Don’t Hide the Bible Behind Plato
Or, Doing Christian Philosophy: A Response to Calvin Goligher
“We see, indeed, the world with our eyes, we tread the earth with our feet, we touch innumerable kinds of God’s works with our hands, we inhale a sweet and pleasant fragrance from herbs and flowers, we enjoy boundless benefits; but in those very things of which we attain some knowledge, there dwells such an immensity of divine power, goodness, and wisdom, as absorbs all our senses.”
Calvin, Commentary on Genesis.
I am thankful to Calvin Goligher for taking the time to write his reply to my article. My first article was a 30,000-foot overview written for a general audience. His sincere and engaging reading invites us into greater detail—discussion that will be both edifying and an opportunity for me, as a Christian philosopher, to elaborate on what I believe the Reformation contributed to philosophy. The root issue is first about the role of general revelation in reading the Bible and then about whether specific philosophers, like Plato, got general revelation right. This is a very important topic indeed.
A reply to a response usually winds down a written conversation. If you’ve glanced at the length of this one, you might question whether that is the case here. I’ve provided three replies for the time-conscious reader—a one-minute reply, a ten-minute reply, and an entire mini-course in Christian philosophy and general revelation. That way, each reader can decide for themselves how much to invest—choose your own adventure.
Our debate isn’t really about allegory—it’s about Platonism. It is well worth the time to help Christians who are interested in philosophy but also see how stultifying modern philosophy can be. There is a temptation to seek “re-enchantment” by returning to medieval thought and rejecting the Reformation and the early Enlightenment.
We must not only reject that temptation, but do so with understanding, as we see how the glory of God is revealed in creation and the important advances that have been made in the knowledge of God and his world. I believe there is much more at stake here than whether Plato can help us with Open Theism and Materialism.
Three Responses
Reply 1
If you would like a very short reply so you can get on with your day, one possible response to Goligher’s article is simply: “Mr. Goligher, I agree.” He closes with, “Recovering a confident and clear vision of Christ in the whole Bible will be the quickest path to a renewed biblical literacy in the spiritual darkness of the modern world.” We agree on that—and this shows that we are brothers laboring toward the same goal. I am thankful for him.
Reply 2
But for the reader with ten minutes to spare, a somewhat more detailed response centers on his definition of “allegory.” After all, the title of his piece is “A Defense of Allegory.” So, the natural question is: what is he defending exactly?
It is here that he writes, “[Anderson’s] second ‘veil,’ however, is afflicted by a critical misunderstanding.” And what is that misunderstanding? He correctly quotes how I define allegory, which is “tak[ing] a story and import[ing] a set of meanings onto it from outside the text, often based on the interpreter’s own cultural assumptions.” I distinguish allegory from typology, parables, and symbolism (for instance, Sarah and Hagar are types). Then he states: “As I have said, this view of ‘allegory’ is a misunderstanding.” But—he does not disagree with my definition of allegory. So where is the misunderstanding on my part? It seems to revolve around whether we can find spiritual truths in Biblical stories. But that isn’t a problem from my perspective and not how I defined problematic “allegory.”
Goligher does express that concern this way, “In all likelihood, such a faithful Christian scholar [who labors at a major university], who seriously maintains that the Bible communicates a meaningful message about spiritual realities will be scorned as an allegorist.” Well, I’m a Christian scholar who teaches the Bible while laboring at a major university. I’ve been accused of many things, but never of being an allegorist. The problem for allegory is not that it teaches spiritual truths but that it teaches incorrect spiritual truths that require additional content and context beyond the Bible to grasp.
According to my definition, use of spiritual typologies shouldn’t be scorned at all—and certainly not as an allegorist. If someone were to import a belief system foreign to the biblical context, then yes, they should be criticized—for doing exactly that. Or, if a person pulls the wrong spiritual truth from a Biblical story, they are mistaken then as well. So no, I’m not mistaken on that point as he claims.
But his concern about spiritual truths does set up Goligher with a dilemma. Do we need an extra-Biblical system to understand the spiritual truths in the Bible or does the Bible speak for itself? The answer should be obvious once the dilemma is: do we need an anti-Biblical system to understand the spiritual truths of the Bible or does the Bible have its own system? That will take us into the next version of my reply which is my longest version.
The Fundamental Disagreement
Reply 3
The reason we need my longer reply is that the root cause of his disagreement with my article isn’t about allegory. That problem was easy enough to solve in Reply 2. It is about Goligher’s Christian Platonism and the assumptions he brought to reading my essay. This becomes clear when he says: “Anderson blames the problem of allegory on Greek philosophy.” And here we are closer to the basic disagreement. It has to do with what we need to know from general revelation and whether Plato’s system got general revelation right?
I think most basic disagreement we have is founder here: “Platonist philosophy affirmed the existence of God (though, without divine revelation in Scripture, it could not offer much true knowledge of him).” That is, Plato did his best with what he had, but he couldn’t do more without scripture. I fundamentally disagree (humorously, so did Aristotle).
Our difference is about the clarity of general revelation, and my comments about allegory were simply the occasion for this deeper issue to come out. And that is a very foundational issue indeed. It will shape the rest of our thought and how we read and interpret everything from essays by Professor Anderson to the Bible itself.
So, let me begin my longer reply by stating my view of general revelation, then contrast it with what the Platonists believed, and finally consider whether I am wrong to say that Platonism is a system contrary to the biblical one, which must be demolished for setting itself up against the knowledge of God (2 Cor 10:5).
My View
We do need to understand what general revelation teaches us about the eternal power and divine nature of God. We are culpably ignorant when we fail to do so. Unbelief has no excuse because there is clear general revelation. Philosophy is the study of general revelation.
We don’t need to read Plato to understand the Bible, and Plato taught a false philosophy which hinders our reading. Debates about Plato aren’t just academic. Platonic philosophy has caused great harm to untold multitudes as a form of suppressing the clear truth about God and his glory.
This is my argument: the extent to which any Christian philosopher affirms a clear and robust general revelation determines the extent to which that philosopher can identify where a philosophical system is set up against the knowledge of God. A thinker who does not themselves know what is clear about God from creation will not be able to hold Plato accountable for failing to do so. That early Christian philosophers, just beginning to study the systems of unbelief, struggled over this isn’t a surprise, but we live with much more light.
Paul and Romans 1
Paul begins with general revelation in Romans 1:18-25 in order to explain our universal sin of unbelief and why we need the Gospel. There are three parts to his explanation. First, creation clearly reveals God. This is not a shadowy or vague revelation. Such descriptions are an attempt to justify unbelief. It is a clear revelation of God’s eternal power and divine nature.
Next, the unbeliever does not retain this clear knowledge but instead attributes God’s nature to aspects of the creation. The unbeliever might do this by worshiping a specific creature or it could be by saying matter itself has existed from eternity thus giving to matter the eternal power of God.
And then, the unbelievers use their objectively false beliefs (they subjectively believe them to be true) to suppress what is objectively true about God. When this suppression is systematized we call it a “philosophy.” False philosophies are taught and the truth about God is forbidden. Platonism is one such philosophy.
General revelation both reveals God to us and holds us accountable for not seeking to know God from his revelation. Genesis 1:1 begins with the clear difference between God and everything else. God alone has existed from eternity with no beginning and everything else had a beginning. False philosophies and religions begin by denying this truth and saying something is eternal along with God or instead of God.
Calvin on Moses and Plato
I agree with Calvin when he says:
“Moreover, the greatest of philosophers, who excelled all the rest in acuteness and erudition, applied whatever skill he possessed to defraud God of his glory, by disputing in favor of the eternity of the world. Although his master, Plato, was a little more religious, and showed himself to be imbued with some taste for richer knowledge, yet he corrupted and mingled with so many figments the slender principles of truth which he received, that this fictitious kind of teaching would be rather injurious than profitable.”
Right away we see the tension between Moses and Plato. Calvin explains: “The intention of Moses in beginning his Book with the creation of the world, is, to render God, as it were, visible to us in his works.”
We know God as he has revealed himself to us. This is what the Reformation and early Enlightenment grasped. It is what taught them to reject Plato, who teaches that the material world is a shadow and that we should flee it for disembodied spiritual existence, and we climb a ladder of being to see “God” for ourselves apart from his works and revelation.
Calvin therefore rejects the Platonic beatific vision.
“As for those who proudly soar above the world to seek God in his unveiled essence, it is impossible but that at length they should entangle themselves in a multitude of absurd figments. For God—by other means invisible—(as we have already said) clothes himself, so to speak, with the image of the world in which he would present himself to our contemplation. They who will not deign to behold him thus magnificently arrayed in the incomparable vesture of the heavens and the earth, afterwards suffer the just punishment of their proud contempt in their own ravings.”
That is stronger language than I would use, and I am not applying it to Christian Platonists in our discussion. It reminds us of the persecution Calvin faced from many angles. But I do agree with Calvin in his firm rejection of Plato. God is known by His works. This leaves all men everywhere at all times without excuse for their unbelief in God, and establishes men as entirely dependent, finite creatures. The problem in Plato’s view of “God” is not merely due to his lack of special revelation. It is due to his rejection of clear general revelation. Although it is telling how little attention the Greeks paid to Jerusalem and Moses, favoring Egypt and Babylon instead.
Stephen Charnock
I also agree with Stephen Charnock, who showed how to prove that God alone is eternal, unlike the Platonic teaching of the eternality of the world. The Greek philosophers—whether materialist, Platonic, Aristotelian, Stoic, or Epicurean—all believed in the eternity of the world. Charnock shows us how we can prove the full definition of God from general revelation. You can read my articles about this in Credo Magazine (here, here, and here), so I won’t duplicate that material here. Charnock is far superior to Plato for rejecting Open Theism and Materialism as well as Greek philosophy itself.
Charles Hodge
I also agree with Charles Hodge, who argued that Platonism is a system of belief contrary to Christian theism, and one that tends toward mysticism and monism. Beliefs are not like crumbs scattered chaotically on the ground, where you can pick up a few tasty morsels here and there and leave the rest (Don’t take from this that I eat crumbs off the ground). Beliefs come in systems, as an attempt to be coherent. Certainly, you can find an insight here or there in any system, but that insight is nested in the larger system, it gets its full meaning from that system.
For example: Plato believes 2 + 2 = 4. All good so far. But now ask him why that is and what numbers are, and you run into trouble with his 2+2. A Christian philosopher or systematic theologian must show how Platonism as a system is in conflict with Christian theism as a system, and why the latter is true. This is different from the work of an evangelist or apologist.
I won’t duplicate Hodge here, but his refutation and more detailed analysis of Plato and Neoplatonism can be found in volume 1 of his Systematic Theology, and should be read with great benefit by Reformed philosophers. He classifies Plato with the anti-theistic systems. I will merely note two things:
Hodge says Plato taught:
“Nothing has ever been created. All that is, is eternal; not indeed in form, but in substance. Matter—something material—has always existed. This in itself is lifeless, but it has ‘a soul,’ an unintelligent force by which chaotic or disorderly agitation or motion is produced. This unintelligent force God endowed with a portion of his own intelligence or nous, and it becomes the world-soul, i.e., the Demiurgus, the formative principle of the world. God is not therefore himself even the framer of the world. This is the work of the Demiurgus.”
And:
“As Plato made ideas eternal and immutable; as they were all included in the idea of God, i.e., in God; and as they constitute the only really existing beings, all that is phenomenal or that affects the senses being mere shadows of the real, it can hardly be denied that his system in its essential character is really pantheistical. It is, however, an ideal pantheism. It does not admit that matter or evil is a manifestation of God, or a mode of his existence. Only what is good is God; but all that really is, is good.”
Christians can get too excited at the word “God” and need to ask: What is meant by “God” in this system? Actual philosophical materialists have been very rare. All of the world’s philosophies and religions have a supreme deity, but they are all false. Even materialists tend to speak about “the Cosmos” or Force.” We would never say, “well, the Philistines have Dagon and the Canaanites have Baal so they too believe in God.” No one gets points for believing in “God” if what they believe is false. This question helps us get into the content of Platonism. As Hodge says: “It cannot, therefore, be reasonably doubted that not only the being of God, but also his eternal power and Godhead, are so revealed in his works, as to lay a stable foundation for natural theology.”
Plato had access to these works and suppressed what they teach about God with a false philosophy. Hodge quotes Döllinger: “Yet he [Plato] contributed nothing whatever to the knowledge of the perfect, living personality of God.” But Plato should have done so—he had clear general revelation showing him these truths.
We will look at Plato’s theory of knowledge in a moment, but briefly, it is an intuitive theory of remembrance or perception. Contrast that with Hodge, who says the facts of nature reveal God. Facts are propositions, such as: “Only God is eternal.” Knowledge is mediated and propositional. It requires a sound argument to show the truth. We all agree on this in principle, since the response to my essay is itself an argument—not simply someone taking me by the hand and pointing to the sun.
The Westminster Shorter Catechism
General revelation clearly reveals God as defined in the Westminster Shorter Catechism, Q4: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchanging in being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”
All of these attributes can be known from general revelation. We can also prove Question 9 from general revelation, that God created the world from nothing—meaning He alone has existed from eternity, and the world had a beginning, and it was very good. It is not part of God or an emanation of God. The Greeks were entirely mistaken in teaching the eternity of the world.
Platonism and its deity are in conflict with clear general revelation about God the Creator. And that holds true whether we mean by “Platonist” the Old Academy, Middle Academy, New Academy, Middle Platonism, or Neoplatonism. These systems all taught the eternity of the world. This is why their philosophy is referred to as Greek dualism: both its “god” and the world have existed from eternity.
However, Hodge correctly points out that in his attempt at unity Plato toward mysticism and, especially in Neoplatonism, toward a monistic teaching that all is one, and that creation is an emanation of the One.
What Did Plato Believe?
Next in my long reply and the entire course on Christian philosophy. To do so, let’s look at what Goligher attributes to Platonism. He lays out what he thinks the Platonists believed. I’ll take it step by step. My replies reflect what Plato taught in sources like the Phaedo, Timaeus, Meno, Republic, and Parmenides. It only gets worse for Plato if we begin to consider the Neoplatonist writings. (All these sources can be read online in many places including here.)
First, Goligher tells us: “Platonist philosophy affirmed the existence of God (though, without divine revelation in Scripture, it could not offer much true knowledge of him).”
This isn’t true. The deity of Platonism is not the Creator. Material stuff is co-eternal with this deity, and because of this, it is not all-powerful. Matter has its own nature that the deity cannot overcome—and this is how Platonists explain evil. The supreme deity, the One, doesn’t seem to be personal at all, nor independently supreme. Creation is mediated by the Demiurge, who acts on already existing matter to shape it to resemble the Forms. But matter is inherently imperfect, and this is the cause of suffering and evil. You can read about Plato’s view on “God” in the Timaeus where he tells us about the Demiurge, or in the Republic where he tells us about the Good, or in the Phaedrus and the Phaedo where he tells us about the world soul.
By contrast, we can show from general revelation that the original creation was very good, and that evil in the world is due to sin, not matter. A Christian philosopher should be able to show from general revelation that Plato is wrong about the Demiurge, the Good, and the world soul.
Most importantly, this gives the impression that Plato did the best he could with what he had. He went as far as a philosopher could without special revelation. This is not true. General revelation clearly revealed God the creator to Plato and Plato suppressed that knowledge with a false philosophy. He also showed no interest in Jerusalem while taking time to study Egyptian mysteries. Plato is guilty before God for his own unbelief and for misleading so many by teaching a false God.
Second, Goligher says: “It also affirmed the reality of spiritual entities like the human soul.”
Yes—and taught that the human soul was eternal, or first made a star, and then descended into a body, and passes through reincarnation and will continue to do so until it is just. I believe we can show from general revelation that the soul had a beginning and does not reincarnate. We can show that there is a body-soul unity and were created in the image of God. We can show that we were not created first as stars and being in a body is not a punishment or lesser state of existence.
It is no great feat to believe in an immaterial soul—the Greek materialists were the odd ones out on that point. But the real issue is: What is the soul? The Phaedrus talks about the eternity of the soul, and the Timaeus talks about its transmigration. In the Republic, Plato relies on a Babylonian story about Er, who came back from the dead to teach about reincarnation and the afterlife. It also mirrors what the Egyptians taught about the journey of the soul after death.
Third, Goligher says: “It rejected skepticism by tracing the possibility of human knowledge up to a realm of spiritual ideas.”
But Platonism was known for being skeptical. Plato taught that we cannot have knowledge about this world, because knowledge is about what is unchanging, and this world is a changing shadow (see the Theaetetus). The Middle Academy was explicitly skeptical, following the Socratic example of asking questions without reaching firm conclusions. Cicero tells us that Arcesilaus (Middle Academy) taught skepticism and influenced Carneades (who shaped the New Academy around systematic probabilistic skepticism).
Plato claimed that knowledge is recollection from previous lives, during which we directly observed the Forms (see the Meno). Thus, what he means by “knowledge” is direct perception of the Forms, not rational demonstration from evidence. In this way, Plato denies both the reality of God as Creator and that creation reveals God.
When Plato’s Socrates does offer his own account (rather than simply questioning others), he turns to mythological stories based on Egyptian religion. From that source, Christians began speculating about ideas like purgatory and climbing the chain of being to perceive the One. Many of the harmful medieval teachings that the Reformation opposed came from this source. This is not the biblical account of God revealing Himself through His works of creation and providence.
Remember, Aristotle refuted Platonism. He argued that Plato’s theory of Forms had no causal power, and therefore no explanatory power. Later Aristotelians rejected Platonic ideas like the world-soul, the One, and emanation. According to Aristotle, Plato’s was a false philosophy.
Christian scholars have not unanimously been Platonic—even when they do identify with a Greek philosopher. Aristotle might actually win the numbers game. But Aristotle, too, taught the eternity of the world, which is why the early Christian philosopher Johannes Philoponus wrote Against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World. That the Greek philosophers taught this wasn’t in dispute; that the teaching is problematic for Christian thought is obvious.
Fourth, Goligher says: “Leading early Christian philosophers like Justin Martyr and Augustine regarded this Platonist philosophy as very friendly to the Christian Gospel, though it needed to be corrected according to Scripture, especially in its view of creation and eschatology.”
I’m not quite sure what to make of this, because I don’t want to get into listing names to make a “for” and “against” chart—that would be a fallacy anyway. Yes, you can find early Christian thinkers who speak highly of Plato. In many cases, this was strategic, even while they recognized that Platonism as a system is contrary to biblical teaching.
Augustine, for example, argued that Plato was wrong about both general and special revelation. Augustine did something remarkable: he developed the argument to show that the material world had a beginning—and that time itself had a beginning. The medieval Thomists struggled over this point. Maimonides, Averroes, and Aquinas all taught that reason and philosophy show us the world is without a beginning, and that we must turn to Scripture to learn that it had one. They perpetuated the reason-versus-revelation divide that Augustine had already resolved by refuting the Greek philosophers on the eternity of the world using general revelation.
The early Christian world understood that Plato and Christianity are not the same—which is why, when Julian the Apostate sought to replace Christianity, he turned to Platonism. He understood that he was not replacing Christianity with Christianity—he self-consciously sought out a pagan alternative to facilitate the revival of the old gods to defeat the Galileans.
Fifth, Goligher tells us, “This ‘Christian Platonism’ became the normal intellectual framework for faithful Christians, and its roots in the historical convergence of Greek philosophy and the Hebrew Scriptures was regarded as a prime example of divine providence in preparing the world for the Gospel.”
This quote, more than anything else, highlights our disagreement. It reflects the attempted compromise that began at the School of Alexandria between Greek philosophy and revelation, which eventually developed into the false dichotomy of reason vs. revelation. It presumes that the Greeks got general revelation, philosophy, and reason correct, and that they simply lacked special revelation. But they didn’t get general revelation, philosophy, and reason correct. Their systems reject what is clearly revealed about God in general revelation and end up in contradiction, meaning a rejection of reason.
The Christian philosopher’s job is to understand what is clearly revealed about God in general revelation so as to be able to show where Plato (and the other Greek philosophers) didn’t see what he should have seen and suppressed the truth. If a Christian philosopher hasn’t seen that for himself, he can’t approach Plato that way.
As systems, there is no consistency between Christian theism and Platonism: their foundational beliefs are at odds. The only exception is that, as Christianity became successful, some Platonists began trying to imitate it, thereby departing from what their schools originally taught. But note the direction: the influence flowed from Christianity to Platonism, not the other way around.
Sixth, he says “Platonist philosophy was directly opposed to the materialism and skepticism of other Greek philosophies. This was a major reason that Christians found Platonist philosophy amenable for the purpose of preaching and discipleship.”
As I’ve already shown, Platonism wasn’t opposed to skepticism. Plato explicitly tells us that we can’t have knowledge of the material world. He defines knowledge narrowly as direct perception of the Forms, and this knowledge is possible only outside the body. Platonic contemplation is about overcoming material existence whereas Biblical meditation is on the works of God. That’s why Plato relied on Egyptian and Babylonian myths, and also why Aristotle developed Logic and Plato did not.
Yes, Platonism rejected Greek materialism, but it still shared the same core metaphysical assumption. The Greek materialists were monists—they believed all is one and denied creation. Plato did not disagree with them on that point. As Hodge points out, Platonism is mystical and monistic when it teaches emanationism—the idea that all things flow out from the One and ultimately return to it. We have far superior sources for refuting materialism.
Seventh, because it always comes up, Goligher mentioned the Platonic view of the soul. So, let’s also consider how different the pagan beatific vision is from man’s chief end. The Platonic vision is spelled out in the Allegory of the Cave: the highest good is found by escaping material existence and the five senses. This life is a shadow. The pagan beatific vision is a direct perception of the top of the Great Chain of Being—The Good. It is mystical (intuitive and immediate) and monistic (all is one).
Calvin says: “As for those who proudly soar above the world to seek God in his unveiled essence, it is impossible but that at length they should entangle themselves in a multitude of absurd figments.” The chief end of man is not the pagan beatific vision. The chief end of man is to glorify God. How do we do this? By knowing God in all that by which He makes Himself known. That is the answer to Q101. We pray that men would know God in all that by which He makes Himself known. God is known by His works. He reveals himself to us, we don’t climb to him.
Q45 teaches us that Plato violated the First Commandment. He was in error and did not acknowledge the true God (revealed to him in creation) nor did he worship and glorify God.. The pagan beatific vision teaches escape from God’s world; the Christian chief end teaches us to rejoice in the glory revealed in God’s world.
We are pilgrims in “this world,” meaning the fallen system of unbelief and all that it builds civilizationally. We are not pilgrims in material existence or in God’s creation. We are here to reclaim it. The Greeks flee this world, Joshua conquers it.
How to do Christian Philosophy
Early Christian thinkers were dealing with many challenges. As Christians went into all the world, they encountered existing philosophies. Those philosophies said some true things. But at their foundation, non-Christian philosophies rejected the truth about God clearly revealed in creation and suppressed it by teaching falsehoods. They lived under unbelief and a darkened mind, having exchanged the glory of God for idolatry. Platonism isn’t preparation for the Gospel; it is sinful unbelief that needs the Gospel.
Paul, in Athens, demonstrates to us how to do Christian philosophy and that it begins in clear general revelation. Notice that at that time, Platonism wasn’t named at Mars Hill. The Platonists were known for their skepticism and otherworldly metaphysics. The philosophies that dominated the day were those that claimed to explain how to live in this life—Stoicism and Epicureanism were front and center. They were both monistic: the Epicureans taught that all is atoms, and the Stoics promoted the myth of the eternal return. Both shared with the rest of the Greek philosophers a rejection of God the Creator. In De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum, you can read about Cicero and Cato debating Epicureanism, Stoicism, and Academic Skepticism (Platonism).
The popular religion of polytheism that Paul observed as he went through the city and saw the many idols would have also been looked down on by the philosophers. They believed that, at best, these stories were allegories teaching humans to live virtuous lives. But they debated what exactly counted as a virtue, why a person should be virtuous, and whether, after all, virtue actually leads to happiness.
Paul doesn’t engage them by affirming one of their insights. What he chooses is something that holds them accountable. This is Athens—the city of wisdom—and yet they admit they don’t know God (by implication, Plato didn’t know God). This is culpable ignorance.
Their problem wasn’t lack of access to the Bible. Paul begins with creation. God is knowable from creation, and so their confession of the “unknown god” is a confession of sin. What Paul does is show them that God the Creator is revealed in the creation around them. They have no excuse. They can’t say, “We didn’t read Moses.” Although, the fact that the Greeks paid so little attention to Moses also tells us something about their unbelief. They loved the Egyptian and Babylonian mysteries, but they ignored Jerusalem.
Paul tells them that God has been long-suffering with their unbelief, but that now things have changed. God will judge the nations. And the proof of this is the resurrection of Jesus. This is a beautiful connection to John 12:20-26, where Jesus explains why He wouldn’t meet with the Greeks at that time: first, He must die, and then He will draw all people to Himself. Now His gospel has come to Athens, and their unbelief is under judgment. The light of the Scriptures had been contained to Israel, but now it will advance as Christ the King conquers the nations. Their Greek philosophies will be exposed as unbelief—and demolished.
The Christian philosopher is the one who, like Paul, can show the eternal power and divine nature of God clearly revealed in creation. On that basis of sinful unbelief, the Christian philosopher can then direct the worldly philosopher to Christ as Paul does in Romans and in Athens. A person who does not himself see clear general revelation will not be ready to do this.
Can enemies be friends?
When we are in battle, we are thankful for all the help we can get. But we must remember that once the battle is over, that help can turn into a knife. Plato might seem helpful against Open Theism and Materialism, but we have better resources for that conflict. Our goal is not simply to win a battle here or there, but to win the war. And the war includes Christ conquering all false philosophies—those worldly philosophies built on the principles of unbelief. The earth cannot be filled with the knowledge of God by relying on false views of God.
Could we say that it is all strategic? That might be a question for an apologist, but not for a philosopher or a systematic theologian. And here is what is interesting about such a strategy: the materialists are now the enemy of our enemy. Materialists believe in an objective world and that we can know true things about that world. The current anti-biblical approach in our universities is idealist—even solipsistic. It denies objective reality and truth. Instead, it claims all truths are mind-dependent and perspectival. And so, in this way, the materialist has become our ally.
Yet I hope you see that this alliance can only go so far. At least everyone knows the materialist does not believe in God, whereas the Platonist is more apt to ambiguity and confusion—convincing people that he too believes in God. We know what we get with a materialist whereas the Platonist can try to hide the One behind his Demiurge and reincarnating souls.
And so, I agree with Calvin: God is known through His works. “The intention of Moses in beginning his Book with the creation of the world, is to render God, as it were, visible to us in his works.” Moses and Plato represent opposing systems. Plato and Platonism are false philosophies. But what does that have to do with my essay on the three veils? I gave a warning not to hide the Bible behind Plato. I stand by it.
Conclusion
So, where are we? For all that we agree on, we disagree about what is clearly known about God in general revelation. I believe I have refuted Goligher’s claim: “My point is that this basic insight is reinforced, not contradicted, by our long inheritance of Christian Platonism.” Plato didn’t get philosophy right. Plato rejected both creation and Moses and suppressed the truth. Christian philosophers must see how Plato denied clear general revelation in order to hold him accountable for his unbelief and the great harms it has caused.
Of philosophers, Calvin says:
“I answer, It is in vain for any to reason as philosophers on the workmanship of the world, except those who, having been first humbled by the preaching of the Gospel, have learned to submit the whole of their intellectual wisdom (as Paul expresses it) to the foolishness of the cross (1 Corinthians 1:21).”
In our condition of sin, we cannot see what is clearly revealed about God right in front of us. Creation leaves philosophers without excuse. The only means of salvation is Christ. The Westminster Confession of Faith 1.1 puts it this way:
“Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable [sic]; yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.”
I know that Mr. Goligher and I agree on this, and I am thankful for his engagement with my article and our brotherhood in Christ. I also hope this course in Christian philosophy proves helpful for many young Christians interested in this discipline. Let’s learn to take all thoughts captive and make them obedient to Christ.
Perhaps it turns out that my original article was simply an allegory about a deeper spiritual truth after all. I hope this provides the foundation for Christian philosophers to go further and deeper into general revelation and to identify where Plato and the other Greek philosophers denied what is clearly revealed about God in His work of creation. It is on that basis that these Greek philosophers were in unbelief and in need of redemption. And our greatest joy is to know God in all that by which he makes himself known (Psalm 145:1-6).
Image: Plato’s Academy mosaic in the villa of T. Siminius Stephanus in Pompeii, around 100 BC to 100 BC. Wikimedia Commons.