1

Theologyv.PhilosophyWhatDoesAthensHaveToDoWithJerusalem?

Nearly one thousand years before Jesus Christ, aman born to His forefather’s throne

became Israel’s first publicized “theologian”, or perhaps it is better to say, the world’s firstphilosopherKing.Ashistoryhasit,hesupposedlystudiedthenatureofplantsandanimals,thehumanities, religion, government, architecture andmetaphysics for an explanation of thingsunseen.Inasmuchhisreignwasgloballyacknowledgedforhisunorthodoxyetprofoundearthlywisdom, a capacity requested for in prayeras a child. Born roughly 400 years beforeancientGreekphilosopher,ThalesofMiletus(c.620–?540BC),whoismoreoftenthannotcreditedasthefirstofhiskind,KingSolomonwasandstill isrecognizedforhis intelligibilityandequitablejudgment. As time would twist it, his wisdom ‘got to his head’, rejecting not only his ownproverbial intents to, “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your ownunderstanding…” (Proverbs 3:5), but embraced a lifestyle of over-abundance and self-indulgence where wealth, women and idolatry merely represented his own self-consciousdeviancy,“…Vanityofvanities,all isvanity”(Ecclesiastes1:2).Thoughhistoryspeaksawarningthroughhis later theological complacency, itwas not in vain.Howoftendowe consider thatperhapsSolomon’smethodology,or intelligibleapproach,actuallyattractedasecularaudienceofgentilekings,queensandculturesofallsorts?Sureitisfairtoargueinthethickofithegavewayonhisbeliefs,butisthatnotaresultofhisownself-madevirtues,orinotherwords,didhenot “lean” andwasmore so inclined to believe his own understanding? Who is to say theapproachormethodwaswrong?Especiallyifusedasatoolofexpressionformissiologicalandevangelical spheres.Scholarlycircleshavecoinedthisdebate, “WhatDoesAthensHaveToDoWith Jerusalem?” Yet before we can efficaciously react with any sort of legitimacy, howeverdisagreeable,wemustfirstunderstand:Whatisthefundamentaldifferencebetweentheologyandphilosophy?Beingitablog,andnotanexhaustivedocument, IwillattempttosummarizethismatterasbestIcan–albeit,asquicklyasIcan.

All modern Christian theologians, whether liberal, existential or traditional, study thenatureoftruth,reality,existenceandessence,andsubsequenttopicsoflaw,logicandmoralitynecessarilydependentuponBiblical texts.TypicallytheologiansutilizebothHebraicandGreektranslations to better understand the humanities in relation to the nature of God, hence theGreektheologia(θεολογία)derivativeofΤheos(Θεός),meaning“God,”and-logia(-λογία)fromlogos[λόγος]meaning“logic”or“toreasonanaccount”.Inconservativescholarship,theBibleismore than just a book that is self-referentially coherent; it is anticipated that, ‘if it is true, itmustbeexternallyverifiable’.DoesGodnotdeclarehisexistence throughwhat isnatural? Inthis case, such an approach has become to mean apologetics, where apologists as it were,“defend”thebiblicalaccount fromthestandpointofnotonlyscripturaldoctrine,butthroughthelogicGodimplantedwithinHiscreaturesothatallcouldholdinescapablecorrespondencewithHiscreatedrealityandthereforeHimself,whoisirrefutablythehighestreality.Ofcourseitoughttobeevidentthatlogicisdependentuponrealityinorderforanythingtobeconceivablylogicalatall!ThestandardizedbeliefseemstobebypersistentlystrivingtoknowthepersonalGodof theBiblewho isboth rationalandrelational innature,adeeperunderstandingofselfandhumanitywilldevelop.Toabbreviatealltheologicaldisciplines, it issimplyasking,arguing

2

andansweringlife’smostnecessaryandsignificantquestionsfromtheBiblicalaccountoftruth,reality, existence and essence; in one course it is organizing information and in another it isproblemsolving,alltounderstandthecohesivenatureoftheintrinsicWordwiththeextrinsicworld.Interestinglyenough,thissamedrivingforceforunderstandingrealityiswhatancienttopresentphilosophersattempttoarticulate–notwithstandingthemodernizeddisbelief ineventheverypossibilityofarelationalGod.

Etymologically, philosophy roots from Ancient Greek φιλοσοφία (philo-sophía), whichliterallymeans"loveofwisdom",andhasbecometomean,broadlyspeaking,thestudyofthefundamental nature concerning truth, reality, existence and essence, rooting academicdisciplinesinaesthetics,epistemology,ethics,metaphysics,languageandlogicwithbranchesinpolitics, history, and religion; all ofwhich imply a psychology and sociology. In short, aswiththeology,philosophytoosimplyasks,arguesandattemptstoanswerlife’smostnecessaryandsignificant questions by organizing information and problem solving such into overarchingperspectiveofreality,atermknownamonganalyticphilosophersasOntology.Unliketheologyhowever, such a cognitive process is derivative and commonly acknowledged as only a self-referentialunderstandingofreality,asgoesthesaying,“itisallamatterofinterpretation”.Assuch philosophers nowadays tend to pick-and-choose and then arrange former notions,theories, treatise and accounts of reality to bolster one’s ownperception of it, and howeverreasonable or relatable itmay be is entirely dependent upon the intellectual at large. So toabbreviate the matter once again, philosophy as a unified whole is strictly an intelligiblemethod, it is broadly speaking aprocessof understanding andmoreeasily recognizedas theprocessofontologicalunderstanding.

OnequestionthatmightcometomindisthatifphilosophyisthestudyofrealitywithoutGod’sWord,whyevenbotherwithitatall?Forcenturies,conservativetheologiansconsideredphilosophyalowerformoftheologicalcorruption.Whyshouldweenactanykindofphilosophy?

It is not that you shouldbecomea philosopherper se, butour approachandmethodneedtobecomprehensive.ItisafterallourdutyasSaintsandambassadorsofJesusChristto,“…[S]anctify theLordGod inyourhearts,andalwaysbe ready togiveadefense toeveryonewhoasksyouareasonforthehopethatisinyou,withmeeknessandfear…”(1Peter3:15),andintheveryleast,attempttoprovideananswer,howeversimpleorcomplex,theunbelieverwillunderstand. Inpart,thiscomeswithhearingthequestionbyempathizingwiththequestioner,andbeingabletorationallyrespondtothequestionpersonally,relationallyandBiblically,sincetruthisbothinternallyandexternallyverifiable,“ForsincethecreationoftheworldHisinvisibleattributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternalpowerandGodhead,sothattheyarewithoutexcuse…”(Romans1:20)Takeforinstance,JustinMartyr (AD. 100-165), a student of ancient philosophy and later Christian convert becameknown as one of the first apologists of the early Church, utilized a philosophically stimulatedtheologytodefendtheBiblicalaccountagainsttheRomanEmperor,AntoninusPius(AD86-161).

Returningtothefirstquestionposed,thefundamentaldifferencebetweentheologyandphilosophy, as it is perceived today, is the authoritative source of truth. Philosophy, as anenterprise and cognitive process has become to mean, not that it is, a self-authoritativeprofession.Considerforamomentthattheologiansuseasimilarprocesstounderstandreality(albeit,withtheHolySpiritinsomecases),becauseweallusethesamelogicalmechanismstodo so, known as the laws of logic. And to be “without excuse” means the unbeliever must

3

processtherealityofthingssimilarly.DidGodnotdesignallhumanstounderstand,oratleastthe propensity to want to understand, how and why things work? As paraphrased fromAristotle’sNichomacheanEthicsseries,“Educatingthemindwithouteducatingtheheart isnoeducation at all.”So letme say this as clearly as I can, the problem is notwith the “love ofwisdom”orphilosophyasitwere, it iswithsinnature.–Andwhoiswithoutsin?Is itnotourantediluvianweaknessto“lean”onourownunderstandingaboveallelse,andtopresuppose“itisallamatterofinterpretation”?TheBiblicalaccountofrealityexplicitlystatestheoneandonlyauthoritativesourceoftruthisinconflictwithourpredispositions,whicheffectshowwethink,believeandunderstandthingsfromchildhoodtoadulthood.Howeveritisnotwithoutresolve.WearefastenedbywhattheearlyChurchfather’scalledthat,“rockofoffense”.

Withallthingsconsidered,mypointisthatunlikeKingSolomon,weareatanadvantage.ThroughthebeliefinthedeathandresurrectionofJesusChristalone,beingbornagaininthebaptismoftheHolySpirit,ourcapacitytoloveandtrustintheLordwithallourheartandleannotonourownunderstandingoughttobemoreintimatelyunderstood,andtherefore,thetruebeliever in this sense is less susceptible to fall away, if indeed it is possible, or be led intotemptation fromphilosophical deviations.Oncemore, “If you dowhat is right,won’t you beaccepted?Butifyoudonotdowhatisright,siniscrouchingatthedoor.Itsdesireisforyou,butyoumustruleoverit.”(Genesis4:7)IdonotsupposeSt.Paulhadtofacesimilarquestionswith‘whatdoesJerusalemhavetodowithAthens’.Insummary:Acts17:16-34MatlockBobechko|June1,2016–11:46AMEST