Reflections on Biblical and
Christian Philosophy

Commentary on Some Bible Verses That Are Commonly Misunderstood, Not Applied and/or Have Relevance for a Biblical Philosophy

Genesis 1:1 The Biblical Metaphysics or Cosmology - Biblical Metaphysics

Psalm 111:10 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." - Biblical Philosophy

Proverbs 8:35  "All those that hate me love death" - Unbiblical Philosophy

Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter." - God Is God

Jeremiah 31:33 “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.” - Law and Mind

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word" - Biblical Epistemology

Luke 23:39-43 - The Thief on the Cross: What Did He Believe? - Knowledge and Regeneration

Acts 17:22-32 Paul's Speech to the Athenians - A Biblical Apologetics

Romans 1:18-31 One of the Great Texts for a Biblical Philosophy

Romans 3:11 Calvin on the "Greatness" of Philosophers

I  Peter 4:8 Love Covers a Multitude of Sins - Love Is Fulfilling the Law

Genesis 1:1  The Biblical Metaphysics or Cosmology

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."  In the "beginning" of what?  In the beginning of time, God created.  Before time, God was... existed ... was real ... was contained in His essence ... His ousia or 'upostasis.  In this simple statement, the answer for metaphysics and cosmology is given.  Many philosophers over the centuries have recognized that man could never know the "essence" of anything in the universe (Kant in particular) .  Indeed, man is still searching the atom to discover its "ultimate" mysteries.  As they search for some "beginning" other than God, they become shrill and even foolish in their theories.  Genesis 1:1 answers the essence of all things: gravity "works" because God made bodies to attract each other, light is both a wave and a particle because God made it that way, quantum changes occur because God made them so, and so on for all that exists in the universe.  All metaphysics and cosmology is answered in this simple, but ultimately profound statement, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Psalm 111:10 "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.'

Verses with the same theme: Job 28:28; Proverbs 1:7, 9:10, 15:33; Isaiah 11:2

"Philosophy" is a compound word of "philo-" which means "love" and "-sophy" which means wisdom.  Thus, philosophy in the true (Biblical) sense is not possible without a "fear of the Lord."  And, the fear of the Lord can only be known in its fullest and most authoritative sense in the Scriptures.  Thus, any philosopher, despite his claim to be a Christian, who does not place the authority of Scripture above all other knowledge, and who also does not make Scripture his controlling epistemology, has no claim to a "Christian" philosophy.

There are other dimensions to this verse.  (1) "Fool" is Scripture has a more serious meaning than in English.  In Scripture it has a hardened moral dimension of someone who is not only unrighteous, but one who is committed to "walking in the paths of sinners" (Psalm 1:1) and "not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them" (Romans 1:32).  (2) A "fool" denies what he knows to be true.  He "knows" much about God—His attributes, power, and Godhead (Romans 1:19-20), yet denies this knowledge.  While he may reach a point where his heart is hardened, prior to that time he is aware that he is self-deceived.  These mental gymnastics may be more prevalent among philosophers because they know that their systems are tenuous at best without some unity of knowledge and power holding them together.  This grasp at unity is seen in their "theism" that is not Biblical theism, for example, the god of Descartes, Spinoza, and Kant, as well as the Begriffe (Absolute, Reason) of Hegel.

Proverbs 8:35 "All those that hate me love death"

I wonder how those who define God as "love" would interpret this verse?  Their concept of love has no place for "love of death" which this verse states for those who hate God.  Their only concept of love is a sentimental, anything-goes, situational ethic of Joseph Fletcher.  The opposite of love is hate; if one loves passionately, he will hate the opposite of his love passionately.  Jesus told us about "lukewarm" love in Revelation 3:16.  Lukewarm love is lukewarm hate.  Both are nauseating.  Christians are called to "love God with all their heart, soul, mind, and strength."  They cannot practice this love without hating what God hates with "all their heart, soul, mind, and strength."

See I Peter 4:8 below to understand what Biblical love is and how it should be practiced.

Proverbs 25:2 "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter."

(1) Young Earth Creationism.  One argument raised against Young Earth Creationism (YEC) is that God would not deceive mankind by creating a universe that appears to be old when it is not.  For example, the light of  dead stars is still visible to telescopes and even unaided eyes. This verse and others (for example, Deuteronomy 29:29) states clearly and definitively that God may conceal whatever He likes.  Jesus Christ spoke in parables in order that only His disciples and followers would understand.  So, the Biblical position (that is, God's position) that He may conceal whatever He wishes from anyone at any time.  This argument against YEC is no argument at all. 

One fact that is revealed that goes against this argument, also, is that Adam and Eve, the animals, and plants were created fully grown.  An objective observer who came along after Creation Week would think that they have grown up from babies and from seeds.  Wrong!

(2) Limited use of logic.  "Computers would have been much more useful than they are in the field of philosophy, since they are eminently useful for managing relations of ideas, and the remaining part of knowledge would have been attainable by 'going and having a look,' assuming you found reason to care. Kant's model leaves us with hidden truths; truths which may be attainable, in part at least, but which cannot be reached by applied logic alone. Perhaps Kant would have appreciated Proverbs 25:2 in light of his observation."  http://www.nutters.org/docs/kant-sap

Jeremiah 31:33 “I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts.”

The full verse is “But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people” (KJV).  However, my focus is “in their inward parts.”  The transliteration for this Hebrew word is kereb.  The various translations of this word in the Old Testament are:

among 62, midst 33, within 22, entrails 20, in 13, middle 7, heart 5, through 3, inside 3, nearby 2, throughout 2, with 2, him 2, herself 1, heat 1, In 1, group 1, from their own 1, contaminated 1, before 1, around 1, core 1, courage 1, estimation 1, deeply 1, grave 1, inwardly 1, stomachs 1, seeped into 1, recipient 1, stroke 1, threaten 1, us 1, to 1, presence 1, possessed 1, minds 1, intensified 1, inner thoughts 1, near 1, on 1, owned 1, out of 1, inner 1 (from www.netbible.net)

I want to suggest two particular applications of kereb.  (1)  The first and most frequent translation is “among.”  The 2^nd and 3^rd are “midst” and “within.”  I suggest this translation of our verse: “I will give my written Word (the Bible) to be placed and used among my people.”  If one examines Psalm 119 in particular, and the remainder of the Bible in general, one will find that “the law” often is a synonym, designator if you will, of the entire Bible.  Thus, this verse only states what God has done, that is, placed the Bible (His Word) among His people to be learned and obeyed.  (2)  The NKJV translates kereb as “mind.”  Too often “heart” (which follows in this verse) is understood as feelings or emotions.  However, if one searches all the uses of “heart” in Scripture, the overwhelming use refers to thoughts and thinking (for example, “as a person thinks in his heart, so is he” (Proverbs 23:7).  Thus, “mind” counters this modernist error of some nebulous entity called the heart—the concern of Jeremiah is the mind—thinking, understanding, thoughts, enlightenment, and ultimately wisdom.

Now, link this phrase with Romans 12:2, “be transformed by the renewing of your mind.”  The power of this “transformation” is seen in its only other New Testament uses as “transfiguration” in (Matthew 17:2, Mark 9:2) and “transformed” in the heavenly state of believers (II Corinthians 3:18). 

So, this phrase in Jeremiah 31:33 is not some ethereal “writing” of the law (the entire Bible) on nebulous “hearts,” but the placing of God’s Word among His people to be studied, yes diligently studied, and obeyed so that they will indeed be “transformed.”  Thus, they will “transform” families, culture, and civil governments.  God’s mind wrote the Word to communicate to the minds of His people for transformation.  Modern Christians have mostly failed in their study and application of Jeremiah 31:33, perhaps, because they have misunderstood what it actually says!  And worse, perhaps, because they have just been negligent and lazy!

Hard Sayings of the Bible: Book reference

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

Luke 23:39-43 - The Thief on the Cross: What Did He Believe?

Faith and belief are central to any complete discussion of philosophy and theology.  They are synonyms, one of the idioms of the English language that “faith” has no verb form.  (See Faith in Glossary.)  Both are usually associated with some sort of “religious” content.  However, one of the overlooked dimensions of faith by Christians and non-Christians alike is the dimension of “generic” faith.  In the present context we are most interested in the “knowledge” (notitia) element of faith.  Perhaps its importance is most focused in these verses.  “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31).  “If you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9).  The question is, “Did the criminal have the ‘saving faith’ (knowledge) necessary to salvation?”

For sure the penitent criminal was saved, as Jesus declared, “Assuredly, I say to you, today you will be with Me in Paradise” (v. 43).  So, how do we reconcile proper “belief” and salvation?  Was the notitia of the thief sufficient for salvation?  What did the criminal know?

(1) He feared God, as he said to the other criminal, “Do you not fear God?”  This man knew that a greater judgment awaited them than the one that they had just experienced in Roman court.  It was a strong belief, one that was able to penetrate the excruciating pain and suffering of the cross.  He also knew that mocking Jesus would add to their guilt at this final punishment before God.

(2) He knew that Jesus was innocent.  “This Man has done nothing wrong” (v. 41).  Perhaps he referred only to the crime of which Jesus was accused.  Perhaps he referred to Jesus’ entire life.  We do not know.  However, he knew that he could incur greater punishment before God by mocking Jesus because He was innocent.

(3) He knew that Jesus could “save” him!  “Lord, remember me when you come into your Kingdom” (verse 42).  Was it wishful thinking?  Not likely.  There is no doubt or hesitancy in his request.  Whether he could read the inscription, “King of the Jews,” that Pilate had placed above Jesus’ head or not, he would have known from the voices and shouts of the crowd that Jesus was condemned for His claim to be a King.

(4) He knew that Jesus had or would have a Kingdom!  Here is a man on a cross, experiencing great suffering, facing imminent death, yet able to recognize in Jesus, who faced the same awful prospects that day, as possessing a Kingdom or would someday possess one.  This faith contains knowledge and understanding beyond that of the disciples, many of whom had not grasped the clarity of Jesus’ message to this extent.  What great faith!  What great knowledge and understanding to see beyond the immediate, dire, and seemingly hopeless circumstances.

So, while the thief may not have known the Four Spiritual Laws or the presentation of Evangelism Explosion, he had “saving faith.”  He knew that he was justly condemned, facing a worse condemnation by God after death, that Jesus was innocent (a spotless lamb?), that Jesus had great power, not only to establish a Kingdom, but to bring him, a criminal, into that Kingdom.  I fear that such knowledge and power of conviction might contrast to the “weak” faith of many professing Christians today with their access to the clarity of the Bible and numerous other “helps” for their study.

There are two final points.  (1)  Not only is right belief with its notitia necessary for salvation, so is regeneration.  Especially, see the Book of John, Chapter 3.  (2) No two people or imminent theologians can agree on precisely what is the content of “saving faith.”  Certainly, it includes certain specifics about the birth, life, death, burial, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Christ, but there is no precise list.  Personally, I think that belief in the entire Bible which has as its central message, the Son of God, is the most important “belief” for the Christian.  Through study of This Book, “little” faith can be turned into “great faith.”

For more on belief and faith, see my book.

Acts 17:22-32 Paul's Speech to the Athenians

The following is a summary of Greg Bahnsen's discussion of this speech.

(1) Paul’s Areopagus address in Acts 17 has been found to set forth a classic and exemplary encounter between Christian commitment and secular thinking—between  "Jerusalem and Athens." The Apostle’s apologetical method for reasoning with educated unbelievers who did not acknowledge scriptural turns out to be a suitable pattern for our defending the faith today.

(2) Judging from Paul’s treatment of the Athenian philosophers, he was not prepared to dismiss their learning, but neither would he let it exercise corrective control over his Christian perspective.  The two realms of thought were obviously dealing with common questions, but Paul "did not work to integrate apparently supportive elements from pagan philosophy into his system of Christian thought.  Because of the truth-distorting and ignorance-engendering character of unbelieving thought, Paul’s challenge was that all reasoning be placed within the presuppositional context of revelational truth and Christian commitment.  The relation “Athens” should sustain to “Jerusalem” was one of necessary dependence.

(3) Rather than trying to construct a natural theology upon the philosophical platform of his opponents—assimilating autonomous thought wherever possible—Paul’s approach was to accentuate the antithesis between himself and the philosophers.  He never assumed a neutral stance, knowing that the natural theology of the Athenian philosophers was inherently a natural idolatry.  He could not argue from their unbelieving premises to Biblical conclusions without equivocation in understanding.  Thus his own distinctive outlook was throughout placed over against the philosophical commitments of his hearers.

(4) Nothing remotely similar to what is called in our day the historical argument for Christ’s resurrection plays a part in Paul’s reasoning with the philosophers. The declaration of Christ’s historical resurrection was crucial, of course, to his presentation.  However he did not argue for it independently on empirical grounds as a brute historical—yet miraculous—event, given then an apostolic interpretation.  Argumentation about a particular fact would not force a shift in the unbeliever’s presuppositional framework of thought. Paul’s concern was with this basic and controlling perspective or web of central convictions by which the particulars of history would be weighed and interpreted.

(5) In pursuing the presuppositional antithesis between Christian commitment and secular philosophy, Paul consistently took as his ultimate authority Christ and God’s word—not independent speculation and reasoning, not allegedly indisputable eyeball facts of experience, not the satisfaction or peace felt within his heart.  God’s revelational truth—learned through his senses, understood with his mind, comforting his heart, and providing the context for all life and thought—was his self-evidencing starting point.  It was the presuppositional platform for authoritatively declaring the truth, and it was presented as the sole reasonable option for men to choose.

(6) Paul’s appeal was to the inescapable knowledge of God which all men have in virtue of being God’s image and in virtue of His revelation through nature and history.  A point of contact could be found even in pagan philosophers due to their inalienable religious nature.  Paul indicated that unbelievers are conspicuously guilty for distorting and suppressing the truth of God.

(7) In motivation and direction Paul’s argumentation with the Athenian philosophers was presuppositional.  He set two fundamental worldviews in contrast, exhibiting the ignorance which results from the unbeliever’s commitments, and presenting the precondition of all knowledge—God’s revelation—as the only reasonable alternative.  His aim was to effect an overall change in outlook and mind-set, to call the unbeliever to repentance, by following the two-fold procedure of internally critiquing the unbeliever’s position and presenting the necessity of the Scripture’s truth.  Through it all, it should also be observed, Paul remained yet earnest.  His manner was one of humble boldness.

The full discussion of Bahnsen's paper can be found here.

Romans 1:18-32: One of the Great Texts for a Biblical Philosophy

Many additions to the following will eventually be added here, so this is only a beginning of development of these verses.

This passage is "arguably the fundamental text on natural law." John Frame here.

Romans 3:11 Calvin on the "Greatness" of Philosophers

In his commentary on Romans 3:11, John Calvin states, "for empty is the man in whom there is not the knowledge of God, whatever other learning he may possess; yea, the sciences and the arts, which in themselves are good, are empty things, when they are without this groundwork."  What does this statement say about the "greatness" of philosophers who do not acknowledge God and His Word as the ground for their being able to do philosophy?

Love Covers a Multitude of Sins

I Peter 4:8 “Above all, keep fervent in your love for one another, because love covers a multitude of sins.”

This verse is often used to counter Jesus’ commands in Matthew 5:23-24 and Matthew 18:15-17 that believers who have offended the other should immediately go and get the matter reconciled.  From Matthew 5:23, the importance of the matter supersedes worship.

But I Peter 4:8 can be re-translated using Jesus own words in another place.  Jesus said, “If you love me, keep my commandments” (John 14:15).  Thus, love is keeping Jesus’ (all of God’s) commandments of the Old and New Testaments.

Thus, I Peter 4:8 is re-translated, “Above all, keep fervent in ‘keeping all of God’s commandments’ towards one another, because ‘keeping all of God’s commandments’ covers a multitude of sins.”

It is strange that God has provided the precise mechanism for disagreements and hurts between brethren in the verses cited of Matthew 5 and 18, yet Christians still look for excuses not to go.   He even provided for others to be involved should the two offending parties not be reconciled on their own (Matthew 18:16-17).  I have shown by substituting Jesus’ own definition of love in I Peter 4:8 that that verse cannot be used to avoid the “going.”  If fact that verse, as correctly translated here, actually says the opposite.  “Love is the fulfillment of the commands to ‘go’ to each other.

Now, who are you at odds with?  “Go, now, quickly.”  Apart from not knowing some basic doctrines (Hebrews 6:1-3), there is no greater problem in the church today.