-The Church in Conflict With Pagan Philosophy

The Church in Conflict With Pagan Philosophy “THE CHURCH IN CONFLICT WITH PAGAN
PHILOSOPHY”
John T. Smith The subject which I am to discuss at this hour comprehends a field that is vast, and its soil is largely virgin.

While I can truly say with Paul, “I count not my­self to have apprehended”—yet I find it a field of un­usual interest and profit to those who like to trace, from the small mustard-grain origin, the history and growth of the church in unfriendly soil. Who are inter­ested in knowing more about the things which stoutly opposed Christianity at its inception, and which things soon began to corrupt the faith and retard the prog­ress of the church. By “the church,” we mean the New Testament church, i. e., the church according to the New Testa­ment, or the church revealed in the New Testament. The one which the Savior said, “I will build” (Matthew 16:18), and which was set up, established, and inau­gurated on the first Pentecost after the resurrection of Christ from the grave. This church was to be propa­gated by the preaching of the gospel (Mark 16:15), by preaching a message wholly unlike anything the world had ever heard. Not something which had sprung up out of the hidden depths of man’s nature, something which he had reasoned out, but something communicated to him from a higher source—a power descended from above.

“Philosophy,” in the original and widest sense, is “the love cr pursuit of wisdom, or the knowledge of things and their causes.” Philip Mauro says: “Philosopliy is the occupation of attempting to devise, by the exercise of the human reason, an explanation of the universe.” In our study, philosophy is used espe­cially of knowledge obtained by natural reason, in con­trast with revealed knowledge. By “pagan,” we mean one who does not hold the true religion, or does not worship the true God. Hence pagan philosophy as a system of religion was the product of the speculations and human reasoning of those who knew not the true God, in their efforts to find an explanation of the origin of the universe and of man. Although it is specifically said in the word of the Lord, that the world by its wisdom knew not God, (did not come to the knowledge of God, and cannot) yet the interminable occupation of the philosopher, by means only of human wisdom, is seeking to find an explanation of the universe—its existence and origin, its Creator, and of man and the right way of life. In this study we are not to deal with modern phil­osophy. It would no doubt be both interesting and profitable to discover that there is very little that is modern about so-called modern philosophy, but that it is almost wholly a revamping of the old philosophies. Primarily, our subject does not involve the study of ancient philosophy, only to the extent that we may know something of the deep-seated customs and the modes of thinking which prevailed “when the fulness of time came, and God sent forth his son” to establish his church upon the earth. We need only a brief his­torical background to enable us to appreciate the task of the early church, and the conflicts she had in her efforts to plant Christianity upon the earth.

About five centuries before Christ, we find the Soph­ists or wise men. They were teachers, attached to no institution and to no locality, thoroughgoing skep­tics who doubted everything, but proposed to give instructions on all subjects. They maintained that the basis of morality was to be found within one’s own intellectual and moral being. (Paganism always in­sisted that man’s innate moral sense would guide bis conduct aright. It recognized a distinction between vice and virtue, but maintained that each man could tell which he ought to choose and which eschew'.) The Sophists said there is no universal idea or standard of conduct, but that each may do what is right in his own eyes. Naturally these views and ideas led to a period of great laxity and immorality, and to the corruption of Greek society. Every man became a law unto himself, for they said, the way of man is in himself; he can direct his own steps. But Cod’s prophet said: “O Lord, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps” (Jer. i0:23). They were wise in their own conceits, and confident n their ways, but Paul said: “The wisdom of this world is foohshness with God.” Again it is said: “The Lord knoweth the reasonings of the, wise, and they are vain.” Verily, “The way of a fool is right in his own eyes” (Proverbs 12:15). These Sophists were just the spokesmen of their day, and simply put into words what all Greek states practiced.

It is said that Socrates inaugurated a new era in the higher life. He was the mortal enemy of the Soph­ists, and made the first Greek appeal to man’s con­science. He said that correct thinking meant correct action. He believed that knowledge and virtue could not be divorced. “Salvation is by wisdom,” said he, “for no man who knows right will do wrong.” But like all pagan philosophers, he insisted that innate moral consciousness is the guide and the sanction of morality and virtue.

Historians tell us that Plato continued the work of Socrates in the search after ultimate reality, and a deeper spiritual unity. He has been called “the phi­losopher of the spirit.” He made philosophy a religion. His theory of “ideas” was the basis of his system. “The idea is the archetype—the divine thought or plan —of which material objects are the imperfect reflec­tion.” Plato taught that it is in the celestial wTorld that we are to find the realm of ideas, and that God is the supreme idea. He was far in advance of the philosophers of his day. Eusebius says: “He alone of all the Greeks reached the vestibule of truth and stood upon its threshold.” Yet Plato did not recog­nize the true and living God, for he said: “Beauty, truth, love, these are God, whom it is the supreme desire of the soul to comprehend.” While Plato ap­proached wonderfully near to the truth with reference to “ideas” or “thoughts,” reminding us of the lan­guage of the wise man, “For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he,” and again, “Keep thy heart with all diligence; for out of it are the issues of lice,” yet he never entered into the sanctuary of truth, because he relied wdiolly upon philosophy, or the knowledge ob­tained by natural reason.

Aristotle was the world’s moralist, who made phi­losophy a science. He insisted that goodness as a whole consists m both well-being and wrell doing, or goodness of the intellect, and goodness of action. To him, good­ness consisted in some form of efficiency, or some superiority in conduct, rather than m a state of mind. Like Socrates, he believed that the two were insepara­ble ; that when one knew right he would not go wrong.

After the death of these great philosophical lead­ers, the essential elements of their theory of life were presented by the Stoics. This was a school founded by Zeno about 300 B. C., at Athens. Stoicism was pantheistic. It taught that there is no God except the combined forces and laws which are manifested in the existing universe, or “the universe conceived of as a whole is god.” It proclaimed that salvation consists in destroying the passions, suppressing the emotions, and cultivating the will. Hence, man is potentially his own savior, and doesn’t need any higher power. The Stoics did not entertain the hope of immortality or the resurrection of the dead.

About the same time, Epicurus founded the school of the Epicureans at Athens. They too, were greatly interested about the problem of conduct—“What is the highest good?” And they proclaimed pleasure as man’s highest end; the summum bonum of life. By “pleasure,” Epicurus meant satisfaction, contentment, and peace of mind. But the idea was soon corrupted, and came to mean “sensual enjoyment,” and “self.- gratification.” They denied the resurrection of the, dead, and rejected the idea of a future state of re­wards and punishments. “Salvation is confined to this life.” They did not even ascribe to God the crea­tion of the woild, but held it to be the result of a conflux of atoms. Being thus materialistic and athe­istic, the final and legitimate fruits of this teaching were a gross sensualism.

Stoicism, which proclaimed that man is his own savior, and needs no higher power, that he saves him­self by destroying his passions, suppressing his emo­tions, and cultivating his will, exactly adapted itself to the thinking and customs of the Romans. The circumstances of their eaily history taught them self­control and self-reliance. Among them, religion was more closely interwoven with politics than in any of the other ancient states. Indeed, their whole civil and social life was based on relip;ious customs. Whatever, therefore, attacked one of these must soon come into conflict with the other. The learned aristocracy of Rome and Greece looked down on Christianity with contempt, because it was propagated, for the most part, by the common, unlettered, and uncultured class, and at first found readiest acceptance among the lower classes of society. Celsus, the first writer against Christianity, jeers at the fact that “wool-workers, cobblers, leather-dressers, the most illiterate and vul­gar of mankind, were zealous preachers of the gospel, and addressed themselves, particularly in the outset, to the women and children.” Another standing objec­tion against Christianity was that it preached only a blind faith: that it did not prove anything on philo^ sophi.cal grounds. Hence, Christianity had against it on the one hand the pride of culture, and on the other, that it was just another philosophy, which ought to be proven by reason. Shall we now look to the New Testament, to discover some of the confficts between the church and pagan philosophy, in apostolic days. The seventeenth chap­ter of Acts tells of Paul’s singlehanded combat with some of these systems, especially the Epicureans and Stoics, at Athens. Athens was the capitol of Greece, and the seat of learning for the world. More, it was the stronghold of pagan philosophy and idolatry, in apostolic times. The Bible says that Paul found the city full of idols—and Petronius said: “It is easier to find a god than a man in Athens.” It is said that there were some thirty thousand legalized gods among the Greeks.

Athens had become a place of public resort for phi­losophers and students from all over the civilized world, and Luke tells us that “they spent their time in nothing else, but to tell or to hear some new thing.” No doubt, the apostle had this in mind when he wrote: “The Greeks seek after wisdom.”

While Paul waited for Timothy and Silas to join him, his spirit was stirred within him. Thus he rea­soned, in the synagogue, with the few Jews who were there, and in the market place every day, with the idle class who met him there. Soon he was encountered by some of these philosophers, and invited to speak at the Areopagus. They said, you are bringing strange things to our ears, and we want to know what they mean. Paul began by complimenting them for being so religious, “In all things I perceive that ye are very religious,” for “as I observed the objects of your worship, I found an altar with this inscription, ‘To an unknown God.’ What therefore ye worship in ignorance, this I set forth unto you.” The apostle be­gan with a God whom they worshipped in ignorance, and preached unto them the God of heaven—a God of personality, a God of intellect, and a God of power. He set him forth as the creator of the world and all things therein, ruler of heaven and earth, and the author and giver of life. This teaching naturally en­gendered conflicts, for it was a flat contradiction of every thing which philosophy taught. They knew nothing about a personal, intellectual God, “In whom we live, move, and have our being.” Paul concluded his speech with statements which were even more ob­jectionable, when he said: “God hath appointed a day in which he will judge the world in righteousness,” and added that Jesus, whom he hath raised from the dead, will be the judge. They didn’t believe in the res­urrection and the judgment, and a future state of punishments and rewards. This was one of Paul’s most masterly discourses, and seems to have been a complete failure. When he had finished, some mocked and scorned, while others, with indifference, said: “We will hear thee again.” Disappointed and disgusted, the apostle left before Timothy and Silas arrived. Left without trying fur­ther to found a church. The trouble with the Athen­ians was that they were seeking wisdom of a worldly sort—something which had been reasoned out by men, and which would challenge their intellectual powers. Paul’s message was descended from above, and was addressed to the heart and conscience. No wonder he wrote to the Corinthians, (neighbors of the Athen­ians) and said: “Not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble are called” (1 Corinthians 1:26). When he said: “I came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, proclaiming to you the testi­mony of God,” obviously he was alluding to just such wisdom as was possessed by the philosophers.

Stephen seems to have encountered some of the same teaching in Jerusalem which Paul found at Ath­ens. In Acts 6:9 it is said: “Then arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.” In chapter seven, verses 46-48, Stephen said: “David asked to find a habitation for the God of Jacob. But Solomon built him a house. Howbeit, the most High dwelleth not in houses made with hands.” Both Paul and Stephen had to combat the idea that the God whom they preached and worshipped was just another god created by man’s hands. They declared that he is Lord (ruler) of heaven and earth, and dwelleth not in houses made with hands. In the second chapter of Colossians, verses 8-10, the matchless apostle clearly sets forth the conflict which existed between the philosophy of his day, and Christianity as it was taught and practiced by the early church. “Take heed lest there shall be anyone that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudi­ments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all princi­pality and power.” This is the only time in all the word of the Lord that the word, “philosophy” is named, and it is of much significance that it is here coupled with “vain deceit,” and declared to be according to human tradition and the course of this world (the basic principles of this evil world), and not after Christ. The apostle warns, “take heed”—beware.” It means to be on one’s guard. Beware, lest any one maketh spoil of you. The word “spoil” (despoil) sig­nifies to make a prey of, as when one is stripped or deprived of his valuables or treasures, by plausible swindlers. The treasure here contemplated is the believers portion in the unsearchable riches of Christ. His warning, therefore, is to keep people from being victimized by philosophy, and losing their portion of the riches of Christ. He further declares, “It is not after Christ,” that is, not according to Christ, not fol­lowing Christ, or not compatible with the teaching of Christ. Philosophy is not according to Christ, because it is purely the product of human reason. It is not after Christ, for the simple and all-sufficient reason that the teaching of Christ puts an end to all philo­sophical speculations concerning the relations of hu­manity to God and to the universe. Frequently the Christ set his seal to the truth and divine authority of the Old Testament scriptures, which declare un­mistakably that, ‘‘In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth”; and again, “So God created man in his own image—male and female, created he them, and bade them have dominion over all the earth.” The philosophy of the pagans was “not after Christ,” and the gospel which Paul preached was not after man (Galatians 1:11-12). “The gospel preached by me is not after man. For neither did I receive it of man . . . . ” He declares that it is not something which man has reasoned out, but that it came from a higher source. Of necessity, philosophy and divine revelation are utterly irreconcilable.

Paul must have alluded to the teaching of the Epi­cureans, that man’s highest end is pleasure, when he said: “If the dead rise not, let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die” (1 Corinthians 15:32). At Ephesus, he encountered Demetrius and his me­chanics, who were making silver shrines of Diana, to sell to the devoted worshippers. Demetrius and his mechanics, with those engaged in similar trades, cre­ated a great disturbance, and bitter opposition against the cause and the church. They were using the heath­en religion to make money, and Paul’s preaching, “They are no gods that are made with hands,” inter­fered with their business, and their temporal interests. To the Romans, Paul wrote of some, after this fashion, (Romans 1:21-23): “But became vain in their imaginations (absorbed in useless discussions), and their senseless heart was darkened.” Adam Clark says, “This refers to the foolish manner in which even the wisest of their philosophers discoursed about the divine nature. Their foolish, darkened, minds sought God nowhere but in the place in which he is never to be found; viz., the vile, corrupt, and corrupt­ing passions of their own hearts.” “Professing them­selves to be wise (boasting of their wisdom), they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorrup­tible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creep­ing things.” Dr. Clark adds: “The finest representation of their deities was in the human figure; and on such representative figures, the sculptors spent all of their skill. And when they had formed their gods according to human shape, they endowed them with human passions. Not having the true principles of morality, they represented them as slaves to the most disorderly and disgraceful passions, as possessing un­limited powers of sensual gratification.”

Throughout the New Testament, references and allusions are made to this great conflict. Enough has been given for us to see something of the strug­gles and trials of the early church, and to discover that in order to deliver its message effectively, and to triumph over all opposition, it had to fight, and to defend itself against the attacks of publicists and philosophers of that age.