Paul and the Philosophers
[ Contents ]
The Apologetics of Confrontation
Paul’s speech at Athens reached beyond its setting. It has remained through the centuries as a model of Christian confrontation with unbelief. The intellectuals thought they had placed the gospel on trial, but the word of God stood firm before their scrutiny, and in reality God had placed them under judgment. Christian apologetics does not rest on cultural cleverness or shifting opinion. It rests on the foundation of divine revelation, carries the conviction of certainty, and presses forward until the purpose of God is fulfilled. The intention is spiritual conquest.
Paul’s address was philosophical preaching in the truest sense. He reasoned through the essential issues of knowledge and existence, and he did so by taking Scripture as his foundation. The apostle warned the Colossians against being taken captive by “hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ.” The warning is not an attack on philosophy as such, as philosophy could simply refer to deep thinking about ultimate questions. It condemns human speculation, not the disciplined reasoning that begins with God’s revelation. Christians must embrace a theology, worldview, and philosophy that depend on Christ as their foundation.
Mere theism, if there is such a thing, is never sufficient. To say that there is some god is to say nothing about knowledge, truth, or salvation. Unbelievers often appeal to vague theism as if it were common ground, but it is an escape. The only ground that makes reason possible is the revelation of the true God. Christian philosophy begins with Scripture, and because Scripture is revelation from God, it provides the necessary first principles for knowledge. Every system of thought must have such a starting point. Non-Christian religions and philosophies make their starting point human speculation, and for this reason they can never deduce truth or sustain their worldviews without contradiction.
The Christian accepts God’s revelation as his starting point. He is not smuggling in a bias, but openly stating the foundation upon which thought and life must stand. We may call this Christian rationalism or biblical rationalism. It is biblical because it depends on divine revelation rather than human conjecture. It is rationalism because it begins from God’s word, apart from sensation and intuition, and it deduces knowledge in a way that demands consistency and coherence. The biblical worldview is deduced from God’s own speech and mind. Therefore, it represents perfect knowledge and rationality. Because of this foundation, Christians have nothing to fear from attacks on their faith. The weapons of the world cannot breach the fortress of revelation.
More than this, God has given his people the mandate to attack. Christians have received divine license to employ the weapons of truth: proclamation of doctrine, argumentation that destroys insufficient and contradictory presuppositions, and exposition of Scripture that shapes minds over time. These are intellectual instruments intended to demolish false systems and recover thinking for God. Besides the divine license to attack non-Christian views, the unbelievers themselves have granted us license to attack them. By their constant challenge against the gospel, they have surrendered any right to avoid our challenge. Their objections invite us to destroy their worldviews and to demand reasons for their beliefs.
Paul said that the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. He did not mean that the message is actually foolish, but that unbelievers suppress the truth in their unrighteousness. Non-Christians are so stupid that they cannot see the truth for what it is. What they call foolishness is in fact the wisdom of God. Even the so-called foolishness of God is wiser than the highest speculations of man. The gospel does not compete with human wisdom on its own terms. It abolishes those terms altogether. Scripture declares, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Therefore, our task is not to make the Bible look plausible from non-Christian perspectives. Our task is to demonstrate that non-Christian perspectives are false from the ground up. We do not say they are close to the truth or partly right. We prove that they are wholly wrong. They must be abandoned, not adjusted. For this reason, not all approaches to apologetics and evangelism are legitimate. Any approach that compromises revelation or borrows its authority from the world’s principles has already surrendered. The correct way is one that begins with revelation, reasons from revelation, then swings revelation and reason around to wreck everything else.
If the foundation is revelation, then the posture must be certainty. The Bible does not present itself as tentative or probable. It presents itself as the word of God. Luke wrote his Gospel so that Theophilus might know the certainty of the things he had been taught. Jesus said that his disciples knew with certainty that he came from the Father. The letter to the Hebrews says that faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see. Certainty is not arrogance. It is the necessary response to God’s testimony.
False humility is spiritually fatal. Some writers have claimed that Christians must admit that they might be wrong about everything, even about the central claims of the gospel. They call this humility, but it is a denial of Scripture. It differs little from what unbelievers say about the Christian faith. They also say that Christians might be wrong about everything. If someone says that he might be wrong when he affirms that the Bible is true, he is saying that the Bible itself might be false. He is no longer defending the faith but undermining it. They do the work of non-Christian critics, only with greater hypocrisy.
Scripture portrays humility as submission to God’s authority and agreement with him. Arrogance means contradicting God. Therefore, when a Christian affirms what the Bible affirms, he is the very picture of humility, and it is impossible that he is wrong. To call such certainty arrogant is to call God himself arrogant and wrong. It is actually arrogant and despicable to suggest that God might be false, and that our skepticism is somehow more trustworthy than his revelation. Only wicked human trash would suggest such a thing.
This has sharp consequences for apologetics and evangelism. The Christian must not argue as if Christianity might be one possibility among many. He must argue as if Christianity is true, because it is true. He must say, “We are right, and you are wrong, and we both know it.” This does not mean he must sneer or swagger, although this is proper in many situations. He can be polite. He can speak with composure. But his argument cannot waver. Doubt at the foundation poisons every branch.
The non-Christian must be pressured to defend his beliefs, and especially his presuppositions. If he denies God, on what basis does he reason and judge? On what basis does he say anything at all? Make him justify everything. He cannot. His objections against Christ collapse because his framework has no defensible foundation. The Christian, by contrast, begins from a rationally necessary foundation. Our certainty is not a rhetorical trick. It is the only rational position. It is the necessary outcome that follows from taking revelation as the starting point. Christianity is true by necessity. The believer must not only assert this but also learn to demonstrate it in debate.
The outcome of Paul’s speech in Athens was mixed. Some mocked, some delayed, and some believed. This pattern reveals the universal effect of the gospel: it divides, it judges, and it saves. The word of God fulfills its purpose by hardening the reprobate and drawing the elect. For this reason, the conquest of the gospel is not measured by applause or numbers, but by whether the word of God has been spoken and defended. Whenever his word confronts unbelief, his purpose is fulfilled.
Paul’s method in Athens was comprehensive. He addressed knowledge, existence, creation, providence, man, history, and judgment. His speech resembled a sketch of systematic philosophy or theology. He did not restrict himself to a fragment. Likewise, our approach in apologetics and evangelism is systematic and comprehensive. The Great Commission requires Christians to teach all nations everything that Christ commanded. Partial knowledge will not meet this demand. The defense of the faith must be broad and integrated, covering all that Scripture affirms.
The lesson of Elisha and Jehoash speaks powerfully in this context. The prophet was dying, and the king wept before him. Elisha told him to take a bow and arrows. When the king shot through the window, the prophet declared it the Lord’s arrow of victory. Then he commanded the king to strike the ground with the arrows. Jehoash struck three times and stopped. Elisha was angry. He told the king that if he had struck five or six times, he would have completely destroyed his enemies. Because he stopped, his victory would be partial.
God provided weapons for complete triumph, but the king’s half-hearted action limited the outcome. Christians have been given even greater weapons. Paul said that our weapons are not of this world. They are mighty through God for demolishing strongholds, arguments, and every pretension raised against the knowledge of God. These weapons are the doctrines of Scripture, the arguments that expose the irrationality of unbelief, and the power of the Holy Spirit. When these are used aggressively and relentlessly, victory is guaranteed.
Christians have done very little with these weapons. Too often they have stopped after a few strikes. They have offered polite conversation where they should have pressured and embarrassed the opponent. They have contented themselves with scattering fragments of truth when they should have declared the whole counsel of God and demanded compliance. Elisha’s anger at Jehoash is a warning. God himself is displeased with half measures.
Elisha’s anger was zeal for God’s purpose. He refused to bless partial obedience. In the same way, Paul refused to meet the philosophers halfway. He did not trim his message to avoid offense. He declared the judgment of God, the resurrection of Christ, and the command to repent. He knew that some would mock, some would delay, and some would believe. He knew that the word of God would do its work. To stop short would have been disloyalty.
Strike the ground again and again. Go into a frenzy. Preachers must fill their sermons with the whole scope of theology, not with samples meant to amuse the age. Parents must teach their children with steady discipline, year after year, until the false philosophies of the world have no foothold in their thinking. Teachers and writers must press every argument until the unbeliever’s system collapses under its own absurdities. The weapons of revelation are invincible, and victory is guaranteed when they are used without restraint. The battle is won by deranged relentlessness.