Grace vs. Greece

John Frame’s A History of Western Philosophy and Theology (P&R, 2015) honors Greek contributions but states that “the chief benefit in studying Greek thought is to better understand the philosophical and cultural consequences of rejecting biblical theism.” Starting with Plato and Aristotle, Frame shows how “non-Christian intellectual traditions vacillate between rationalism and irrationalism.”

In discussing early Christian philosophers, Frame criticizes those who have an insufficient sense of antithesis between Christian and Greek philosophy. Frame states that “the attempt to make Christianity intellectually respectable, and therefore easy to believe, is one of the most common and deadly mistakes of Christian apologists and philosophers throughout history. It ignores the fundamental biblical principle that people sinfully repress the truth and need to be given new hearts and minds by God’s Spirit.”

That was also a problem for some medieval thinkers, including Thomas Aquinas: “Although the medievals critically analyzed Greek philosophy in its details, they never fully broke away from its commitment to human autonomy. … Medieval philosophers did seek to do justice to God’s grace, but (especially with Thomas Aquinas) they regarded the realm of grace not as God’s lordship directing all of life, but as a supplement to a realm of nature, which in turn was subject to an autonomous natural reason.”

Frame notes that the Protestant Reformation “insisted on a more radically biblical theology.” In the 18th century Immanuel Kant took a backward step from that by accepting the possibility of divine revelation but insisting “that it be subject to our autonomous rationality.” In the 20th century, Karl Barth argued that fundamentalists or orthodox theologians often thought they could “possess” or “control” God’s Word: Frame acknowledges that “this sinful attempt to master God’s Word does happen, [but that’s] also found in the liberal scholar who looks down on his fundamentalist opponents [and] among Barthians who think their dialectical subtlety is oh-so-profound compared to the simplistic views of traditional Christians.”

Frame, while clear and sometimes sharp in his criticisms, also shows a generosity of spirit in acknowledging the contributions of others, including liberation theologians who “provide a lot of insight into biblical social and individual ethics. God does care especially for the poor, and those who have contempt for the poor will bear special judgment. But the liberationists, by presupposing Marxism, cut themselves off from serious discussion about the best way to aid those trapped in poverty, leaving only violence as the means of settling the question. That so many Christians have fallen into this trap is a major part of the tragedy of the church in Latin America.” I wonder if some pronouncements of Pope Francis are contributing to that tragedy.

Thoughts on thinkers

Frame’s short takes on other recent philosopher-theologians are always interesting. Frame esteems Cornelius Van Til and says Herman Dooyeweerd helpfully criticized “the idolatries of would-be autonomous philosophy. But Dooyeweerd never thought through in a theologically responsible way what Scripture teaches about itself.” Gordon Clark after World War II deserves thanks for “the postwar scholarly successes (and, alas, pretensions) of evangelicals.” Greg Bahnsen “was a powerful writer and debater, and still stands out among the successors of Van Til.”

The most notable living Christian philosopher, Alvin Plantinga, receives praise from Frame but also crucial critique: Plantinga, “like most of the other recent analytic Christian philosophers, rarely mentions revelation or Scripture, and he writes as if revelation, particularly Scripture, were irrelevant to philosophical discourse.” Frame rightly sees Scripture as the air Christians must breathe moment by moment. —M.O.