The Apostle Paul was brought before the Aereopagus Court in Athens, Greece for preaching the Gospel (Acts 17:19 ff.). This was the same Court that had tried and sentenced Socrates to death for "worshipping other gods" about 450 years earlier. How did Pauls' defense and apologetic differ from Socrates'? What did Paul say about Socrates' way of thinking and philosophy? Some have suggested that Paul was a "Hellenist", with a "Greek mindset", or had he become "Gentilized". What follows below shows that he not only completely opposed Gentile thought but also Greek philosophy and First-Principles both in his defense and in his Epistles.
Greece was under Roman occupation, and the Roman Empire had completely accepted Socrates' philosophy by the time of Pauls' defense before the Athenian Court; much as it is still accepted in certain quarters today. The Roman orator Cicero said:
"Socrates was the first to bring philosophy down from the heavens." [1]
The Greek philosophy of Socrates, that Roman thought also later accepted, was that man was autonomous in his own intellect. Unregenerate man was autonomous, and by using his "reason" alone, had the power to arrive at Ultimate Absolutes. The Romans were using Greek Humanism as a Base-Model to run the Republic.
Paul did not use Greek logic or "Hellenistic thinking" to defend himself. Instead, he condemned ALL Greek wisdom (including Socrates) as "foolishness", and openly demanded to know where their wisdom now was:
"Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? hath not G-d made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the Wisdom of G-d the world in wisdom knew not G-d, it pleased G-d that in the foolishness of preaching to Save them that Believe." [2]
Socrates made no mention of the Word of G-d. The Apostle Paul defended himself by Scripture only. Pauls Absolutes came from the Word of G-d, not "man-centered" Humanism.
Paul declared that the Athenians were given over to idolatry. Gentile heathenism. From this, we also see that Paul had not become "Gentilized" or "Hellenized".
Socrates said that he heard the voice of his "daimon" (demon) often telling what to do or what not to do. We can see another major disagreement with this foundational belief of Socratic teaching by Paul at this crucial point. [3]
While the Greek Parthenon stood, and still stands in all its' "glory", Paul declared that G-d does not dwell in temples made with hands.
The Stoics believed that the elite had an exclusive knowledge of divinity. Paul declared G-ds' Providence, and His natural revelation within each man. Acts 17:25-29. [4]
When the Court of Aereopagus was founded, Aeschylus said that Apollo had declared:
"...there is no resurrection."
Socratic philosophy believed in reincarnation. What need of any Resurrection if your soul just goes from one body to another?
Paul contradicted Socrates' view of reincarnation, and said that there is a Resurrection of the dead, and that Yeshua HaMoshiach (Jesus Christ) Will Judge the world on the Last Day. Acts 17:25-29. The Brit Chadashah (New Testament) says, "Man has once to die, but after this. the Judgement." Hebrews 9:27.
Paul argued strictly from the Word of G-d and did not use any of the Greek philosophic First-Principles, or Socratic ideas.
The Authority of G-d exclusively was used rather than mans' autonomous reason (Socrates), and Paul stated absolutely that they must "Repent" from their thinking.
Paul stated in Romans 1:18-20 that G-d was already known to them, but they had suppressed their knowledge of Him. They were fully responsible. Their own thought-systems (Greek logic and philosophy) had suppressed Divine Faith in the L-RD as an answer.
Further, Socrates divided knowledge of "the gods" into that which was "rational" and that which was "mysterious" within mans' own mind. Socrates and the Greek philosophers said that a person needs to understand before he believes; Paul said that you must BELIEVE before you can UNDERSTAND. Again, total contradiction.
Socrates said man could attain unto an apologetic by following his human reason alone. Mans' thinking would bring him to absolutes. Paul said in the Koine Greek of the New Testament that natural man was "without an apologetic"; without even so much as one effective argument that would ever bring them to True Knowledge of the G-d of Scripture. Romans 1:20.
Socrates said that knowledge was the means whereby mans' reason would eventually produce an autonomous man. The Apostle Paul said that the natural mans' mind was filled with darkness and could arrive only at "knowledge falsely so-called." Ephesians 4:17,18; I Timothy 6:20. To the natural mans' mind, preaching was to the Jews a "stone of stumbling and a rock of offense", and to the Greeks "foolishness". Neither could the natural man arrive at the Truths of Things about Yeshua (Jesus) for they are are "Spiritually Discerned", not "logically discerned".
Greek Socratic Humanism stated that man can use his "autonomous reason" (which is fallen) to establish these absolutes independently. Paul said that the Believer must do otherwise:
"...bringing every thought into captivity to the Obedience of Yeshua (Christ)". II Corinthians 10:5.
Our thought-processes are not to be "autonomous" or "independent", but we are to Trust Fully by Divine Faith in the L-RD. We are to therefore establish an Apologetic based upon Divine Faith with Patience Trusting the Scriptural Promises, and not on Greek Humanist philosophy that originates with man.
These are but a few points demonstrating that Pauls' Gospel totally disagrees with the philosophy of Socrates and Humanistic principles; that man is autonomous and could eventually establish his own absolutes independently without the Absolute Necessity of Divine Faith as Scripture Declares.
Today, Theological Liberalism, as it is called, has fully accepted Greek thought and brought it into their theology. This has led to many other areas also being affected; in their Assemblies as well as culturally. Actually however, The New Testament has absolutely no relationship whatsoever to Socratic philosophy, "Hellenistic" thinking or Humanism; either Secular Humanism or Christian Humanism. The Apostle Paul demonstrates this over and over in his Epistles by refuting Greek or "Hellenistic" thought right in "downtown Athens" itself! There can be no "Return to the Golden Age of Greece and Rome" (as many are still led to imagine), there is only Repentance for man and to Return with his whole heart to the L-RD.
More Following Soon
CLICK ON THE STAR OF DAVID TO EMAIL US!
Footnotes
[2
[3
To be consistent, those that still promote the Socratic Ideal must address this Socratic Principle of "hearing voices" (of his "daimon") which Socrates openly states he himself heard and obeyed!?! Yes, they must address it, for it is an actual (though clearly not often emphasized) CORE INGREDIENT of Socrates' own philosophy!
[4
