Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Seven

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Seven

by C.W. Steinle
Copyright 2015 by C.W. Steinle

Copyrighted material.  All rights reserved.  No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without written permission from the publisher.  This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people. If you would like to purchase this book or share with another person, please purchase a copy for each reader from any online bookseller.  Visit Dark-Freedom.com for purchase details or: http://darkfreedombook.com/

Part II - The Legacy of the Manmade Church
The Renaissance of Classical Philosophy

The two prior chapters recounted the oppression of Europe by Church leaders who were not honest or humble enough to admit that they had ceased from following Christ.  Taking advantage of that Name above all names, they wore it as cloak for vice.  The papacy profaned that precious Name in exchange for worldly pleasures.  The people were compelled to make sense of this spiritual tragedy by drawing three general conclusions; that God is not able, that the Church must be reformed, or that a false Church had arisen and needed to be replaced by a revived Early Church.  (This third reaction bears similarities to the attitude of today's Emergent Church.)

Christians were left with the quandary of what to make of a Church which had obviously and inexcusably fallen into sin.  They were forced to answer the sensitive question of; "What constitutes the true Church?"  Obviously God, His Christ, and His Spirit could not have failed.  Christ said the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church.  Reformers, like Martin Luther, affirmed that the Roman Church was part of the Universal Church, but that its leadership and practices had missed the mark.  Other groups, such as the Anabaptists, rejected Rome as a false Church.  But all of the major Reformers made a distinction between the masses who attend church and those individuals who have genuinely surrendered to Christ.  This distinction was necessary in order to maintain that the Catholic Church was the continuing Church of Christ; and at the same time, to account for souls in that Church, including its leaders, who had lived like they were sons of the devil.

Because the unfolding of the mystery of lawlessness is our chief interest, this chapter will cover the social and political thought of the late Middle Ages through the Renaissance.  During this period most people were still grounded in the Christian faith, whereas during the Enlightenment many began to fall into Deism.  We will continue to draw on the research and commentary of Philip Schaff through this third chapter of Church History.

The turn of the first millennium without the return of the Lord, along with the unsettling corruption of the Church, gave rise to a movement called Scholasticism.  The schoolmen began to make an extensive study of the sea of writings by the Church Fathers in order to solidify the doctrines of the faith.  The Bible became one of many sources used in this search for truth; thus, the writings of the Fathers were canonized and set on a par with the Scriptures.  Writings from outside the church were also included in scholars' libraries. These included classical Latin and Greek texts.  During the first millennium these writings were mostly banned because they promoted worldly wisdom and pagan morality.

The ban, which had been placed by the Church upon the study of the classic authors of antiquity and ancient institutions, palsied polite research and reading for a thousand years.  Even before Jerome, whose mind had been disciplined in the study of the classics, at last pronounced them unfit for the eye of a Christian, Tertullian's attitude was not favorable.  Cassian followed Jerome; and Alcuin, the chief scholar of the 9th century, turned away from Virgil as a collection of lying fables.⁷⁴

At first the schoolmen sided with the papal claims that the apostolic see held authority over the Church and the State.  But the northern nations of the Holy Roman Empire began to look to the classics of antiquity as reasonable alternatives to the violence and chaos caused by a Church which had been high-jacked by the selfish desires of fallen men.  The philosophies of men held the promise of a system that might better the human condition.  This study of the Humanities was even embraced by the churchmen.  People began to reason that God was in control of the spiritual realm, but man was the proprietor over the material realm, and should do whatever he could to make his world a better place.  Soon the Humanists began to estimate the philosophies of Plato and Aristotle to be equal, or even above, Christian ideology.  Thomas Aquinas studied Aristotle and incorporated some of Aristotle's philosophy into his theological catalog, the Summa Theologica.⁷⁵

Figure 6 - Celestial Orbs in the Latin Middle Ages⁷⁶

The scheme of the aforementioned division of spheres. · The empyrean (fiery) heaven, dwelling of God and of all the selected · 10 Tenth heaven, first cause · 9 Ninth heaven, crystalline · 8 Eighth heaven of the firmament · 7 Heaven of Saturn · 6 Jupiter · 5 Mars · 4 Sun · 3 Venus · 2 Mercury · 1 Moon

The image above depicts the medieval concept of the universe according to the scheme of Aristotle.  It was believed that the "Primu Mobile" (outer sphere) had its own consciousness, "nous", or Divine Mind; a concept tied to Plato's belief in the Demiurge and the World Soul.  The second book of Dante's Convivio describes the Ptolemaic universe.

"Outside all of these [orbs] the Catholics place the Empyrean heaven, which is to say, "the heaven of flame," or "luminous heaven"; and they hold it to be motionless because it has in itself, with respect to each of its parts, that which its matter desires.  This is why the Primum Mobile has the swiftest movement; for because of the most fervent desire that each part of the ninth heaven has to be conjoined with every part of that divinest, tranquil heaven, to which it is contiguous, it revolves beneath it with such desire that its velocity is almost incomprehensible.  Stillness and peace are the qualities of the place of that Supreme Deity which alone completely beholds itself.  This is the place of the blessed spirits, according to the will of the Holy Church, which cannot lie.  Aristotle, to anyone who rightly understands him, seems to hold the same opinion in the first book of Heaven and the World [i.e. De caelo].  This is the supreme edifice of the universe in which all the world is enclosed and beyond which there is nothing; it is not itself in space but was formed solely in the Primal Mind, which the Greeks call Protonoe.  This is that magnificence of which the Psalmist spoke when he says to God: "Your magnificence is exalted above the heavens."⁷⁷

He begins by citing "the Catholics," or orthodox belief, as authority for his account of this "abode of the supreme deity," but then goes on to treat the Empyrean as a created thing, "formed in the Primal Mind," and as the motionless cause of motion in the physical universe. If God dwells in this place, the Empyrean resides equally in Him, and the universe at large is encompassed, causally and locally, by the Empyrean. Dante deploys the Aristotelian physics of desire to explain the relationship of the Empyrean to the lesser heavens, yet it is at the same time beyond space, a wholly spiritual realm where blessed spirits participate in the divine mind. Dante seems to emphasize this double status by mingling theological and philosophical language, and invoking Aristotle and the neo-Platonists side by side with the poet of the Psalms.⁷⁸

The failure of religion's rule over the civil governments of Europe drove the people to contemplate other forms of government.  Through their rediscovery of Classical philosophy they were awakened to the thought that man could design his own ideal society.  Plato's The Republic provided a basic examination of various types of government.

During his life in Athens, Plato witnessed the fall of democracy and the installation of a tyrannical government.  In his Republic, Plato made a critique of various political structures.  Plato believed democracy to be the most unfavorable form of government.  He viewed democracy a great experiment that ended badly.  He concluded that it amounted to anarchy and resulted in slavery.  Athens was the first known attempt by a society to allow the crowd to rule themselves.

Just prior to 500 B.C. Athens became the first democracy in history.  The people had expelled a series of tyrants and established a popular assembly.  The other city-states mistrusted the Athenians and their aberrant form of government, and Athens gave the others additional cause for concern:  Following the expulsion of the Persians from Greece and, soon afterward, from some Greek cities of Asia Minor, Athens founded the Athenian League, a confederation of Greek cities around the Aegean Sea.⁷⁹  

Recall from Chapter Four that Plato's idea of Justice was an equity or balance between competing elements.  Plato proposed an ideal society with three types of citizens: rulers, auxiliaries, and producers.  Plato's three parts of the human soul were coincidental to his three types of citizens.  The rulers are men whose rational part holds mastery over the other parts of their soul.  The auxiliaries are men driven by their spirit of honor.  And the producers are people who are slaves to their appetites.   Plato says that these characteristics should be recognized in children so that they might be trained in the area for which they are naturally qualified.  Plato's proposed perfect state is, of course, ruled by a philosopher-king.

Plato identified five types of government: tyranny, timocracy, aristocracy, oligarchy, and democracy.  Tyranny is imposed government, established by the tyrant or by an outside party.  A timocracy is a government in which the right to rule is based on the value of the individual in terms of their ability to produce revenue for the community.  An aristocracy is governed by the most qualified members of society - such as the philosophers.  Plato said that a democracy occurs when an oligarchy breaks down and the lowest class, which is driven by immediate gratification, takes control.  The democratic man is obsessed with unnecessary desires and is disorderly.  Because they lack the intellect of the Philosopher, and the Auxiliary's sense of honor, the public will desire to do whatever they want, whenever they please - leading the society to become the slaves to their appetites.

Plato was not eclectic in his disgust with the democratic man. (This explains why democracy was not perceived as a desirable form of government for two thousand years after the Athenian experiment.)  The reason for western civilization to have changed its view can be explained quite simply.  Throughout history, until the Renaissance, the community was perceived as meriting the greatest importance.  People were given recognition by their community based upon how well they could work within that community toward the survival and benefit of society as a whole.  Not until the latter years of the Renaissance did individualism emerge.  It is an interesting observation that this inward focus set the stage for the rise of Deism and Atheism.

The overbearing government by the Roman Catholic Church resulted in the same reaction that Israel had as they fled from the oppression of Rehoboam: "Each of you to your own tent, O Israel!"- II Chron. 10:16 Going to one’s own tent implied more than a redirection of allegiance to a different government.  It expressed a desire by Israel to return to the days before Saul; a regret that they had ever asked for a king.  Individualism was the natural reaction of the people to Rome's unreasonable micromanagement of the Empire.  But the Europeans were accustomed to kings, so their first response was to free their individual nations from the yoke of Rome.

We will now trace the history of reform over time and throughout Europe in order to follow the changes in prevailing attitudes concerning authority and the law.  Pay close attention to the struggle to resolve these two dichotomies: the authority of the Bible vs. the authority of the Church; and, human authority vs. the conviction of conscience.

Those who were closest to Rome were unable to ignore the problems caused by her meddling in worldly affairs.  Italy bore the greatest exposure in the fight between the popes and the kings for control over the Empire.  Consequently, Florence became the incubator of the Renaissance.  Dante Alighieri was born in the mid-thirteenth century and was caught in the midst of these controversies.   The Florentines became divided over the issue of dominance by the Holy Roman Empire, which at that time was controlled by Philip IV of France.  Dante sided with the party who wanted more independence from The Roman Empire, which eventually resulted in his banishment from Florence.  In his work, The Monarchia,⁸⁰ Dante said that civil and religious authority should be separated.  He believed in the necessity of a potentate with enough authority to keep peace and maintain order.  This organization of society, Dante insisted, was necessary for civilization to thrive.  The happiness of individuals can only be achieved as the greater community is enriched.  The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy offers the following commentary.

The Monarchia is in its own way as idiosyncratic as the Convivio. Its purpose, foreshadowed in the discussion of empire in Convivio IV, is to demonstrate the necessity of a single ruling power, reverent toward but independent of the Church, capable of ordering the will of collective humanity in peace and concord. Under such a power the potential intellect of humanity can be fully actuated—the intellect, that is, of collective humanity, existent throughout the world, acting as one. For just as a multitude of species must continually be generated to actualize the full potentiality of prime matter, so the full intellectual capacity of humanity cannot be realized at one time nor in a single individual [Mon. 1.3.3–8]. Here Dante adds his own further particularization of this Aristotelian doctrine [De Anima 3.5, 430a10–15], asserting that no single household, community, or city can bring it to realization. The ordering of the collective human will to the goal of realizing its intellectual potential requires universal peace [1.4], and this in turn requires a single ordering power through whose authority humanity may achieve unity and so realize the intention and likeness of God [1.8].   The basis of this argument for empire is evidently the first sentence of the Prologue to Thomas' literal commentary on the Metaphysics, where he declares that when several things are ordered to a single end, one of them must govern, "as the Philosopher teaches in his Politics" [Thomas, Exp. Metaph., Proemium; Aristotle, Politics 1.5, 1254a-55a.]

The second of the Monarchia's three books deals with the great example of Rome, describing the city's providential role in world history, largely by way of citations from Roman literature aimed at demonstrating the consistent dedication of Roman power to the public good, and the conformity of Roman imperium with the order of nature and the will of God. The third book deals with the crucial issue of the relationship between political and ecclesiastical authority. Dante argues on various grounds that power in the temporal realm is neither derived from nor dependent on spiritual authority, though it benefits from the power of the Papacy to bless its activity. These arguments consist largely in refutations of traditional claims for the temporal authority of the Papacy, but the final chapter makes the argument on positive grounds. Since man consists of soul and body, his nature partakes of both the corruptible and the incorruptible. Uniting two natures, his existence must necessarily be ordered to the goals of both these natures [Mon. 3.16.7–9]:

Ineffable providence has thus set before us two goals to aim at: i.e. happiness in this life, which consists in the exercise of our own powers and is figured in the earthly paradise; and happiness in the eternal life, which consists in the enjoyment of the vision of God (to which our own powers cannot raise us except with the help of God's light) and which is signified by the heavenly paradise. Now these two kinds of happiness must be reached by different means, as representing different ends. For we attain the first through the teachings of philosophy, provided that we follow them putting into practice the moral and intellectual virtues; whereas we attain the second through spiritual teachings which transcend human reason, provided that we follow them putting into practice the theological virtues, i.e. faith, hope, and charity. These ends and the means to attain them have been shown to us on the one hand by human reason, which has been entirely revealed to us by the philosophers, and on the other by the Holy Spirit . . .

This is Dante's most explicit, uncompromising claim for the autonomy of reason, reinforced by the entire world-historical argument of the Monarchia and constituting its final justification for world empire. Dante here goes well beyond Augustine's sense of the stabilizing function of empire, and eliminates any hint of the anti-Roman emphasis in Augustine's separation of the earthly and heavenly cities. In the final sentences of the Monarchia the temporal monarch becomes, like the aspiring intellect of the Convivio, the uniquely privileged beneficiary of a divine bounty which, "without any intermediary, descends into him from the Fountainhead of universal authority" [Mon. 3.16.15]. Like the Averroistic reasoning of his earlier claim that only under a world empire can humanity realize its intellectual destiny, this crowning claim shows Dante appropriating Aristotle to the service of a unique and almost desperate vision of empire as a redemptive force. But whether we consider the world view of the Monarchia an aberration [D'Entreves, 51] or take it as Dante's straightforward exposition of his views on the relations of secular and religious authority, its categorical definition of the twofold purpose of human life is impossible to explain away. In the Paradiso [8.115–17] as in the Monarchia, to be a "citizen" is essential to human happiness, and the idea of an imperial authority independent of papal control remained fundamental to his political thought.⁸¹

Shortly after Dante, another advocate for civil independence arose from the western shores of the Empire.  Just as the remoteness of Rome from the center of Christianity had allowed her to rebel against Constantinople, so England's distance from Rome provided her with the leeway to be the last to submit, and among the first to be stirred by the spirit of freedom.  John Wycliffe has been called the Morningstar of the Reformation.  He is often remembered as a Bible translator, but his greatest impact on Europe during his lifetime was made by his political boldness in contesting against Rome's far reaching tentacles.  Wycliffe's opinion that authority must be questioned or rejected if it acts wickedly, was boldly declared by his words, "There is no moral obligation to pay tax or tithe to bad rulers either in Church or state.  It is permitted to punish or depose them and to reclaim the wealth which the clergy have diverted from the poor."⁸²

In the summer of 1374, Wycliffe went to Bruges as a member of the commission appointed by the king to negotiate peace with France and to treat with the pope's agents on the filling of ecclesiastical appointments in England.  His name was second in the list of commissioners, following the name of the bishop of Bangor.  At Bruges we find him for the first time in close association with John of Gaunt, Edward's favorite son, an association which continued for several years, and for a time inured to his protection from ecclesiastical violence.

On his return to England, he began to speak as a religious reformer.  He preached in Oxford and London against the pope's secular sovereignty, running about, as the old chronicler has it, from place to place, and barking against the Church.  It was soon after this that, in one of his tracts, he styled the bishop of Rome "the anti-Christ, the proud, worldly priest of Rome, and the most cursed of clippers and cut-purses."  He maintained that he "has no more power in binding and loosing than any priest, and that the temporal lords may seize the possessions of the clergy if pressed by necessity."⁸³

With the year 1378 Wycliffe's distinctive career as a doctrinal reformer opens.  He had defended English rights against foreign encroachment.  He now assailed, at a number of points, the theological structure the Schoolmen and mediaeval popes had laboriously reared, and the abuses that had crept into the Church.  The spectacle of Christendom divided by two papal courts, each fulminating anathema against the other, was enough to shake confidence in the divine origin of the papacy.  In sermons, tracts and larger writings, Wycliffe brought Scripture and common sense to bear. . . . As Luther is the most vigorous tract writer that Germany has produced, so Wycliffe is the foremost religious pamphleteer that has arisen in England; . . . .⁸⁴ 

It was in 1381, the year before Courtenay said his memorable words, that Walden reports that Wycliffe "began to determine matters upon the sacrament of the altar."  To attempt an innovation at this crucial point required courage of the highest order.  In 12 theses he declared the Church's doctrine unscriptural and misleading.  For the first time since the promulgation of the dogma of transubstantiation by the Fourth Lateran was it seriously called in question by a theological expert.⁸⁵

Wycliffe also became aware of the importance of distinguishing between man's philosophy and the truth of God's Word.  According to Schaff, Wycliffe confessed that in his earlier years he had leaned on the classical systems instead of fully relying on the Bible.  John Wycliffe was one of the first politically active Christians to realize that the problem of government should not be solved through the application of pagan principles.

As for the philosophy of the pagan world, whatever it offers that is in accord with the Scriptures is true.  The religious philosophy which the Christian learns from Aristotle he learns because it was taught by the authors of Scripture.  The Greek thinker made mistakes, as when he asserted that creation is eternal.  In several places Wycliffe confesses that he himself had at one time been led astray by logic and the desire to win fame, but was thankful to God that he had been converted to the full acceptance of the Scriptures as they are and to find in them all logic.⁸⁶

While it is not our intent to cover the history and theology of entire Protestant Movement, it is worth noting why Wycliffe has been called the Morningstar of the Reformation.  Although Wycliffe's writings were banned in England, they made their way into the hands of one of his European contemporaries, John Hus of Bohemia.  Hus translated Wycliffe's writings into Czech and read them from the pulpit.  The Czech nation was the first to reject the Christianity taught by Rome, and to form its own doctrines.  The Bohemian Movement was condemned by the papacy and Hus was burned at the stake.  But the Bohemian Kingdom withstood a series of papal crusades against it and was eventually left to practice its faith as Hussites.   Hus' primary grievances with Rome were over the sale of indulgences and the teaching of transubstantiation.  Thus, Wycliffe's teachings had gained acceptance in Northern Europe long before Luther.  And the Czechs' tenacity also set a precedent that would allow Martin Luther and his nation the ability to defy Rome.

Back in Florence the European Morningstar, Girolamo Savonarola, began around 1490 to condemn the immorality and greed of the province.  He became politically active when the ruling family of the Medici was expelled.  Savonarola spoke out publically against Pope Alexander VI until he was banned from speaking in public.  But he continued to speak out in spite of the ban.  After he was excommunicated he continued to call for reform until at last he was burned at the stake in 1498.  After the Medici family was restored to power, Niccolo Machiavelli wrote the political handbook, The Prince.⁸⁷ Like his predecessor Dante, Machiavelli was convinced of the benefit of a local authoritative ruler who could defend the province from the dictates of the Empire.

These early responses to the Church's dominance were aimed at establishing even stronger local magistrates who could defend their own territories from the political struggle between the papacy and the kings of Europe.  Because of Europe's faith at this time, they still believed their civil authorities were under God's control.

Wycliffe's call for a national response to reject a corrupted clergy was eventually consummated in the Peace of Westphalia, which dissolved the Holy Roman Empire; thus allowing the sovereign nations of Europe to regain their autonomy.  But first the spiritual monopoly of the Roman Catholic Church had to be broken so that the nations might object to the papacy without the fear of eternal condemnation.  The authority question during the Protestant Reformation will be examined in the next chapter.

The Renaissance was merely the revival of the Humanities.  Not until the Enlightenment did Humanism emerge in its present form.  Platonism and Neo-Platonism were interwoven with Scholasticism during the Renaissance in the hopes that mankind might lay hold of the mysteries of God by using the tools of the Ancient Greeks.  The Church had opened itself up to the doctrines of men when it granted the weight of Scriptures to oral traditions and the writings of the Church Fathers.

The Greek and Latin philosophers, as Paul put it, were merely groping that they might find God.  Yet their murky visions were accepted by the Schoolmen as if they had already found Him.  In their foolishness these Christian theologians opened the door to the belief that all of the nations worship the same God.  The Church sought to gain a clearer understanding of God by merging the Gentiles' darkened image of God with the Bible's revelation of God.  Instead, they further contaminated and diluted the Church's knowledge of God.  Furthermore, the writings of the Fathers and scholars remain bound within the Latin concepts of God to this day.  The God of the Bible is the Creator of all men.  But He has chosen to reveal Himself through the Jews.  God is not the god that all nations worship.  This false doctrine of Universalism is a growing pestilence that is leading the unsaved down the road with those who are the enemies of the cross of Christ.

"Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ.  For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power." – Col. 2:8-10

Purchase Dark Freedom in print or ebook at Amazon, B&N, and more.Details at: http://www.darkfreedombook.com

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Four

Dark Freedom: The Rise of Western Lawlessness - Chapter Four

by C.W. Steinle
Copyright 2015 by C.W. Steinle

Copyrighted material.  All rights reserved.  No part of this book shall be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted by any means - electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise - without written permission from the publisher.  This book may not be re-sold or given away to other people.  If you would like to purchase this book or share with another person, please purchase a copy for each reader from any online bookseller.  Visit Dark-Freedom.com for purchase details or: http://darkfreedombook.com/

Part I - Pulling Down Strongholds
Wrestling with Worldly Wisdom

As we consider worldly wisdom, we cannot and should not automatically condemn the wisdom of man.  Making the world a better place during man's sojourn on earth is certainly a noble cause.  In truth, man was placed on the earth and given the task of tending it and making it fruitful.  Christians should expect that unbelievers would spend their efforts on the earthly kingdom because they have chosen mortality over the eternal life which is in Christ.  "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son."  But the Son did not come into the world to condemn it.  Therefore let us maintain the same compassion for humanity as our Father in heaven who, in His forbearance, "had passed over the sins that were previously committed to demonstrate at the present time His righteousness, that He might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus." - Rom. 3:25-26

It is, however, imperative for Christians to make a distinction between worldly wisdom and godly wisdom.  Man's wisdom often conflicts with God's truth.  As Paul pointed out to the Corinthian Church, the wisdom of fallen man tends to exalt itself and is innately resistant to the message of the cross.

"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."  Where is the wise?  Where is the scribe?  Where is the disputer of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.  For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greek foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men." -  I Cor. 1:18-25

The wisdom that we will examine in this chapter is the same Greek wisdom that the Apostles Paul and John addressed in their letters.  These philosophies originated with the ancient Greeks but they were further developed by western philosophers during the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.  We will discuss those developments in subsequent chapters.  Over the centuries these philosophies have been an ever-present threat to the wayward and uninformed body of Christ.  Their idealisms are wolves in sheep's clothing which have crept into the flock by degrees.  The main thrusts of their intrusion took place in five waves: before the time of Christ in the Grecian part of Roman Empire, during the Apologetic Age, through the writings of the Church Fathers, during the Renaissance, and through the Enlightenment.  Although they have changed their disguises, these philosophies continue to threaten the Church today.  The wisdom of man is the handmaiden of lawlessness.

Classical Greek philosophy intersects Biblical wisdom at several levels.  These intersecting subjects are: the concept of God, the presence of evil, the substance of reality, and the formation of the state.  The problem with these philosophical systems is that many of their conclusions are contrary to God's wisdom and God's ways.  The subtlety of these philosophies is that they are, for the most part, logical.  They sound reasonable to people who are not grounded in the God's truth.  Only a strong love of the truth can overcome these strong delusions.

The nineteenth Psalm and the first chapter of Romans assure us that God has broadcast the knowledge of His existence throughout the earth.  With good and noble hearts, the citizens of Greece have received the gospel of Christ with the greatest steadfastness of any nation.  As of June 22, 2014, CIA.gov has tabulated that 98% of Greece's current population identify themselves as Orthodox Christians.²⁹ The Church of Greece has rejected both the ancient gods and the abstract gods created by their own classical philosophers.  But the Platonic influence has not been so successfully repelled by the West.  The gods of philosophy have proven to be the most powerful and dangerous of all of man's mythological gods.

John ended his first epistle with the words; "Little children, keep yourselves from idols." – I John 5:21  Modern Bible teachers often associate this reference to the worldly worship of wealth, sports, or other distractions.  John's letter was a rebuttal to the Gnostic notion of "special knowledge" that caused people to place their understanding above their love for others.  Thus, the idols of John's warning were more likely the theoretical gods created in the minds of the philosophers.  These convincing ideals have become so intertwined with today's Biblical concept of God that they seem invisible, or perhaps even inseparable, from the contemporary understanding of who God is.

The propensity of human nature to receive the Platonic ideals stems directly from the fact that the classical philosophers created their gods and governments in accordance with the desires of men.  Often these philosophies valued good qualities such as virtue and perfection, but always within a system that would give mankind the greatest advantage.  Many readers are acquainted with these philosophies.  But for the sake of those who are not, and also for the purpose of contrasting their assumptions with Biblical wisdom, a general review is provided below.  These contrasts are easily summarized by comparing their premises, as follows:

The God of the Bible chose for Himself His own special people, whereas the Greek philosophers chose for themselves their own special god.  God gave instructions in how the people were to serve Him, whereas the Platonic god is the servant of man.  The justice of God divides good and evil, whereas the justice of Plato moderates human behavior.  The Bible claims earthly authority is established by God, whereas Plato believed civil authority should be engineered by man.  The God of the Bible created man and then revealed Himself, and His salvation, through the Jews - to be a blessing to all mankind.  Plato created an intellectual god which is by the people and for the people; an imaginary god of lifeless ideals, approachable only through asceticism and knowledge.

As a preface to the Greek philosophers and their influence on Judaism and Christianity, it should be noted that the Greeks were first influenced by the Jews.  The books of Moses had been translated into Greek long before the composition of the Septuagint.  Homer's Odyssey³⁰ was composed in the eighth century B.C.; roughly five hundred years after Moses.  Critical studies of Homer's poems reveal dozens of parallels to Moses' account of the history of the Jews.  Aristobulus of Paneas, who lived in the second century B.C., also believed that the poems of Homer and Hesiod contained content from Moses' writings.  Socrates' own disenchantment with the mythical Greek gods may have stemmed from his contemplation of the universal God of the Jews.  In his book, The Republic,³¹ Plato said that poems and stories by such authors as Homer and Hesiod should be censored because they depicted the gods as foolish, deceitful, and warmongering.  Plato believed that all deities should be good and virtuous.  Plato's teacher, Socrates, was charged with Atheism because he proposed a universal creator.

Socrates, as documented by the writings of Plato, had the greatest impact on religion because of his inversion of what is called "real," which resulted in dualism and Gnosticism.  Plato's observations and theories laid the groundwork for the political sciences.  Nevertheless, because Socrates' ideas have been imparted through Plato's dialogues, and because it is impossible to know which of the two were the originators of their common philosophies, their contributions to theology and metaphysics are historically referred to as Platonism.  In our introduction to Classical philosophy we will begin to see how Platonism has influenced religion.  Plato's views on government and state will be taken up in later chapters.  We will only remark on Aristotle as his views are noted in particular by the Church Fathers, Schoolmen, and philosophers of more recent periods.

Plato was born in the 420's B.C. into an aristocratic family.  He lived in Athens during the time of the Peloponnesian Wars.  It was a chaotic time in which he saw the democracy of Athens toppled by Sparta, followed briefly by the reign of a tyrannical council appointed by the Spartans.  Democracy was once again restored, but these changing forms of government became the subject of much of Plato's philosophical contemplations.  Plato's The Republic expresses his analysis of various forms of government and the traits of the ideal candidates for leadership, citizenship, and the militia.  The Republic also encapsulates many of the idealistic philosophies of Socrates.

The Greek philosophers did not base their cosmology on the existence of a singular creative agent.  The dialogue with Timaeus³² provides the most important features of Plato's account of creation.  To understand his terminology, we must first be familiar with Socrates' idea of "Forms" and "Goodness."  The realm of Forms is presented in The Republic by the analogies of "The Cave."  The "Dividing Line" is used to show the distinction between the seen and the unseen, and the levels of "realness" in the mind of the philosopher.

The "Allegory of the Cave" supports the philosophical assumption termed "Realism," which is an inversion of what one would normally consider reality to be.  The allegory depicts men in a cave who have spent their lives chained facing the back wall.  They see the shadows of people walking by, but have never actually seen these pedestrians.  Through their intellect the men in the cave began to understand that they are only seeing shadows instead of the real people casting the shadows.  Socrates compares this enlightened state to the wisdom of the philosopher who understands that the objects of the material world are only poor representations, or shadows, of the "real" spiritual objects.  These realities exist as perfect Forms in a higher dimension - the "Realm of Forms".  The ideals of Wisdom, Justice, Beauty, Courage, and Moderation are examples of these Forms.  Their material manifestations are always flawed and considered to be only half-real.

The "Dividing Line" illustrates a more structured and graduated representation of the difference between the perfect Forms and the visible world.  The line is divided into two main sections to distinguish between what is visibly seen and what is mentally perceived.  The visible world only supports conjectures and beliefs, which are represented by the lower parts of the line.  The unseen realm is also divided into a lower segment of the knowledge of available data, and an upper segment of full understanding of what is real and true.  The philosopher is gifted with the ability to attain this higher understanding and thus approach the Realm of the Forms themselves.  (This presumption is the root of several devious notions.  It is the source of the Gnostic's "special knowledge." It holds out the promise that man can gradually approach God; and it gives the impression that man can achieve some higher state - the seed of the theory of evolution.)

The "Sun Analogy" is used to establish the quality of goodness.  The light from the sun is shown to be necessary in order to make use of the eye and to distinguish colors.  Socrates believed it was important to prove in some logical way that some divine agency enables the mind to make judgments from available knowledge.  In effect, knowledge without the basis of goodness would be as useless as the eye without light.  It seems that Socrates needed to establish the existence of goodness in order to contemplate the perfection of the Forms.  Plato makes a similar assumption in his dialogue with Meno³³ when he asserts that virtue is necessary in order to apply knowledge wisely.

Now we can proceed to Plato's version of creation and his need to formulate his god. In his work Timaeus, Plato describes a pre-existing state of chaotic motion.  But because order is good, there must have existed a being capable of organizing what was formless and cause it to become orderly.  Plato calls this being the "demiurge," which in Greek means a public worker, or craftsman.  Some of the Gnostics who followed Plato used his name "demiurge" as a mutilated deific being, and often ascribed to him a corrupted nature.  Plato, however, saw his demiurge only as a benevolent craftsman.

Plato's demiurge took "Same-nesses" and "Differences" and created geometric shapes.  Then using these shapes he created the four elements: earth, air, fire, and water.  The demiurge judged that intelligent beings were better than inanimate objects, so he determined to accomplish this end by imparting intelligence to the soul, and then placing the soul into a body.  The result was good because the combination resulted in a whole intelligent being, and wholeness is good.  The demiurge made the earth round because the circle is an ideal shape.  In fact, all of creation was ordered according to the Forms of Wholeness and Goodness.  So, to complete the formation of the world, the demiurge gave it a soul of its own – "The World Soul."

This chapter merely presents an overview of the Platonic concepts so that we might understand their effects on the Christian faith.  Besides exalting the god of this world, these philosophers created two other theological problems.  First, Socrates and Plato supported the case for dualism by their classification of the visible (material) realm as defective and inferior to the perfect Realm of Forms (the spiritual realm).  Secondly, they threw the baby out with bathwater by rejecting the mythical and anthropomorphic Greek gods, only to replace them with their own stone-cold god; an inanimate god of First Principles - without life and devoid of personality.  Dualism (the belief that spirit is good and matter is evil) defies God's opinion that the material world of His creation was "very good." – Gen. 1:31 And, the sterility of the Form-god denies the Father and the Son of the Godhead.  The last issue we will review at this juncture is Plato's Form of Justice as it applies to human virtue.

Plato believed that the human soul has three distinct parts.  The rational part of the soul is the philosophical element and is concerned about truth.  The spiritual part of the soul discerns what is honorable and stirs the emotions of injustice and righteous indignation.  The sensual part of the soul desires physical satisfaction and is responsible for causing the soul to lust after base desires.  Plato taught that the "Just Life" is accomplished when the soul maintains a healthy balance which fulfills the needs of the soul's three aspects.  These parts of the soul can only become equitable when it is ruled by the rational part.  Plato said that the philosopher is best suited to train his soul properly by directing it toward the higher aspects of truth found in the Forms.

Finally, it should be noted that Plato thought the reward during a thousand-year afterlife would be based on how justly a person lived; thus, somehow satisfying the Forms, or perhaps Goodness, by having inclined the soul toward the perfection of the various Forms.  It is fascinating that Plato doesn't ascribe deity to either the Forms or the demiurge, yet he suggests that there is a living judge of souls.  This is actually just another proof that no matter what system of theo-engineering mankind might create and espouse, what may be known of the real and living God has been revealed to man so that he is without excuse.

Whether Socrates and Plato rejected the ancient Greek gods because they were stirred by an awareness of the monotheistic God of the Jews is uncertain.  But they did not embrace the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and chose instead to imagine a god of their own.  Perhaps with the naïveté of Mary Shelley's Doctor Frankenstein,³⁴ Plato inadvertently provided a body for the god of this world: the World Soul.  Frankenstein's monster was created by planting a living brain into a dead body.  Plato placed a dead, but rational, god into the minds of men and has created a religious monster - a god who is nothing more than a systematic assembly of reasonable ideas.  In spite of his patched-together and lifeless appearance, this imposter has been received and worshipped by the world and by many Church Fathers for more than two thousand years.

After Plato's death, the Athens Academy continued but soon drifted from the philosophy of the Old-Academy.  By the third century B.C., many philosophers of the New-Academy were skeptics or had embraced Pythagorean philosophies.  Over this same span of time, Philip of Macedon and his son, Alexander the Great, had expanded the Grecian Empire from the Eastern Mediterranean to India.  Alexander was tutored during his teenage years by Aristotle.  The Greek language and the classical Greek philosophies spread throughout the conquered nations.  But the assimilation of the far-eastern cultures into the Grecian world also facilitated the flow of Hindu and Buddhist beliefs into Eastern Europe.

Figure 3 - Alexander's Empire³⁵

Alexander sought to unify his empire by mandating the use of the Greek language throughout.  This campaign was so successful that even the Latin Church Fathers wrote in Greek rather than Latin well into the third century.  The Holy Land was also assimilated into the Greek culture.  Jerusalem, Beth Shean, Ammon, and Samaria were all given Greek names.  These and other cities were also Grecianized by the construction of temples and marketplaces.  By the second century A.D., and throughout the Talmudic period, even the Rabbis spoke Greek in public, and Aramaic permeated with Greek words in informal conversation and writing; though they retained the use of Mishnaic Hebrew in their schools.  By the time of Christ, the Greek Septuagint was in common use among the Jews throughout the Roman Empire.  As we noted previously, the Books of Moses had already been translated into Greek prior to the compilation of the Septuagint.

As to the Pentateuch the following view seems plausible, and is now commonly accepted in its broad lines: The Jews in the last two centuries B.C. were so numerous in Egypt, especially at Alexandria, that at a certain time they formed two-fifths of the entire population. Little by little most of them ceased to use and even forgot the Hebrew language in great part, and there was a danger of their forgetting the Law. Consequently it became customary to interpret in Greek the Law which was read in the synagogues, and it was quite natural that, after a time, some men zealous for the Law should have undertaken to compile a Greek Translation of the Pentateuch. This happened about the middle of the third century B.C.

As to the other Hebrew books - the prophetical and historical - it was natural that the Alexandrian Jews, making use of the translated Pentateuch in their liturgical reunions, should desire to read the remaining books also and hence should gradually have translated all of them into Greek, which had become their maternal language; this would be so much the more likely as their knowledge of Hebrew was diminishing daily. It is not possible to determine accurately the precise time or the occasions on which these different translations were made; but it is certain that the Law, the Prophets, and at least part of the other books, that is, the hagiographies, existed in Greek before the year 130 B.C., as appears from the prologue of Ecclesiasticus, which does not date later than that year.³⁶

Just prior to the time of Christ, Philo of Alexandria began to synthesize the Classical Greek philosophies with the Old Testament writings.  His melding of Platonism and Judaism was not embraced by the general Jewish community, but it did leave its impression upon the early Church.  Philo referred to Plato as "the most holy Plato;" although he also incorporated the ideas of the Stoics, Pythagoreans, and other philosophers.  As a result, Philo's writings stressed the Platonic virtues while discouraging human emotions.  Philo's Hellenistic approach to interpreting the Old Testament had an enduring effect on the Christian Church; especially upon Clement and Origin of Alexandria, as well as Justin Martyr and Tertullian.  Philo's impact on Christian theology was so great that Jerome considered Philo to be one of the Church Fathers.

The Platonic ideals, so long as they ran parallel to the gospel, were employed by the North African and Latin Fathers to explain the principles of the Christian faith.  Instead of acknowledging that God had fully revealed Himself through His Word and His Christ, these Fathers were willing to include collaborative insights from the Gentiles.  This extra-biblical revelation was received just as the modern Church might receive the teachings of Joseph Smith or Mohammed, so long as they appear to agree with the Bible.  Paul had pointed out the inferiority of man's wisdom.  And the First Letter of John seems to have addressed Plato's assertion that only the philosopher can grasp the full knowledge of the Forms.  But somehow, only the Gnostic derivations of the Platonic concepts were recognized as extreme and heretical.  Even the pure Platonists rejected the Gnostics - effectively engaging the Church as the defenders of the "good" philosophers. 

By the second century of the Church, the effects of Plato's philosophy had spawned several branches of Gnosticism.  Widely varying schools of Gnosticism have emerged over the centuries.  We will now quickly touch on their common assumptions.  Most Gnostics employed some type of demiurge which was assumed to have overflowed from the overabundance of the greatness of an immortal "First Cause."  The demiurge and the Nous (knowledge) emanated directly from the "One being" (Monad), or indirectly through iterations of intermediate degenerations.  Either the demiurge or its own emanations were responsible for the creation of the material realm.

Most Platonists are dualistic in their condemnation of matter, and of the human body.  Those who incorporated an incarnate Christ in their scheme are called Docetists (from the Gr. dokein - to seem).  The Docetists portrayed Jesus as a phantom figure because they believed a good Savior must be spiritual and therefore could not be contaminated by a body of flesh.  Furthermore, they often concluded that the Creator of the material world, the God of the Old Testament, was an evil demiurge because matter is bad.  The Gnostic Christ of the New Testament came to reveal the good god, and to reconcile man to his Monad.

Even though Gnosticism has always been condemned by the Church, its theology is merely a logical extension of Platonic thought.  Once the Gnostics gave their rather vague and messy explanation of creation, they ended up with a fairly logical explanation for the existence of evil.  The Gnostic's (and the good Platonist's) system also supports the assumption that the ascetic life is better than the materialistic life.  So good, and bad, Platonism would seem to support the same spiritual frame of mind taught by Christianity.  The Gnostics were condemned by the Platonists and the Church, because they portrayed the creator as an evil god.  The Church also declared the Gnostic's docetic Christology to be heretical.

As we have already noted, it would appear from First John that the exaltation of so-called knowledge was already present during the Apostolic Age.  This assumption is also supported by what has been termed "the Gnostic Gospels," which were so designated because of their inclusion of Gnostic concepts.  But it was actually the good Platonists whose philosophy was able to penetrate the Christian Church's defenses.  Around 204 A.D., an Alexandrian philosopher named Ammonius Saccas consolidated the views of Plato and Aristotle into a form that was palatable to the young Christian Church.  Ammonius appears to have been familiar with Christianity and some have suggested that he was born in a Christian home.  Most of what is known of Ammonius is contained in the writings of his student, Plotinus.

Plotinus left extensive notes about his philosophy which were compiled by his follower Porphyry.  The philosophy of Plotinus became known as Neo-Platonism, and forms the basis for the system which is usually referred to today as Platonic thought.  After studying under Ammonius for eleven years, Plotinus went to Persia to study Persian philosophy, intending to continue on to India.  His journey was halted by war in Persia, so he remained for a time in Antioch.  From Antioch he traveled to Rome where he spent 24 years writing and teaching.  His philosophy is represented by Porphyry's compilation of the writings of Plotinus, which he titled The Six Enneads.³⁷ Below is list of his Platonic understanding of reality:

• Plotinus incorporated the Pythagorean concept of the Monad which he called the One.
• The One is incapable of "doing" anything because activity would negate the One's unchangeableness.
• The One cannot be any existing thing, but is sheer potentiality.
• The One cannot even be self-aware because that would require activity.
• The One is Good, Beauty, etc. (similar to Socrates Forms)
• The One's first emanation, or First Will, is the Nous (Divine Mind) who Plotinus compares to light from the sun.
• The Soul is reflected by the Nous as the moon reflects the sun's light.
• All of creation is a series of lesser emanations, matter being the lowest.
• The World Soul proceeds from the Nous and has two levels.
• Human souls emanate from the upper level of the World Soul.
• Nature emanates from the lower level of World Soul.
• Eudaimonia is a state of happiness that is independent of mortal circumstances. (The Encyclopedia Britannica defines eudaimonia as "the state of having a good indwelling spirit, a good genius"; and "’happiness’ is not at all an adequate translation of this word."³⁸
• Man can recognize the One through the Forms of Goodness and Beauty.
• Oneness is unity with the One.  (Porphyry said that Plotinus achieved oneness four times during his life.)

As would be expected, Plotinus disdained matter - including his own body.  He would not allow a portrait to be painted of his body, nor recognize his childhood, heritage, or the date of his birth.  Plotinus believed the true human soul to be incorporeal, and that eudaimonia could be achieved only through reason.  He calls the man who has attained Happiness the "Proficient" man.  "For man, and especially the Proficient, is not the Couplement of Soul and body: the proof is that man can be disengaged from the body and disdain its nominal goods." (Enneads I.4.14)  "The Proficient’s will is set always and only inward." (Enneads I.4.11)

The Early Church Fathers, Clement of Alexandria and his student, Origin, were both the contemporaries of Ammonius and Plotinus.  Clement's writings were influenced by the Greeks to the extent that they contain more than sixty references to Homer's works.³⁹ He also used the same three divisions of the soul (character, actions, and passions) which Plato had made in his book, The Republic.⁴⁰  Origin was one of the most prolific writers of the Apologetic Age.  His idealistic and allegorical technique of Bible interpretation was adopted by the Universal Church well into the second millennium, with only intermittent resistance from literalists.  During this dark age, the higher allegorical meaning of God's Word was the only interpretation deemed to be inspired, while the literal reading of the Bible was considered to be worldly and of secondary importance.

Here is an example from Origen’s commentary on Luke 10:30-37.  His philosophical meanings from Jesus' parable of the Good Samaritan miss the entire point of Jesus' teaching and reach for the "higher" spiritual meaning.  These are Origins conclusions:

The traveler in the Good Samaritan is Adam.  Jerusalem (where the traveler was going) is Paradise.  Jericho is the world.  The robbers are hostile demons.  The priest is the law.  The Levite is the prophets.  The Good Samaritan is Christ.  The traveler’s wounds are disobedience.  The donkey is the Lord’s body.  The inn is the church.  And the two denarius that he paid to the innkeeper were the Father and the Son.  The innkeeper is the bishop.

The Platonists felt like the obvious meaning was too earthly.  The higher spiritual meaning became the focus of the Church.  The obvious meanings where considered mundane and of little value compared to the higher spiritual "mysteries" of God.  Soon the church developed the rule that only the bishops were qualified to derive the correct meanings to these mysteries.  This concentration of knowledge within the upper clergy was necessary because the lower clergy and laymen might come to different conclusions  in interpreting these allegories.  Obviously, if every Christian had been given the opportunity to read and interpret the Bible, they would never have come up with the same meanings.  What if some people thought the innkeeper was a priest?  Or that the two denarius were just a couple coins?  All of Christendom would fall into confusion.  So for hundreds of years the Bible was kept out of the hands of the people.

Origin's precedent of obscuring the practical meaning of the Scriptures affected the next 1,200 years of the Church, and is still applied by Roman Catholics to the Book of Revelation.  A proper fear of the Lord God would have discouraged Origen from taking such liberties in his interpretation of God's Word.  Surely, if Origin had a personal understanding of the gospel of salvation, he would not have diminished its power and simplicity by burying it under his presumptuous fables.  He was, nevertheless, devoted, industrious, and brilliant.  His study of the ancient manuscripts and endless hours of scholarship made his work all the more popular.

Origin's asceticism was so extreme that (according to many Church Historians) he went beyond celibacy and emasculated himself; thus doing everything humanly possible to please the dualistic god of First Principals.  The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy applauds Clements efforts to infuse Platonism into Christian doctrine.

Origen of Alexandria, one of the greatest Christian theologians, is famous for composing the seminal work of Christian Neo-Platonism, his treatise On First Principles. . . Origen lived through a turbulent period of the Christian Church, when persecution was wide-spread and little or no doctrinal consensus existed among the various regional churches.  In this environment, Gnosticism flourished, and Origen was the first truly philosophical thinker to turn his hand not only to a refutation of Gnosticism, but to offer an alternative Christian system that was more rigorous and philosophically respectable than the mythological speculations of the various Gnostic sects.  Origen was also an astute critic of the pagan philosophy of his era, yet he also learned much from it, and adapted its most useful and edifying teachings to a grand elucidation of the Christian faith.  Porphyry (the illustrious student of Plotinus), though a tenacious adversary of Christianity, nevertheless grudgingly admitted Origen's mastery of the Greek philosophical tradition.  In this work [On First Principles] Origen establishes his main doctrines, including that of the Holy Trinity (based upon standard Middle Platonic triadic emanation schemas); the pre-existence and fall of souls; multiple ages and transmigration of souls; and the eventual restoration of all souls to a state of dynamic perfection in proximity to the godhead.⁴¹

And so, Platonism became firmly rooted in Christianity and led the Church down several dark paths, two of which are addressed by Paul in his letters.  In Colossians 2:20-23 Paul warns of the apparent wisdom in the doctrines of men.  "Therefore, if you died with Christ from the basic principles of the world, why, as though living in the world, do you subject yourselves to regulations – ‘Do not touch, do not taste, do not handle,’ which all concern things which perish with the using - according to the commandments and doctrines of men?  These things indeed have an appearance of wisdom in self-imposed religion, false humility, and neglect of the body, but are of no value against the indulgence of the flesh."

Platonism holds out the promise that people can become spiritual by depriving themselves of legitimate material needs.  This has the appearance of wisdom to those who believe that all matter, including the body, is evil.  When Paul wrote that the spirit and the flesh war against each other, he used the Greek word "sarx," which refers to the fallen sin-self, not to the material body (Gr. soma).  God is the one who created the body.  The warfare is not between God and his creation.  In fact, Paul states in Ephesians that no man ever hated his own body.  The Platonists' problem stems from their dualistic belief that denying matter somehow moves them toward the realm of the spirit, as if the spirit were nothing more than the opposite of matter.  God created the heavens and the earth.  They are not at odds with one another.  They are simply two different realms.  Platonism assumes that man has somehow fallen from heaven into the material world, so avoiding matter should propel him back into heaven.  What Jesus said to the Pharisees also applies to the Platonists; they didn't know where Jesus came from, and they didn't know where He was going.  The Platonist, likewise, does not know where man came from, or where man is going after this life.

The fact that the ascetic neglect of the body is of no value against the indulgence of the flesh has been proven throughout history.  Those philosophers who have tried to live morally by their own self-imposed virtue have most often failed miserably.  Without the fear of a real God who sees and who has the power to judge, man must rely on the strength of his own willpower.  The gospel does not teach that man can approach God by becoming more spiritual; it teaches that man can receive the Holy Spirit of God as a gift by faith in Christ.  And it teaches that man can be reconciled to God by the forgiveness of sin which was purchased by Jesus' sacrifice on the cross.

Furthermore, man was not created to reflect the light of God, but to enjoy the fellowship of the living God; and, through Christ, to be united with God, and to be renewed with the life of God.  Reflection implies separation.  There must be a distance between the source of light and its object.  Christians experience a life-connection with God as Jesus illustrated when He said that He is the vine and His disciples are the branches.  Separated from Christ we can do nothing of eternal consequence.  Plato has offered nothing which can improve the gospel.  Platonic thought is a different gospel altogether, which has only served to lead men away from the true gospel.

"Now the Spirit expressly says that in latter times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and doctrines of demons, speaking lies in hypocrisy, having their own conscience seared with a hot iron, forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from foods which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth." - I Tim. 4:1-3

The denial of legitimate physical needs has caused much injury to the body of Christ.  The ascetic lifestyle and celibacy of the Eastern religions was made honorable among Christians by Platonic dualism.  But God created male and female so that they might be fruitful and multiply.  Man does not satisfy his Creator by denying God's very purpose for His design as male and female.  As we will see when we study the history of the Church, very few Christian leaders were able to fulfill their vows of celibacy.  Either through concubinage, or even more immoral behavior, the human body of God's design has found an outlet for its God-given purpose.  God gives his grace of chastity so that His people might remain pure until marriage.  But lifelong celibacy is a rare gift.

Fortunately, the Reformers recognized that the requirements for clergymen, as instructed by the Pastoral Epistles, are based upon the success of the family man.  Even Peter and the other Apostles had wives which they did not desert as they spread the gospel.  We should observe that it was the ascetics of the Early Church who insisted on the eternal virginity of Mary because of their need for a role model - a model not set by the Apostles.

Lastly, this Platonic dualism led to the practice of self-mortification among the monasteries of the Middle Ages.  This schizophrenia of pitting the soul against its own body is one of the most repulsive displays of Christianity-gone-awry.  "No one can live without delight, and that is why a man deprived of spiritual joy goes over to carnal pleasures."  St. Thomas Aquinas⁴²

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?  The best philosophies and the highest ideals of man cannot reach into the heavens of God's creation.  The distinguishing factor between the gods of philosophy and the God of the Bible can be summarized in two words:  "Life" and "Love."  The lifeless One cannot give life to his followers.  Neither have the Forms made a home in the heavens for their ascetic worshipers.  Diluting the gospel with worldly wisdom has given mankind the impression that the fruit of the Holy Spirit can be produced by human virtue.  This soul-centric system portrays the benefits of reflecting the Forms as proceeding from man's reason, an inversion of the reality that grace proceeds to man from God because of His mercy and love.  Principles and Forms have no love to offer.  The grand philosophers turned from their marble statues merely to create their own lifeless idols of the mind.  Little children, keep your self from idols.

Purchase Dark Freedom in print or ebook at Amazon, B&N, and more.
Details at: http://www.darkfreedombook.com