AnthonyFlood.com

Philosophy against Misosophy

 

Gregory Bahnsen

Home

Essays by Me

Essays by Others

From Foundations of Christian Scholarship: Essays in the Van Til Perspective, edited by Gary North, Ross House Books, Vallecito, CA, 1979, 191-239.

November 2, 2011 

The Unsettled and Complex Character of Apologetics

The Basic Question of Method

The Socratic Outlook

The Christian Perspective

Paul’s Apologetic Method: Acts 17

An Overview of the History of Apologetics

The Reformation of Apologetics 

Socrates or Christ: The Reformation of Christian Apologetics (continued)

Gregory Bahnsen 

 

The Christian Perspective

A fundamental antithesis exists between the thinking of Socrates and that of the apostle Paul; they radically differ even in the area of philosophical method.  The contrast is evident in the following exposition of Paul’s apologetic (which thematically corresponds to the exposition of Socrates).  As one who had been set apart (sanctified) from the world by God’s word of truth,53 Paul founded his thinking on the solid rock foundation of Christ’s words,54 realizing that no one could improve upon the wisdom of God.55  Paul had, then, no agreement with the darkness of Socrates’ unbelieving approach to knowledge.56  Along with the other apostles, Paul presupposed the wisdom and veracity of God’s word, in contrast to Socrates, who started with the autonomy of man’s intellect.

The antithesis could not be greater—the antithesis between truth and error.  “They are of the world; therefore they speak of the world and the world hears them.  We are of God; the one who knows God hears us, and the one who is not of God does not hear us.  By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error.”57

Paul elaborated upon this stark antithesis between believing and unbelieving philosophy in I Corinthians 1-2.  Those who perish see the word of the cross as foolishness, while those who are saved view it as the very power of God.58  The gospel is contrary to the presuppositions of unbelieving thought, for it does not cater to rebellious man’s demand for factual signs and logical argumentation that will pass the test of autonomous scrutiny.59  Infatuation with worldly wisdom was the last thing that would characterize Paul!60  Christian wisdom glories rather in the Lord.  Socrates was anthropocentric, while Paul was theocentric.  Thus, when Paul came to Corinth, he did not rely upon the intellectual tools of the Athenian philosophers; instead, he came with the powerful demonstration of the Spirit in order that faith might not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.61  Socrates would have been completely unable to receive this God-centered, presuppositional viewpoint of Paul as anything but foolishness.62  Their respective epistemological methods were as different as darkness and light.63

Paul recognized that he had been divinely commissioned; he had been sent as an apostle, not by men, but by the resurrected Christ.64  Hence he did not seek to please men, for that would have been incongruent with his status as a servant of Christ.65  Paul was not commissioned to be a gadfly who, through dialectical questioning or research, seeks to spur men on to the self-betterment of their souls.  As the ambassador for Christ, he beseeched men in Christ’s stead, not to recognize their inherent participation in a higher divine realm of reason, but to be reconciled to God.66  This required the attempt to persuade men67; yet his persuasion rested not on the self-sufficient reason of man, for Paul walked by faith and not by sight.68  The gospel he preached was not based on man,69 and thus the weapons of his warfare were not after the flesh but instead mighty through God for casting down every imagination that exalts itself against the knowledge of God.70  His aim was to bring every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.  Therefore, in diametric contrast to Socrates, Paul had no high regard for autonomous philosophy.  He warned that vain, deceitful philosophy which is directed by the traditional presuppositions of the world instead of by Christ will rob man of all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge, which treasures are to be found in Christ.71  Paul did not oppose the use of persuasion and philosophy, but he absolutely rejected any persuasion and philosophy that were patterned after man’s alleged self-sufficient intellectual abilities.  True love-of-wisdom (“philosophy”) brings every thought captive to Christ and, thereby, shuns autonomy.

Consequently, rather than preaching salvation through (or dependence upon) the rational soul in man as an incarnate divine logos, Paul stressed the Creator/creature distinction72 and proclaimed that men, suppressing the truth in unrighteousness,73 are alienated and enemies in their minds against God and thus must be reconciled through the cross of Christ in the body of His flesh.74  It is this Savior who is the eternal yet enfleshed Logos of God, the incarnate word full of grace and truth.75  Jesus Christ himself is the Truth,76 the wisdom of God,77 the deposit of all knowlledge,78 and as such the life-giving light of men.79  Paul’s perspective stands squarely over against that of Socrates.  Paul refused to utilize the pseudo-wisdom of the Socratic outlook lest the cross of Christ be made of none effect.80  The rational religion of worldly wisdom knows not God, Paul maintained, for God saves men by the foolishness of preaching the cross of Christ.81

With such views as these, Paul certainly did not exalt the intellect of man, commend neutrality in one’s thinking, or insist upon autonomy as an epistemological standard.

One of the key reasons why Paul did not exalt and trust the intellect or reason of man is found in his doctrine of total depravity.  That depravity, held Paul, extends to the intellect of man.  “The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can it be.”82  Because the unbeliever does not base his life and thinking upon the words of Christ, he is nothing less than foolish.83  To approach the field of knowledge without presupposing the truth of God is to preclude arriving at a proper understanding.  The beginning of knowledge is the fear of the Lord,84 but there is no fear of God before the eyes of the sinner.85  Hence he needs to have his eyes opened and to turn from darkness to light86; in his natural state he has a blinded mind,87 loving darkness rather than light.88  Those who are enemies of the cross, noted Paul, are those who mind earthly things89; being a child of wrath in his sinful mind,90 the man of worldly wisdom has vain thoughts.91  The unbeliever, therefore, has no understanding,92 cannot receive the Spirit of truth,93 cannot discern spiritual things,94 cannot see God’s kingdom,95 and is nothing short of an enemy in his mind against God.96  The thinking of the natural man is never a suitable pattern or starting point for Christian apologetics!  Unlike Socrates, Paul did not trust man’s reason to guide him naturally toward the good.  Man’s mind is dominated by sin, and thus knowledge is not identical with virtue.  Knowing God, all men fail nevertheless to obey Him—resulting in vain thinking and foolish, darkened hearts.97  The unbeliever’s reason is not omnicompetent according to Paul; instead, unbelievers walk in vanity of mind, with darkened understanding, ignorance, and blindness of heart—arriving at nothing but a “knowledge” falsely so-called.98  Therefore, in his apologetic methodology, Paul refrained from exalting man’s fallen intellect or building his case for the truth of Christianity upon its misguided standards.  The carnal mind was seen for what it is: at enmity with God.

However, this conclusion did not lead Paul to give up the task of apologetics as hopeless.  On the one hand, the unbeliever abuses his intellect and cannot avoid foolishness; on the other hand, the sinner yet has a knowledge of God which cannot be eradicated.  All men are always accessible to the witness and persuasion of the Christian apologist.  This is so because, as Paul teaches in Romans 1: 18-21, there is a kind of “innate” knowledge of God which each and every man possesses, even though he mishandles and suppresses that knowledge.  Such knowledge is not innate, with Socrates, in the sense that man’s mind is in contact with the eternal realm of the forms and recollects them based on endless reincarnations; such innateness as this assumes the continuity of man’s reason with divinity.  Paul’s doctrine of innate knowledge—a knowledge of God, rather than of Platonic “archetypes” of things in the world of “becoming”—assumes rather the distinction between the Creator and creature.  It is because God has created man as His image99 as well as creating everything in the world,100 that man cannot avoid knowing his Creator.  Man is inescapably confronted with the face of God within him and the imprint of God’s work all about him; God’s revelation is constantly bearing in upon him, whether he seeks self-knowledge or understanding of the world.  God reveals himself through nature unceasingly, universally, and inescapably.101  The silent communication of God continues to the end of the world, day unto day and night unto night showing forth knowledge.  In virtue of creation, every man images God; man is the climax of creation, not being made after his own kind (as with the animals), but being made in the likeness of God.  In knowing himself, man simultaneously knows his God.  Moreover, there is a sense in which Christ enlightens every man.102  Hence, there is nowhere man can flee in order to escape confrontation with God.100

Paul’s teaching of these points is plain to see.  He asserted that God’s invisible nature is clearly perceived and intellectually apprehended by man,104 God is definitely known both from within man105 and from the created world.106   “What can be known about God is plain within them,” and therefore man is categorically characterized as “knowing God.”107   It is because of these things that the apologist always has a point of contact with the unbeliever.  Indeed, because of the unavoidable knowledge of God possessed by all men, the apologist is assured of success in his task of defending the faith.  While men suppress the truth in unrighteousness, God nevertheless makes himself so clearly manifest to them that men are without excuse for their rebellion.   They are fully responsible.  As the Greek original suggests, “they are without an apologetic.”108  The presuppositional apologetic of Paul, then, could never encounter an intellectual fortress which exalts itself against the knowledge of God in an effective manner; by making his apologetic captive to the obedience of Christ, Paul was guaranteed the victory in pulling down such strongholds.109  He was set for the apologia of the gospel against men who had no apologetic for their foolish rebellion against the knowledge of God.

In contrast to the dialectical epistemology of Socrates, Paul taught that knowledge for man has to be the receptive reconstruction of God’s thoughts.   In this case, God’s revelation is foundational to human knowledge; man’s reasoning is not self-sufficient,110 autonomous,111 or somehow profitable as an independent source of knowledge.112  As is evident from what was said above, Paul denied the normative character of the human mind and its thinking.  We should go on to see that Paul also denied the ultimacy of man’s reason as the standard of knowledge and the final category of interpretation.  Unlike Socrates, Paul did not seek to determine the nature and possibility of knowledge without reference to God.113  By making man the final epistemological court of appeal, Socrates was led to a dialectical mixing of continuity and discontinuity, of unity and diversity, of logic and fact, in man’s mind.  For Paul, it is not man (reflecting on logic and fact) but God and His revelation which constitutes the final reference point of knowledge.114  Human knowledge can never be comprehensive, but neither does it need to be in order for man to attain to veridical apprehension of reality.115  Comprehensive knowledge is possessed by God,116 and since He is the determiner of all things,117 there is no “realm of possibility” behind Him.118  Consequently there is no mystery or contingency which can threaten God’s knowledge.  The temporal realm, with its created unity and diversity, finds its interpretive unity in the mind and decree of God.119  God’s self-sufficient, absolutely rational, comprehensive, and coherent plan for creation and historical eventuation120 provides the integrating category of interpretation for man’s knowledge.  God’s creation of the world establishes the reality of particulars121 and yet provides a genuine, preinterpreted, order to things.122

Therefore, we must recognize two levels of knowing,123 and man must thus think God’s thoughts after Him in order to understand God, the world, or himself.124  That is, God’s creative and constructive knowledge125 is determinative for man’s receptive and reconstructive knowledge.126  What man learns from nature and history must be seen in the context of God’s revelation.  Even when man is not consciously speaking of God, man must know God in order to find intelligibility in anything else.  Man cannot gain knowledge by looking within himself for the final reference point or interpretative category of experience.  Human knowledge is completely dependent upon the original knowledge of God, and thus God’s revelation is foundational for man’s epistemological endeavors.  The Psalmist gives succinct expression to this, saying “In Thy light shall we see light.”127  Only God is wise,128 and it is the Lord who teaches man knowledge.129  Because Jehovah is a God of knowledge, arrogance must not be expressed by man130; instead, “attend unto my wisdom; incline thine ear to my understanding that thou mayest preserve discretion and that thy lips may keep knowledge.”131  The Lord must enlighten man’s darkness.132  Accordingly, it is the entrance of His words which gives light and understanding.133  Paul would not allow any man to deceive himself: in order to be genuinely wise one must become a fool according to worldly standards134 (i.e., base his thinking upon the word of the cross rather than the pseudo-wisdom of this world) because all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge are hid in Christ.135  In His light alone can men see light.

It is quite evident now that the scriptural perspective on knowledge is theocentric, in sharp contrast to the anthropocentricity of Socratic epistemology.  Only by making God one’s starting point for thought and standard of truth can the objectivity of knowledge be preserved.  For Paul, God is the final reference point in interpretation.  His knowledge has unfathomable depth and wealth; “who hath known the mind of the Lord?”136  Paul’s answer could only be, “we have the mind of Christ.”137  For man to apprehend any truth, he must relate his thinking back to God’s original knowledge.  “For of him and through him, and unto him, are all things.”138  Our thinking requires a theistic orientation: we must see things as Christ does, thinking God’s thoughts after Him.  Therefore, man’s mind needs to be renewed unto genuine knowledge after the image of his Creator,139 rather than fashioned according to this world.140  Man must reflect God’s thoughts on a creaturely level, making God the measure of all things, instead of being driven ultimately to scepticism by holding man to be the measure.  In contrast to the Socratic dictum, “Know thyself,” Paul declared that he counted all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ; indeed, he reckoned everything as refuse in order that he might know Him.141  While Socrates sought union with the eternal realm by self-knowledge, Christ taught “This is life eternal, that they should know thee the only true God, and him whom thou didst send, Jesus Christ.”142

The scriptural outlook is undaunted in its theocentric epistemology.  By centering his thinking on God’s word, man is delivered from sin and its epistemic offspring, scepticism.

Thy commandments make me wiser than mine enemies, for they are ever with me.  I have more understanding than all my teachers, for thy testimonies are my meditation.  I understand more than the aged, because I have kept thy precepts. . . . Thou hast taught me.  How sweet are thy words unto my taste. . . . Through thy precepts I get understanding; therefore, I hate every false way.143

If man applies his heart unto God’s knowledge, then he can know the certainty of the words of truth.144  A knowledge of God’s Son prevents one from being tossed about with every passing doctrine,145 and full assurance of knowledge comes through looking in unwavering faith to the promises of God.146  One such promise is that of Jesus, “If ye abide in my word, then you are truly my disciples, and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”147  Man in his created individuality has no problem, in the scriptural perspective, with knowing objective truth.  Man was created148 and is now being recreated149 unto that end.

From the vantage point of the epistemology traced above, it is not surprising to find that Scripture does not extol neutrality as Socrates did.  The Lord created all things for himself,150 and He directs every event of history according to His wise plan.151  He rules over all,152 and everything in heaven and earth is His possession.153  Consequently, in all things God is to be glorified.154  Man is commanded to do everything he does to God’s glory,155 being consecrated to Him in “all manner of living.”156  This command extends to man’s noetic (intellectual) activities.  The first and great commandment calls for man to love the Lord with all his mind;157 every word and thought must be under the authority of Christ.158  Thus, Christ does not allow one to take a detached, open-minded, free-thinking approach to the truth; man’s thinking must be committed to the truth and glory of God.  Neutrality is impossible.  “No man can serve two lords; for either he will hate the one and love the other, or else he will hold to the one and despise the other.”159  One is either submissive to God’s word in all his thinking, or he is not; he is deluded to think that an uncommitted spirit characterizes his thought.  “He that is not with me is against me.”160  One either has the mind of Christ or the vain mind of the Gentiles,161 brings every thought captive or is an enemy in his mind against Cbrist.162  To be friendly toward the world—even in the area of scholarship or presuppositional commitment—is to be an enemy of God.163  The lordship of Christ extends to all thinking, thereby precluding any endorsement of neutrality.  Instead of a detached following of reason alone, Paul (and the other writers of Scripture) commended a whole hearted commitment to God’s revelation.  Dogmatism cannot be banished.  It is simply a question of whether the foundational dogma shall be the autonomous dictates of reason or the truth of God.

It should be perfectly obvious by this point that everything in the scriptural perspective on truth and knowledge dictates against any attitude which is even remotely similar to that of Socrates in the Euthyphro dialogue.  Socrates reduced the word of God and the opinion of man to a common environment, subject to the same epistemic conditions and requirements, with a standard of truth or criterion of verification higher than both.  God’s word is irrelevant to establishing a point or position; the outlook of deity is not crucial to knowledge, but rather endorsed only after independent establishment by autonomous man.  The revelation of God might or might not accidentally coincide with the autonomously discovered truth of man’s mind.  Socrates said we have to try the spirits, not to see whether they are of God, but whether they agree with self-sufficient evaluations of reason.

Scripture is to another effect.  Here we are taught to try the spirits by the absolute standard of God’s revealed truth.164  No one and no consideration is allowed to draw the word of the Lord into question;165 so God’s word cannot be tested by any higher standard or principle of truth.  God himself is the absolute, unconditioned, eternal standard of truth.166  His word is infinitely more sure than man’s direct, eyewitness experience,167 which is why faith is not based on sight.168  God’s word is epistemologically foundational or logically primitive (i.e., the first priority). It brings all other worlds into judgment, but it itself is to be judged by no man.  There exists no independent standard of truth higher than God.  Thus, when a question of truth arises, the godly response is “To the law and to the testimony!”169

God’s word is never just “one hypothesis among many others.”  It alone has self-attesting authority.  Only the fool will subject God’s word to his own autonomous testing, failing to understand the depth of God’s thoughts170 and that nobody can improve upon His thinking.171  The word of God has a unique authority, one which does not require it to depend on the endorsement of other experts or authorities.172  When the word of God is questioned, the proper reply is to call into question the competence of the autonomous critic, pointing out that in reality it is this very word which is the standard that draws him into judgment.173  God’s sure word is the final criterion of truth, the ultimate authority in the world of thought.  Therefore, woe to him who strives with his maker!174  The creature does not have the right to question the Creator.  “Shall he that cavilleth contend with the Almighty?  He that argueth with God, let him answer.”175

This perspective was foundational in Paul’s philosophy.  Because God’s word is the ultimate, authoritative, standard of knowledge and truth, Paul refused to submit it to the arrogant scrutiny of the sinner in order to have it established and accepted.  In a spirit diametrically opposed to that of Socrates in Euthyphro, Paul declares “Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God,!”176  Rather than being irrelevant, God’s revelation had the greatest relevance in establishing the truth for Paul.  God’s word could never “accidentally coincide” with the truth, for God’s word is the necessary presupposition for all true knowledge.  Without the word of God, this world would be “sound and fury signifying nothing.”  Therefore, in all of Paul’s thinking God’s word was taken as his genuine authority.  Rather than having God pass the tests of fact, logic, beneficial effect, and subjective satisfaction, Paul realized that logic and fact (along with all the other criteria) would be senseless without God.  Rather than God’s needing such credentials to be admissible to the mind of man, these things themselves need God to be meaningful and useful for man’s thinking.  The fool overlooks this, trusting his own heart,177 uttering his own mind,178 being right in his own eyes,179 and taking utmost confidence in himself.180  Professing self-wisdom, the fool suppresses the truth of God181 and delights in discovering his own heart’s conclusions182—returning to his folly like a dog to his vomit.183  It is impossible to arrive at knowledge in this fashion, and a fortiori it is impossible autonomously to verify the word of the God of all knowledge.  If one does not begin with the truth of God, he cannot conclude his argumentation with either God or truth.  “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction.”184 By refusing to presuppose the word of the Lord, the autonomous fool hates knowledge.185  Therefore, Paul would not submit to the presuppositions of worldly philosophy and traditions of men; the elementary principles of learning which do not follow Christ have to be rejected in order to avoid vain deception.186  Paul’s starting point in thought was not autonomous but theonomic; no truth was more basic for him than God’s revelation.  Consequently, Paul hearkened to the Lord’s reaffirmation of the law, “Thou shalt not put the Lord thy God to test.”187  If God’s authority needed to be authorized by some other consideration, it would cease to be the final authority.  Hence Paul sought to bring every thought captive to the obedience of Christ,188 not allowing his or any other person’s mind to lord it over the word of God.  Absolutely nothing would be permitted to question God’s authoritative word.  And therefore the central thrust of Paul’s apologetic was summarized in this bold declaration, “Let God be true, but every man a liar!”189  He presupposed the truth of God and defended the faith from that sure foundation, challenging the very possibility of truth or knowledge on unbelieving assumptions: “Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of the world!”

 

Notes

53 John 17:17.

54 Matthew 7:24-25.

55 I Corinthians 2:16.

56 Cf. II Corinthians 6:14-15.

57 I John 4:4-5.

58 I Corinthians 1:18; cf. Romans I: 16.

59 I Corinthians 11:22-23.

60 I Corinthians 1:26-31.

61 I Corinthians 2:1-5.

62 I Corinthians 2:14.

63 Cf. Ephesians 5:6-11.

64 Galatians 1:1.

65 Galatians 1:10.

66 II Corinthians 5:20.

67 II Corinthians 5:11.

68 II Corinthians 5:7.

69 Galatians 1:11.

70 II Corinthians 10:3-5.

71 Colossians 2:8, 3.

72 Romans 1:25.

73 Romans 1:18

74 Colossians 1:20-22.

75 John 1:1, 14.

76 John 14:6.

77 I Corinthians 1:24.

78 Colossians 2:3.

79 John 1:4.

80 Cf. I Corinthians 1:17.

81 I Corinthians 1:8, 21.

82 Romans 8:7.

83 Matthew 7:26-27.

84 Proverbs 1:7.

85 Romans 3:18.

86 Acts 26:18.

87 II Corinthians 4:3.

88 John 3:19.

89 Philippians 3: 18-19.

90 Ephesians 2:3.

91 I Corinthians 3:20.

92 Romans 3:11.

93 John 14:17.

94 I Corinthians 2:14.

95 John 3:3.

96 Philippians 1:21.

97 Romans 1:21.

98 Ephesians 4: 17-18; I Timothy 6:20.

99 Genesis 1:26-27.

100 Colossians 1:16.

101 Psalm 19:1-4.

102 John 1:9.

103 Psalm 139:8.

104 Romans 1:20.

105 Romans 1:19.

106 Romans 1:20.

107 Romans I:19, 21.

108 Romans 1:20.

109 II Corinthians 10:4-5.

110 I Corinthians 4:7; II Corinthians 3:5.

111 Colossians 2:4, 8; Job 11:12; Romans 1:21; I Corinthians 1:20.

112 Romans 11:34; I Corinthians 2:16; Isaiah 40:13-14; 41:28.

113 Colossians 2:3; Isaiah 46:10.

114 Romans 11:36; John 14:6; I Corinthians I :24; Colossians 2:3.

115 E.g., I Corinthians 2:11-12; 13:11-12; Ephesians 3:19.

116 Romans 11:33; Psalm 147:5.

117 Ephesians 1:11; Psalm 103: 19.

118 Isaiah 43:10; 44:6; cf. “Fortune” and “Fate” in Isaiah 65:11 (ASV).

119 Isaiah 40:26; Acts 15:18.

120 Isaiah 40:28; cf. I Corinthians 14:33.

121 Colossians 1:16; Ephesians 3:9; John 1:3.

122 Colossians 1:17; Psalm 104:24; Proverbs 3:19.

123 Isaiah 55:8-9.

124 Proverbs 22:17-21; John 16:13-15; Ephesians 4:20; 8:31-32; I Corinthians 2: 6-13, 16; Colossians 3: 10; Ephesians 4:23-24.

125 Proverbs 3:19; 8:1, 12, 22-35 with John 1:1-4.

126 Proverbs 2: 1-9; II Corinthians 4:6; 10:5; I Timothy 6:3-4, 20.

127 Psalm 36:9.  

128 Romans 16:27.  

129 Psalm 94:10.  

130 I Samuel 2:3.  

131 Proverbs 5: 1-2.  

132 Psalm 18:28.  

133 Psalm 119 130.  

134 I Corinthians 3 18.  

135 Colossians 2:3.  

136 Roman 11:33-34.

137 I Corinthians 2 16.  

138 Romans 11 36.  

139 Colossians 3 10.  

140 Romans 12:2.  

141 Philippians 3:8, 10.  

142 John 17:3.  

143 Psalm 119:98-104.

144 Proverbs 22 17-21.

145 Ephesians 4 13-14.

146 Romans 4:20-21.

147 John 8:31-32.

148 Genesis 1:28.

149 Ephesians 4:24; II Timothy 2:25.

150 Proverbs 16:4.

151 Ephesians 1:11.

152 Psalm 103:19.

153 I Chronicles 29:11.

154 I Peter 4:11.

155 I Corinthians 10:31.

156 I Peter 1:15.

157 Matthew 22:37.

158 II Corinthians 10:5; Colossians 3:17.

159 Matthew 6:24.

160 Matthew 12:30.

161 I Corinthians 2:16 with Ephesians 4:17.

162 II Corinthians 10:5 with Colossians 1:21.

163 James 4:4.

164 I John 4:111.

165 Matthew 20:1-16.

166 John 14:6.

167 II Peter 1:19.

168 Hebrews 11:1, 7-8.

169 Isaiah 8:20.

170 Psalm 92:6.

171 Romans 11:34.

172 Matthew 7:29.

173 John 1:15-17; 12:48.

174 Isaiah 45:9.

175 Job 40:2.

176 Romans 9:20.

177 Proverbs 28:26.

178 Proverbs 29:11.

179 Proverbs 12:15.

180 Proverbs 14:16.

181 Romans 1:18, 22.

182 Proverbs 18:2.

183 Proverbs 26:11.

184 Proverbs 1:7.

185 Proverbs 1:22, 29.

186 Colossians 2:8.

187 Matthew 4:7.

188 II Corinthians 10:5.

189 Romans 3:4.

 

Next: Paul’s Apologetic Method: Acts 17

Return to beginning of

Socrates or Christ: The Reformation of Christian Apologetics

 

Greg L. Bahnsen page