Daniel Oh

Philosophy vs. Theology

2024-03-05

One of the fundamental topics I seek to explore and recover in my writings is the proper use of philosophy for the Christian. I believe there is much confusion on this today, and this has massive ramifications on various disciplines including apologetics, politics, and metaphysics. I have enlisted the help of two great historic Protestant theologians, Zacharias Ursinus and Philip Melanchthon, to help us explore the relationship between philosophy and theology. This is by no means an exhaustive exploration, nor do I pretend to approach anything close to an authoritative expert on this subject; I am a continual student.

Philosophy has a somewhat bad reputation among many Christians today. Perhaps Colossians 2:8 immediately comes to mind, where Paul warns, "Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ." Perhaps you recall that every philosophy major you interacted with in university was an atheist (cringe), espousing the type of nonsense that surely qualified as exactly what Paul was warning about.

Granted, every philosophy major I interacted with in university did indeed espouse absolute nonsense. But I do not believe Paul is condemning philosophy in and of itself.¹ More importantly, I believe that philosophy is simply unavoidable. You do "philosophy" everyday; in fact, you do "philosophy" even when you do theology. There is a good reason why it has long been said that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology.

Note: you might have already been thinking this, that there is a real sense in which much of philosophy is theology, namely natural theology. To avoid confusion for our purposes, when I say theology, I am referring to the doctrines taught via special revelation, specifically the Holy Scriptures. Ursinus and Melanchthon will use different terms to essentially get at the same thing.

Now, of course, I do still believe Colossians 2:8, and we ought not to take every type of philosophy or philosophical idea as friendly. At the very least, we can all surely begin with a consensus that the study of various philosophies can help us understand the bad ones and how they influence us. The man who believes he possesses a pure and clean mind, unaffected by any worldly philosophies, is only fooling himself. It is like that story of two young fish swimming along, passing by an older fish who asks them, "How's the water?" The young fish continue on, until finally one asks the other, "What's water?" In this case, it is not a clueless fish but a clueless man who has no idea how Ockham has shaped his metaphysics or how Kant has shaped his epistemology. Completely submersed in these ideas, yet completely unaware.

True philosophy, on the other hand, is no enemy of the church, and I now turn to Zacharias Ursinus, Reformed theologian and principal author of the Heidelberg Catechism, to elaborate upon this. The following excerpts are from his Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism.

Ursinus

"True philosophy, although it also differs very much from the doctrine of the church, yet, it does not array itself against it, nor is it a wicked fabrication, and device of Satan, as is true of the false doctrines of the Sects; but it contains truth, and is, as it were, a certain ray of the wisdom of God, impressed upon the mind of man in his creation. It is a doctrine that has respect to God and his creatures, and many other things that are good and profitable to mankind, and has been drawn out from the light of nature, and from principles in themselves clear and evident, and reduced to a system by wise and earnest men. It follows, therefore, that it is not only lawful, but also profitable, for Christians to devote themselves to the study of philosophy; whilst, on the other hand, it is not proper for them to devote themselves to the study of the various doctrines of the sects; because these are all to be detested and avoided, as the wicked devices of the devil."

I draw attention to several things:

1. Ursinus describes "true philosophy," meaning that he believes there is also "false philosophy." This is an important distinction to make, for as I mentioned above, there are various false philosophies which ought to be considered enemies. But there is true philosophy, which is not in opposition to the doctrine of the church.
2. Ursinus says that the truth gleaned from true philosophy is as "a certain ray of the wisdom of God." Truth gleaned via philosophy is still truth, and being true it comes from God. It is not "worldly" truth, for as the saying goes, "all truth is God's truth."
3. These truths are "drawn out from the light of nature, and from principles in themselves clear and evident." Seeing that they are drawn out from the light of nature, we conclude that these truths are accessible to all men, for all men have the light of nature. The principles upon which these truths are discerned are "clear and evident," meaning that philosophy is indeed possible and not some skepticist endeavor.²
4. Ursinus says that it is not only lawful, but profitable, for Christians to study philosophy. The study of philosophy need not be an abstract, ivory tower, hobby-horse activity that only serves to puff up. It has real profit.

So far we see that Ursinus does not denounce all philosophy but instead recognizes its value as a ray of wisdom from God, obtained via the light of nature and built upon clear and evident principles. Additionally, the truths gleaned via the light of nature do not merely serve to condemn a man, as some may say, but are actually profitable. But what sorts of things does philosophy teach? How do philosophy and theology differ? Ursinus continues:

"Philosophy and the doctrine of the church differ, especially in the following respects. First: in their principles. Philosophy is altogether natural, and is constructed and based upon principles deduced from nature. And, although there are many things in the doctrine of the church, which may be known from nature, yet the chief and principal part of it, which is the gospel, is so far beyond and above nature, that, unless the Son of God had revealed it unto us from the bosom of the Father, no wisdom of men or of angels could have discovered it. Secondly: they differ in their subjects; for, whilst the doctrine of the church comprehends the true sense and meaning of the law and gospel, philosophy is entirely ignorant of the gospel, omits the most important parts of the law, and explains very obscurely and imperfectly, those parts which it embraces in relation to civil duties, and the external deportment of the life, gathered from some few precepts of the Decalogue. And not only so, but philosophy also teaches some of the arts and sciences, which are useful and profitable; such as Logic, Natural Philosophy, and Mathematics, which we do not find in the doctrine of the church, but which, nevertheless, have an important influence upon the interests of society, when taught and understood. Thirdly: they differ in their effects. The doctrine of the church alone traces all the evils and miseries which are incident to man to their true source, which is to be found in the fall and disobedience of our first parents in Paradise. It, moreover, ministers true and solid comfort to the conscience, pointing out the way by which we may escape the miseries of sin and death, and, at the same time, assures us of everlasting life, through our Lord Jesus Christ. But philosophy is ignorant of the true cause of all our evils, and can neither bestow nor direct us to that comfort which can satisfy the desires of the human heart..."

I once more draw attention to several key points:

1. The principles of philosophy and theology are different. Philosophy is built upon principles found in general revelation, not (necessarily) in special revelation. This is what Ursinus means when he says "Philosophy is altogether natural, and is constructed and based upon principles deduced from nature." An example would be the natural law, which is of the same substance as the moral law.³ It is not as if a man with no access to the Decalogue has no access to the moral law; he very much does via the light of nature.⁴
2. The gospel is undiscernible via nature. No man can deduce his way to Christ via natural principles, though he may try. This is why the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ must be preached and heralded by the church to the nations—only the church has this unique message of utmost importance.⁵
3. Philosophy and theology both teach/contain things that the other does not. We just saw in the previous point an example of something theology teaches that philosophy cannot, namely the gospel. The real scandalous statement for many, however, is that philosophy teaches/contains things that theology does not. To capture the idea in a different way, nature (or general revelation) teaches/contains truths that Scripture does not. I have noticed this type of assertion makes many Protestants uneasy, as if it is some kind of attack on the sufficiency of Scripture. But upon further reflection, this is obviously true. Ursinus gives some simple examples; philosophy teaches things such as logic and mathematics, whilst the doctrine of the church does not. In fact, the study of theology actually relies on philosophy. One cannot read the Scriptures without understanding the laws of logic for example. Special revelation relies on general revelation. Many misunderstand a reliance on general revelation as "autonomous human reasoning" that is apart from God; this could not be further from the truth, for we recognize that general revelation, not just special revelation, is also from God.

So we see that Ursinus distinguishes philosophy and theology by the principles upon which they are built and by the teachings that they uniquely contain that the other does not. Philosophy teaches us many valuable things; it is theology which can alone provide a man with the assurance of eternal life through the Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot help but be reminded of the beautiful paraphrase attributed to Saint Augustine of Hippo: "I have read in Plato and Cicero sayings that are wise and very beautiful; but I have never read in either of them: Come unto me all ye that labor and are heavy laden."

Melanchthon (and Others...)

It is not good to solely consider the words of one fallible man, so we now turn to what the Lutheran reformer, Philip Melanchthon, has to say in his commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics:

"Philosophy hands down nothing about the will of God, nothing about the remission of sins, nothing about fear, or about trust in God. It only teaches the precepts concerning external and civil customs of life, as the public Laws of the city. But the Gospel sets forth to us the will of God, it forgives sins, it promises the Holy Spirit, who sanctifies the hearts of the pious, and it imparts eternal life. Nevertheless, in public it is permitted us that, as with civic morals, so we make use of food, drink, and clothing. And as food, drink, and clothing are corporeal things which do not pertain to the righteousness of faith. So civic morals do not pertain to the righteousness of the heart. Accordingly, in all of heaven those err who think there is no difference between Philosophy and the Gospel. For the whole of Philosophy contains nothing except precepts concerning external action, which, if I may say so, as in a theater, man must make use of in this civil society. But the Gospel professes other things at a distance. For Christ did not come into the world to teach precepts about (civic) morals, the rules of which (the world) already knew, but to forgive sins, in order that he may give the Holy Spirit to those who believe in him. But nevertheless, as the Magistrate establishes the civic customs of life, in the same manner he tests them, wanting morals to be civil and human, in other words, that which does not fight against natural reason, or with the judgment of reason. For as the judgment of reason is able in other corporeal things, in construction and in calculation, so it is able to direct civic morals."⁶

In the first half of the excerpt, Melanchthon makes a lot of similar points that we saw Ursinus make, so I will not repeat them all. The second half is of much more interest to me, so I will focus on that.

Melanchthon says philosophy contains precepts concerning external action, or "civic morals." Earlier we saw that Ursinus listed logic and mathematics as examples of things taught by philosophy; Melanchthon adds on top of this when he says, "For as the judgment of reason is able in other corporeal things, in construction and in calculation, so it is able to direct civic morals." This means that we can look to even pagans as guides for civic virtue and ethics, something Melanchthon himself exactly did when he wrote his commentary on Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. A more striking example would be when Melanchthon said, "There is, moreover, on the subject of morals no other book in existence more perfect than Cicero's On Duties."⁷ Indeed, Christians are not the only ones with insight into what it means to live as a just and virtuous human (hence why I strongly believe in a classical education). Once again, this seems to make many Reformed Christians uneasy. What about total depravity and the noetic effects of sin? But Melanchthon is far from alone in this teaching. Consider the words of just two Reformed theologians:⁸

"If [external and civil life of words, deeds and works] are performed by an infidel or heathen, to whom the Apostle Paul indeed ascribes a natural knowledge of and inclination towards the Decalogue, these works are not able to please God. But in political life even an infidel may be called just, innocent, and upright because of them."

- Johannes Althusius, Politica, XXI

"Second, the consent of nations, among whom (even the most savage) some law of the primitive nations obtains, from which even without a teacher they have learned that God should be worshipped, parents honored, a virtuous life be led and from which as a fountain have flowed so many laws concerning equity and virtue enacted by heathen legislators, drawn from nature itself."

- Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, XI.I.XIII

Though man is utterly depraved, this does not result in the complete inability to lead a virtuous and just life with regards to external/civil actions—if not lead, then at the very least know about. This is why Melanchthon states, "Christ did not come into the world to teach precepts about (civic) morals, the rules of which (the world) already knew."⁹ Rather than diminishing the work of Christ and the revelation found in Scripture, this actually accentuates and magnifies both. Aristotle can teach many things about virtue, and so can Cicero; it is only the gospel of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ according to the Scriptures that can forgive sins and impart unto men eternal life.

A Few Practical Suggestions

The Christian should feel free to read Aristotle to learn about ethics. The metaphysical truths taught by Plato need not be viewed with suspicion. The Bible is not a political handbook, nor a logic textbook, nor a complete study on metaphysics. The study of philosophers, including pagan philosophers, is something that should be encouraged to Christians, not under the guise that they will contain anything that will reconcile man to God, but with the understanding that they will contain valuable insights on living human.

But there are many dangerous philosophies out there, enticing to the flesh and easy to fall prey to. We should not be naive as to think that we are strong enough to withstand the assaults of the enemy and be able to discern all that is right and wrong. The study of philosophy is important, but it should be done in a wise and prudent manner (just like the study of anything). Three practical suggestions:

1. Read with a trusted friend, teacher, mentor, pastor, etc. As with anything, it is always a blessing to have somebody you trust who you can openly discuss ideas with. Everybody has blind spots, and a friend might discern certain topics better than you can, helping you stay clear of the stray road.
2. Consult the thoughts of the historic catholic church. Surprise, but the great theologians of the past were extremely familiar with the philosophies of their past and of their day. Go to them often and read what they have to say. Be slow to disagree when you see a consensus.
3. Start with the "good ones" before the "bad ones." There is absolutely zero reason why somebody who wants to start reading philosophy should start with Marx over Aristotle. Or Hegel over Plato. If that's you, then stop. Nobody is impressed that you know the word "dialectic," and you probably don't even understand what you're reading anyway.

Now go and plunder the gold of the Egyptians.

"If those who are called philosophers, and especially the Platonists, have said aught that is true and in harmony with our faith, we are not only not to shrink from it, but to claim it for our own use from those who have unlawful possession of it . . . all branches of heathen learning have not only false and superstitious fancies and heavy burdens of unnecessary toil, which every one of us, when going out under the leadership of Christ from the fellowship of the heathen, ought to abhor and avoid; but they contain also liberal instruction which is better adapted to the use of the truth, and some most excellent precepts of morality; and some truths in regard even to the worship of the One God are found among them… These, therefore, the Christian, when he separates himself in spirit from the miserable fellowship of these men, ought to take away from them, and to devote to their proper use in preaching the gospel."

Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, II.XL. Commenting on Exodus 3:21-22.