dogmatics [systematic theology] have something like foundations? Is not God, who reveals himself and is known to us by faith, its one and only foundation? In the order of being, that is self-evidently the case. But in the order of knowing we use the word “foundation” to refer to something else. In dogmatics, analogously to other disciplines, we have to deal with fixed starting points, organizing frameworks, ever-returning points of orientation . . . [that] can serve as courts of appeal and norms, as our thinking proceeds. No academic discipline -which, in the nature of the case, aims to make the data clear and coherent-can do without such a fundamental conceptual framework. . .

Christian theology indeed takes its starting point in the human subject. The accusation of subjectivism immediately launched against this position, however, is unwarranted and in any case premature. For, in the first place, in no area of knowledge and science is there any other starting point. Light presupposes the eye, and sound is perceptible only by the ear. All that is objective exists for us only by means of a subjective consciousness; without consciousness the whole world is dead for us. Always in human beings an internal principle has to correspond to the external principle [revelation] if there is to be a relation between object and subject. And finally . . . this is also the teaching of Scripture. It speaks not only of a revelation of God in Christ outside of us but also of an illumination of the Holy Spirit within us. [41]

Answering the question of how God has determined for us to know things is an important introductory issue to any discussion of truth, which is what a systematic theology is. It is helpful to understand how we know what is true, before deciding what is true. Unfortunately, this is generally a neglected topic within Christian theology. What John Franke, Professor at Biblical Theological Seminary wrote in 1997 still holds true:

While evangelicals have produced a significant number of works concerned with the content and exposition of theology, little attention has been given to methodological concerns and to the careful examination of theological presuppositions. [42]

Nonetheless, it is important to state in our first chapters some premises that we have concerning the truth, as they will be reflected throughout Knowing Our God. Many systematic theologies today presume epistemological issues, but should not as these very issues are at the heart of much discussion within the Christian church, and are indeed the foundation of any truth, including the truth about God.

Technically, such a topic is referred to as prolegomena which in the Greek means, “the things that need to be talked about first.” The late Gordon Spykman, former Professor Emeritus of Religion and Theology at Calvin College writes concerning this:

[P]rolegomena is indeed introductory, but not in the sense that one can pass through it and then leave it behind. . . . Christian philosophy serves to clarify the underlying presuppositions of dogmatics, its accepted paradigm of created reality, its theological method and hermeneutic, its normative reference points, and its basic concepts. This, I submit, is the most authentic, positive, and useful service which a prolegomena can render. . . . Show me your prolegomena, and I will predict the rest of your theology. . . .

There is more to dogmatics than just jumping in and doing it. Getting off on the right foot calls for a prolegomena of some sort . . . For every theology proceeds on the basis of certain pretheological assumptions and operates inescapably within certain philosophical perspectives. Failure to clarify these basic contextual issues prolegomenally means leaving their rough edges exposed along the way, only to be deciphered later by others or explained in a postscript. “Right order of teaching,” as Calvin would say, calls for dealing with such matters up front. . . .

Dogmatics is too important to be left to theologians who are unclear about their philosophical underpinnings. . . . Theology simply cannot get on with its task very well without philosophical reflection. . . . Philosophy ought therefore to be included as a very strong foundational component in a good theological education. Therefore, to say that “a Christian is less in need of philosophy [than a non-Christian] is only to exhibit spiritual sloth and lack of understanding.” (Abraham Kuyper, Principles of Sacred Theology, p. 614).

Despite Barth’s protest, there appears to be a growing recognition that “any attempt to formulate orthodox theology wholly apart from philosophical interests runs counter to the Christian heritage as far back as Augustine and even earlier” (Carl Henry, God, Revelation, and Authority, Vol. 1, p. 189). Because “philosophy permeates systematic theology . . . to avoid using philosophy is simply impossible” (Winfred Corduan, Handmaid to Theology, pp. 22-23). [43]

Likewise, Dr. Abraham notes that:

[M]odern theological students who internalize today’s anxiety about the right criterion [epistemology] for theology can easily become intellectually crippled, often failing to get to grips with the development of material doctrinal proposals. The initial temptation is to evade, to turn and run, to change the subject, or to give up on the question as futile. After all, theologians have to get on with propounding proposals about God, creation, sin, salvation, and related topics.

Yet to do so without dealing with the question of truth squarely and honestly leaves those who yield to such temptation haunted with distress. They find themselves relentlessly hounded by opponents who press the question of norm effectively and innocently. The very ideas of being critical, of being methodologically rigorous and serious in theology, have hinged on resolving the problem of the fundamental criterion of justification and knowledge in theology. Hence prolegomena [i.e. the necessary preconditions for doing systematic theology] becomes the center of gravity in theology. . .

It is noble to develop a theory of human understanding which will enable us to know what are the contours and limits of its capacities. It is important to think through the relation between experience, knowledge, and justified belief, to explore the nature of language and its relation to sense experience . . . It is intrinsically worthwhile to . . . explore the provinces of faith and reason . . . [44]

And some of this we hope to do in the following chapters. [45]

Pastoral Practices

  • Because Pastors teach the truth of God, they need to think rather deeply about what truth is and means. As Teachers, we should have some biblical, articulate answers to the deeper philosophical issues involved in Christianity. Studying such issues will benefit them in training them to think logically and precisely about things as they interpret and communicate God’s word. The books described below in the Knowledge of God series are intended to help them do that.

We do not recommend the study of philosophy itself, even much that is written by Christians. However, studying how the Bible answers the philosophical questions that all humans wonder about is incredibly valuable. It may not seem immediately practical, but it will inform your thinking and therefore teaching for the rest of your life.

B) A Practical Christian Epistemology

Because epistemology concerns how we as humans receive our knowledge of things or persons, we have entitled this series as The Knowledge of God. This series is made up of five separate books, each discussing an important topic regarding how we know what we know. In order to get a better idea of the questions and issues that are involved in biblical philosophy and epistemology, and those addressed in these books, we will provide a brief summary here.

B.1) Book 2: Biblical Philosophy: How Do We Know What We Know?

In chapter 2.2 we offer a bold, but humble claim that born-again Christians possess a significant superiority in spiritual knowledge compared with their unregenerated friends. In a postmodern world where people are increasingly thinking no one has epistemological superiority, we claim that Christians in fact do, and we suggest some reasons why. As a result, we will hopefully understand why the Bible itself is so unapologetic in its presentation of truth, and why we can never simply argue someone into the Kingdom. Unfortunately, in our opinion, Christian theologians have spent far too much ink attempting to answer the questions of unbelieving skeptics, without recognizing that such people have a spiritual need, not an intellectual one. Here we also address postmodernism, pointing out that it is both self-refuting and not as influential in reality as many claim. In addition, one cannot be both a real Christian and a real postmodern.

In chapter 2.3 we offer a simple model of how we process Christian knowledge and beliefs. This involves an understanding of the sources of our knowledge (i.e. divine revelation and human information), and how we process it into knowledge and then belief through our God-given human reason.

In chapter 2.4 we demonstrate the importance of human reason in Scripture, and discuss the general devaluation of human reason in modern Christianity. In addition, we discuss the philosophical importance of human reason in the sense that we wouldn’t know anything without it.

In chapter 2.5 we answer the question, “How do we know what we know?” We further illustrate the important relationship between divine revelation and human research in areas of knowledge that are critically important to the Christian including morality, science, history, and Scripture. We discuss the importance of our experiences in forming our moral and doctrinal convictions and the concept of testimony in forming most all of our other convictions. In other words, most of our beliefs do not come from knowledge we have directly discovered for ourselves, but are simply based on what people have told us.

In chapter 2.6 we demonstrate the absurdity of postmodern perspectives on such concepts as truth and certainty. For example, while some of the foremost Christian theologians today teach we cannot and should not claim certainty on even the most basic Christian truths, we apply both common sense and Scripture to prove we can and should.

In chapters 2.7-2.8 we cover two rather philosophical, than practical topics, because there is a great deal of debate about them in Christianity. In chapter 2.7 we address the modern skepticism regarding history, and defend its value as a reliable source of truth, including the history found in Scripture. In chapter 2.8 we address the errors we see in what is called Reformed Epistemology, a view that has rapidly grown to be popular among Christian philosophers, but which denies the importance of reason in a belief in God.

Finally, in chapters 2.9-2.11 we address important misunderstandings about human reason. In 2.9 we demonstrate the difference between pagan rationalism and a biblical view of human reason. In 2.10 we address the increasingly popular philosophy of fideism which asserts that abandoning reason is spiritual. And in 2.11 we address the limitations of reason in the area of apologetics.

B.2) Book 3: Biblical Authority: Who or What Really Directs Our Life?

In chapter 3.1 we address the question of, “Who or what is the ultimate authority and controller of my life?” Here we suggest a God-ordained “Chain of Authority” that, as all Christians would agree, begins with God. Where we differ with many is that we don’t think this “Chain of Authority” truly ends with Scripture, which is the rather simplistic answer that is commonly given. Those who say, “If Scripture says it, then I believe it” are not being honest about the fact that what they are really saying is “What I think Scripture says, I believe.” The truth of this demonstrates that our ultimate subjective authority is neither God, nor Scripture, but rather the God-given faculties of our “heart.” While our view may strike some as postmodern, it is distinguished by the fact that all of our subjective judgments will be objectively judged by God according to the objective standard of Scripture.

This perspective is worked out in a practical way in chapter 3.2 in a discussion of how much authority God has delegated to our conscience, an important part of our human reasoning. In addition, the importance of our human reason is illustrated in the fact that it must be employed to determine the correct interpretation and canon of God’s word, critical issues discussed in chapters 3.3-3.3.A.

We make the case throughout KOG that God made us to base our certainty on evidence. In fact, our certainty of anything is directly dependent on the evidence we have for it. However, particularly Reformed theology claims that a more direct, although subjective “testimony of the Holy Spirit” is the God-ordained source of our confidence in our beliefs. For example, it is common for such theologians to claim that our certainty that Scripture is inspired, that our interpretation of Scripture is correct, and that we are saved, are all things that the Holy Spirit directly communicates to us. In chapters 3.4-3.6 we address each of these claims, evaluating the biblical and practical evidence and problems with this popular position. In fact, the unbiblical and ineffective nature of a supposed “testimony of the Spirit” to give us certainty in such critical matters, demonstrates again the importance of our God-given reason.

B.3) Book 4: Biblical Psychology: What Does Scripture Say About the Human “Heart”?

While in the above chapters we introduced the centrality of human reason in our relationship with God, in this section we spend considerable time on the function and God-given purpose of human reason. Not only is this topic so central to epistemological issues, but it is a grossly neglected and even disparaged topic in the feelings and fantasy oriented culture we live in.

Because of the centrality of the metaphorical human “heart” in any human’s life, in chapters 4.1-4.7 we biblically illustrate the nature, importance, and interaction of elements of our mind, including our reason, will, and emotions. These truly are “the god inside” as they work together to direct the course, and control the quality, of our lives. In the process we highlight the central importance of human reason for the Christian life and decision making in chapters 4.3-4.4. In addition, we explain how to transform “stubborn” parts of our heart with the truth in chapter 4.7, a chapter that anyone who counsels others should consider. It should not surprise us then that the topic of the human “heart” is addressed as much as any other in Scripture, and therefore deserves discussion.

As noted, in Biblical Psychology, we highlight the importance of our God-given reason. Accordingly, in chapters 4.8-4.9 we illustrate the importance of whole-hearted worship which includes the use of our mind instead of mindless emotion in areas such as worship and prayer. In chapters 4.10-4.11 we expose the history of half-hearted worship, correcting errors that we see particularly in the Charismatic movement including unbiblical worship practices and tongues.

Finally, regarding what the Scriptures have to say about psychology, we discuss the critical, and often ignored difference between the Christian’s Spirit-liberated reason and the devil-darkened reason of the unregenerated in chapters 4.12-4.15. In the process we highlight the importance of the Holy Spirit’s work in enabling us to correctly receive God’s messages in Creation, the Gospel, and Scripture.

B.4) Book 5: Biblical Apologetics: How Does God Want Us to Prove Christianity?

While in the beginning of this volume in chapter 2.2 we claim that Christians are superior in their spiritual knowledge, in Book 5, Biblical Apologetics, we offer proof. In other words, on what grounds does a Christian have the right to claim they truly know God and spiritual truths in a superior way? We suggest that our spiritual superiority is proven by our moral superiority. The superiority of our born again believing is confirmed by our born again living. And this is precisely what the King and the Scriptures anticipated. We call it virtue apologetics and suggest it is superior and foundational to any other kind of apologetics.

In chapter 5.1 we introduce and describe the elements of virtue apologetics. In chapters 5.2-5.5 we demonstrate how much Scripture supports the fact that this is God’s intended approach to apologetics. In chapter 5.6 we discuss how virtue can help us discern the authenticity of something claiming to be Christian.

In chapters 5.7-5.8 we discuss how God Himself works in and around us to make virtue apologetics work. In chapters 5.9 we detail both the Church’s historical approach and demonstration of virtue apologetics, including remarkable testimonies of this very thing.

In chapter 5.10 we begin a critique of intellectual apologetics and the use of extra-biblical philosophical and scientific arguments to defend Christianity in the context of evangelism. In this chapter we point out that while there is an abundance of Scripture referring to virtue apologetics, intellectual apologetics is actually denounced by Scripture. Nonetheless, Christian literature promotes only intellectual apologetics and discussions of virtue apologetics are non-existence. The reality is that while the supernatural virtues of love and holiness are essentially the only apologetic approach the Bible endorses for the modern Church, the explanation and promotion of this approach is essentially absent from modern Christian literature. We hope to right this significant wrong in these chapters.

Accordingly, in chapter 5.11 we demonstrate that Paul denounced the use of intellectual apologetics in the context of evangelism, the very thing that is so popular in American Christianity today. In chapter 5.12 we show that Scripture that is often used to support intellectual apologetics does not do so. In chapter 5.13 we remind the reader of the very unapologetic approach to evangelism exhibited and taught by the Lord and His Apostles. Then in chapter 5.14 we point out the many advantages of virtue apologetics over the intellectual kind in terms of truly effecting unbelievers.

In chapters 5.15-5.17 we offer an apologetic for virtue apologetics, answering the arguments that have been used against such an approach, including the supposed immoral history of Christianity such as the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.

Finally, in chapter 5.18, we record examples of virtue apologetics and its God-ordained power to prove the superiority of the Christian faith. We hope to continually add to this chapter as we encounter other examples.

B.5) Book 6: Biblical Faith: God Pleasing Reason

In our discussion of biblical faith we are able to bring together all the different strands of Christian philosophy in the previous books to a practical conclusion. Epistemology is where we begin such a discussion and biblical faith is where it ends.

In other words, while reason is how we process our beliefs, the concept of faith involves the result of our beliefs.

While faith is obviously a very important concept in the Christian life, it is deceptively simple, and because it is not defined carefully enough, it is often misunderstood. In chapters 6.1-6.6 we discuss the several different kinds of faith, both in secular thinking and in Scripture. These include the enormously widespread false faith, the controversial miracle faith, and the important distinctions between saving and empowering faith. A better understanding of these different kinds of biblical faith will not only enable us to understand this difficult topic better, but the many Bible passages and characters regarding faith as well.

Then in chapters 6.7-6.14 we discuss the foundation, building, completion, and goal of biblical faith. In the course of these chapters we have opportunity to critique several very popular, yet we believe harmful perspectives on biblical faith.

All of this serves to make up what we would like to call a practical and biblical Christian philosophy. Biblical because we go to the Scriptures instead of the classical, skeptical, rationalist, fideistic, or postmodern philosophers to learn how we can know our God. Practical because we get to the heart of the philosophical questions that real people are asking, rather than discussing questions that only the philosophers are asking. [46] This is a critical difference between philosophy in general and biblical philosophy. As Dr. MacArthur notes:

The kind of wisdom the Bible praises is not that prized by the ancient Greeks who were Paul’s contemporaries. Their wisdom was characterized by philosophy and sophistry, the endless spinning and discussion of theories that have no real relation to life, that have no bearing on God or on practical living. The Greeks could, and often did, go from philosophy to philosophy without changing their basic attitudes or their basic way of life. They were simply playing the game of philosophy, with the sort of wisdom that does not want to come to the knowledge of the truth, because—unlike hypotheses and speculations—truth demands recognition, acceptance, and change. [47]

Nothing deserves the name Christian if it has no intention or power to change your life. This includes Christian philosophy, which is why we make an effort here, on even topics that lend themselves to merely intellectual wrangling, to help the Christian see how such issues can positively impact the way they think and therefore live. We hope our readers will agree.

Extras & Endnotes

A Devotion to Dad

Our Father, we think of all the most important questions the philosophers of this world have tried to answer and we thank You so much that You have answered all of them for us in Christ. The King is the answer to everything the philosophers have ever thought about. We, like Blaise Pascal are thankful that we know the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and not the god of the philosophers. Help us to understand whatever biblical philosophy will help us to know you more intimately, and understand ourselves better. Amen.

Gauging Your Grasp

  1. How would you define the term epistemology?
  2. What is the thing about philosophical issues that makes you the most reluctant to studying it? Is there anything that attracts you to it?
  3. What are the advantages of studying philosophy with Scripture?
  4. How does studying philosophical issues train us to think better?
  5. Why is it good to begin a systematic theology with a discussion of Christian epistemology?
  6. Looking at the brief summary of topics covered in this volume, what questions/issues are you most looking forward to studying?

Recommended Reading

  • Books 2-6 of Knowing Our God.
  • Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics (BECA) by Norman Geisler (Baker, 1999). An essential reference tool.
  • Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology: From the Fathers to Feminism, William J. Abraham (Clarendon Press, 1998). While slightly liberal in stance, the author is an expert Christian epistemologist and a first rate scholar. The book will give a person an extensive understanding of the critical issues faced in epistemology and historical approaches to it. Even though the book doesn’t really offer solutions to the problems it describes, it will make any Christian thinker have to think about a myriad of things that need to be thought about, and it demonstrates the importance of the topics covered in this volume of Knowing Our God.

Publications & Particulars

  1. William Lane Craig and J. P. Moreland, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Inter Varsity, 2002), 13. ↑

  2. Josh McDowell, The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict (Josh McDowell, 1999), 608. ↑

  3. Paul D. Feinberg, “Epistemology” Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, (EDT) Walter A. Elwell ed. [Baker Books, 1984], 359. Presbyterian theologian Donald Bloesch refers to this aspect of theology as “fundamental theology, in which we explore the foundations of Christian faith.” (A Theology of Word & Spirit [InterVarsity Press, 1992], 16) ↑

  4. Arthur F. Holmes, All Truth is God’s Truth (InterVarsity, 1983), 102. ↑

  5. Michael Horton writes of the ancient habit of ignoring epistemology and claiming divine revelation is enough:

    Plato’s Socrates teaches, “While we live, we shall be closest to knowledge if we refrain as much as possible from association with the body and do not join with it more than we must, if we are not infected with its nature but purify ourselves from it until the god himself frees us.” . . . Echoing Plato, much of ancient and medieval Christian spirituality was characterized by this contemplative ascent toward the “beatific vision” — the direct sight of the Good in itself. . . . profoundly influential fifth-century writer known by the pseudonym Dionysius counseled his interlocutor “to leave behind everything you have perceived and understood, everything perceptible and understandable, all that is not and all that is, and, with your understanding laid aside, to strive upward as much as you can toward union with him who is beyond all being and knowledge” (Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way [Zondervan, 2010], Kindle Locations 1634-1637). ↑

  6. Daniel Taylor, The Myth of Certainty (Intervarsity, 1992), 66. While Dr. Taylor is a gifted writer (hence his occupation), the rather full-blown postmodern skepticism that he adopts in this book is impossible to reconcile with biblical Christianity. For further discussion on skepticism & certainty see section 2.6.A. ↑

  7. One rare exception is Five Views on Apologetics edited by Steven B. Cowan (Zondervan, 2000), pp. 385-87. While the Scripture index is rather brief, it is there. ↑

  8. An emphasis on philosophers rather than Scripture is unfortunately even true of Michael Horton’s chapters on philosophical issues in his Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way (Zondervan, 2010). ↑

  9. Christian philosophers who are presuppositionalists are the best at this, and those considered reformed epistemologists seem to be the worst. For further discussion of presuppositionalism see section 2.12.D. For further discussion of Reformed epistemology see chapter 2.8. ↑

  10. An example of extra-biblical philosophical questions would be the topics involved in Reformed epistemology concerning whether or not humans are born with a knowledge of God, and acquire such a knowledge even apart from understanding Creation. There is nothing in Scripture about this, and therefore we suggest it is an extra-biblical, if not unbiblical, philosophical issue. Accordingly, it may not be even worth discussion, but because of its popularity among Christian philosophers we do discuss it in chapter 2.8. ↑

  11. Bloesch, Word & Spirit, 24. ↑

  12. Online at http://www.augustana.edu/Religion/LutherProject. ↑

  13. Tertullian, A Prescription for Heretics (online at http://www.ccel.org), 7-9. ↑

  14. Donald Bloesch, The Ground of Certainty (Eerdmans, 1971), 11, 25. ↑

  15. Reference unavailable. ↑

  16. Hendrikus Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics (Eerdmans, 1985), 58. Hendrikus should not be confused with the well known American Reformed theologian Louis Berkhof. ↑

  17. S. R. Obitts, “Philosophy, Christian View of,” EDT, 851. ↑

  18. John MacArthur, The Truth War (Nelson, 2007), 7. ↑

  19. John MacArthur, MacArthur’s New Testament Commentary (MNTC) Electronic Edition STEP Files CD-ROM (Parsons Technology, 1997), loc. cit. 1 Cor. 1:18-25. ↑

  20. Abraham, Canon and Criterion in Christian Theology (Clarendon Press, 1998), 229. ↑

  21. John M. Frame, The Doctrine of the Knowledge of God (Presbyterian and Reformed, 1987), 4. ↑

  22. Gordon H. Clark, “Knowledge,” EDT, 614. ↑

  23. Yandall Woodfin, With All Your Mind: A Christian Philosophy (Abingdon, 1980), 13. ↑

  24. Isaiah Berlin, The Age of Enlightenment (Mentor, 1956), 31. ↑

  25. Peter Kreeft and Ronald K. Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics (Inter Varsity Press, 1994), 14. ↑

  26. St. Augustine, City of God (online http://www.ccel.org), XI, 26. ↑

  27. Ibid. 12, 38. ↑

  28. Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, revised (Eerdmans, 1979), 3. ↑

  29. The Apostle Paul’s rebuke of worldly philosophy in 1 Corinthians 1:20-25 is also interpreted as a rejection of philosophy in general. In response, Craig and Moreland write:

    The passage is better seen as a condemnation of the false, prideful use of reason, not of reason itself. It is hubris (pride) that is in view, not nous (mind). The passage may also be a condemnation of Greek rhetoric. Greek orators prided themselves in possessing “persuasive words of wisdom,” and it was their practice to persuade a crowd of any side of an issue for the right price. They did not base their persuasion on rational considerations, but on speaking ability, thus bypassing issues of substance. Paul is most likely contrasting himself with Greek rhetoricians. (18-19) ↑

  30. James Sire, Habits of the Mind (InterVarsity, 2000), 24. ↑

  31. Geisler and Feinberg, 73. See also Dr. Geisler’s excellent article: “Beware Of Philosophy: A Warning To Biblical Scholars” JETS 42:1 (March 1999), 3-19. ↑

  32. Abraham, Canon and Criterion, 431. ↑

  33. Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, 43, 45. ↑

  34. Craig and Moreland, 4. ↑

  35. Ibid. 6. ↑

  36. Geisler and Feinberg write:

    One of philosophy’s chief goals is clarification. A distinctive mark of philosophical inquiry is rigorous thinking in pursuit of intellectual clarity. . . . Philosophical inquiry centers on a quest for truth about crucial issues that are perennially discussed by thoughtful men. . . . The critical and evaluative elements of philosophy can help liberate one from the grip of prejudice, provincialism, and poor reasoning. . . . Since all truth is God’s truth, and since philosophy is a quest for truth, then philosophy will contribute to our understanding of God and His world. . . . The philosopher continually examines life, its purposes and presuppositions. He is concerned with critical thinking, and with clear and correct thinking. (18-20, 22, 69). ↑

  37. Woodfin, 14. ↑

  38. Regarding the authority of Scripture see especially chapter 3.4 and Volume 4. ↑

  39. John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion; online at http://www.ccel.org. ↑

  40. Thomas C. Oden, The Living God: Systematic Theology: Volume One (Harper, 1994), 375. ↑

  41. Louis Berkhof, Introduction to the Study of Dogmatics, 75, 564. Berkhof adds: “A typical example of such weakening of the Christian testimony is found in Lewis Sperry Chafer’s recently published Systematic Theology. Though unabridged this work has no discussion on Christian methodology as it relates to modern thought.” ↑

  42. John R. Franke, JETS 40:3 (September 1997), 490. ↑

  43. Gordon J. Spykman, Reformational Theology: A New Paradigm for Doing Dogmatics (Eerdmans, 1992), 39, 96-7, 101. ↑

  44. Abraham, Canon and Criterion, 18, 230. ↑

  45. On the importance of a Christian epistemology, Richard Muller writes:

    Spinoza’s Tractatus-theologico politicus, published anonymously in 1670, argued a strict separation of theology and philosophy. The subject of theology is faith and obedience, whereas that of philosophy is rational truth. Religion begins in Scripture and seeks the end of man in communion with God: the issue is never knowledge but faith and obedience. Spinoza, thus, stood against the prevailing view of orthodoxy-the doctrine of Scripture as the source of revealed knowledge. The result of Spinoza’s division of the subject was to restrict religion to piety, albeit revealed piety, and to place the doctrines of God, creation, providence, and the soul within the bounds of philosophy as distinct from theology and to declare them the products of rational rather than revealed knowledge-and, on the side of theology, to free faith entirely from accountability to and criticism from philosophical reason. (Post-Reformation Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2, Holy Scripture: The Cognitive Foundation of Theology [Baker, 1993], 130.) ↑

  46. For example, this would be our mild critique of Norman Geisler’s and Paul Feinberg’s Introduction to Philosophy: A Christian Perspective (Baker, 1980). In other words, while it is helpful in places, its orientation is more philosophical and theoretical, rather than biblical and practical. ↑

  47. MacArthur, Commentary, loc. cit. Eph 5:15. ↑