Why would Christians care about Philosophy? I once heard the question. Can we just read the Bible and nothing else? To answer this question, we need to clarify what philosophy is. The word “philosophy” comes from the Greek roots φιλο (philo), meaning “love”, and σοφία (sophia), meaning “wisdom”. It translates to “the love of wisdom.” It is a discipline that seeks answers to the most fundamental questions like: “who are we?” or “what is real?” (ontology); and “how do we know what we know?” (epistemology); or “what is the right way to live?” or “is there a right way of living?” (ethics). In essence, it is a disciplined process to establish one’s worldview.

Should Christians establish his/her worldview? Of course, in Ecclesiastes, the author keeps asking questions about the meaning of life under the sun. In Proverbs 4:7, “Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom: and with all thy getting, get understanding.” So the authors of Proverbs encourage the readers to seek wisdom. Needless to say, only in Christ can one find wisdom that is redemptive; for He alone is the way, the truth, and the life.

Why, then, should Christians study secular philosophy? The reformed faith stands on the ground that all truth is God’s truth, all facts are God’s facts, and all realities are God’s revelation, even if discovered through fallen minds. And it is God’s cultural mandate that Christians should engage the world intellectually. Reformed theologians have a tradition of studying secular philosophy. John Calvin, Abraham Kuyper, Herman Bavinck, and Cornelius Van Til, to name a few, are all well-versed in secular philosophy. As John Calvin once put it: “In reading profane authors, the admirable light of truth displayed in them should remind us that the human mind, however much fallen and perverted from its original integrity, is still adorned and invested with admirable gifts from its Creator.” (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols)

A word of caution is just as important as the preceding arguments. As stressed by reformed theology, human reason is fallen. As Paul had warned in Colossians 2:8: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Secular philosophy should be carefully studied under the light and the authority of the Scripture, just as everything else.

Given that we have established the Biblical grounds for studying philosophy, I intend, in this article, to give an overview of epistemology, including those of secular philosophy, in contrast with the Christian theistic view.

There are three main areas of study in philosophy: ontology, epistemology, and ethics. This article will primarily focus on epistemology. The word epistemology comes from the Greek words ὲπιστἡμη (episteme, knowledge or understanding) and λογὁϛ (logos, word or study). In epistemology, philosophers seek to address questions such as: What constitutes knowledge? How is knowledge obtained? How can we be certain of our knowledge?

I will summarize several prominent philosophers who represent secular epistemological thought. We will see how men harden their hearts to seek the truth outside God. Such sinful intent, not only do we encounter on a daily basis around us, but we may also find that in our own thinking.

Plato (born c. 428–423 BC, died 348/347 BC)

Plato is fundamentally a rationalist who believes that innate ideas and reason are the primary sources of knowledge; truth can be discovered through rational thought, logical deduction, and a priori reasoning. He believes the world we are experiencing is noisy, unreliable, and accidental manifestations of the Forms, which are unchanging and not observable. Knowledge is about understanding the Forms. Hence, we cannot gain knowledge from sensory experience. Reality and truth are hiding behind the physical world. Knowledge is innate, however imperfect; learning is a process of recalling innate knowledge.

Aristotle (384BC — 322BC)

We can observe a shift from rationalism to empiricism in Aristotle’s epistemology. Unlike Plato, Aristotle contends that rationality as a principle is not to be found beyond our experience. Universals are to be found in particulars. The process of induction will derive general principles from particular observations. The brilliancy of Aristotle lies in the introduction of causes and active intellect: knowledge, in essence, for Aristotle, involves understanding the causes of things. True knowledge is knowing these causes, not just observing facts. The concept of active intellect, introduced in On the Soul, which transforms sensory data into intelligible concepts, allows people to understand abstract truths. In essence, Aristotle’s epistemology is a blend of empiricism and rationalism that laid the foundation for Western scientific inquiry and empirical philosophy.

Descartes (1596-1650)

René Descartes (1596-1650) laid down the foundation of modern epistemology. “I think, therefore I am” (Cogito, ergo sum) from his 1637 work Discourse on the Method and later elaborated in Meditations on First Philosophy (1641) is a cornerstone of modern epistemology. It attempted to lay the foundation for knowledge by identifying an indubitable truth: doubting or thinking proves the existence of the self. This is a radical shift from medieval philosophy, which sought to establish the foundations of knowledge by appealing to external authority. His work shifted the epistemology to subjective certainty and rationalism. That has a far-reaching influence on future generations of thinkers, including Kant.

Hume (1711-1776)

The core of Hume’s epistemology is that all knowledge comes from sensory experience. Ideas are only faint copies of impressions, and complex ideas are built from simple impressions; no idea exists without a corresponding sensory experience. But he is more famously known for his challenge to causation and miracles. To Hume, two events that are considered as cause and effect are only brute facts that happened in sequence, however, repetitive. Regarding miracles, Hume argues that laws of nature are established from vast experience. Miracles are extraordinary events that will require extraordinary evidence. Compared with the reliability of natural law, a few people’s testimony is not sufficient. Hume’s critique shifts the burden of proof onto those claiming miracles by emphasizing empirical reasoning.

Kant (1724-1804)

Immanuel Kant’s (1724-1804) epistemology is groundbreaking as Kant attempted to synthesize rationalism and empiricism. It is often referred to as the “Copernican revolution” in philosophy. For Kant, knowledge is the knowledge as we see is because the mind that constructed it is the mind that constructed it. Just as Copernicus shifted from an Earth-centered to a Sun-centered view, Kant shifted the focus from external sense experience to the mind that perceives it. It is the mind that imposes forms of intuition and categories on facts, making them coherent. So, in essence, Kant rejects the idea that the mind is a tabula rasa, that knowledge arises solely from sensory data (empiricism), and that knowledge is entirely innate (rationalism).

Kant’s transcendental idealism, the cornerstone of his epistemology, is a theory that explains why knowledge is possible. It investigates the conditions that make experience and knowledge possible. I would think of these as necessary conditions: conditions that make the outcome possible. Instead of trying to explain knowledge by looking into sensory experience (empiricism) or a set of self-evident axioms (rationalism), Kant asks a larger question: if knowledge is possible, what conditions should exist to make it possible? In other words, what knowledge presupposes. Kant is asking the right question, but he gives the wrong answer.

In terms of making the human mind the ultimate reference point, there is no one who goes as far as Kant before him. For Kant, one is in the mind and many are in the facts; universal is subjective, and brute facts are brute facts. That will make the natural man the lord over all facts and realities.

Revelational Epistemology

To understand knowledge, it is fatally erroneous to look into the object of knowledge without understanding the subject of knowledge. Epistemology, metaphysics, and ethics are three aspects of the same discipline: one’s worldview. One needs to understand where we come from in order to understand where our knowledge comes from, and why we need to conduct ourselves in certain ways.

Revelational epistemology is a philosophical and theological approach to knowledge that emphasizes divine revelation as the ultimate source and foundation for all knowledge. The empiricists and rationalists rely on sensory experience, reason as the foundation and source of knowledge; revelational epistemology asserts that humans cannot attain genuine knowledge independently of God’s revelation. The revelation comes in two forms: general revelation and special revelation. General revelation refers to creation, nature, and the universe that reveal God’s existence and attributes. Special revelation refers to the Scripture, prophets, or Christ as the ultimate revelation of God. The special revelation reveals more specifically about the truth of the universe, redemption, and reality.

Due to the effect of sin on human cognition, also known as the “noetic effects of sin”, human reason alone is seen as corrupted and unreliable, leading to distorted interpretations of the world. More importantly, the natural man seeks to interpret the world on his own. As he attempts to rid himself of God in every fiber of his life, he creates his own truth and facts. But the truth and all facts must be interpreted through the lens of God’s revelation, with no “brute facts” existing in isolation from God’s interpretive framework. Reformed apologetics sternly reject the notion of “common ground” between believers and unbelievers as “neutral facts”. The only common ground between believers and unbelievers is that they are all creations of God and bear the image of God.

As the presuppositional apologetic argues, the Christian worldview, rooted in the Scripture, is the necessary condition for all knowledge by presupposing God’s existence and order. All knowledge presupposes the existence of the Triune God of Christianity. God’s nature as an omniscient, rational, and purposeful personal being provides the necessary conditions for human intelligibility, logic, and coherence.

The biblical teachings, particular passages emphasizing God’s revelation as the basis for wisdom and understanding, such as Romans 1:18-20, Colossians 1:17, and 1 Corinthians 2:6-16, to name a few. The reformed tradition of revelational epistemology can be traced to John Calvin, who highlighted total depravity, including the corruption of the human mind, in sharp contrast to Thomas Aquinas’s reliance on natural reason. The modern approach is represented by Cornelius Van Til, a 20th-century theologian who is known for his presuppositional apologetics. His work, such as The Defense of Faith and A Christian Theory of Knowledge, systematically articulates revelational epistemology as a defense of Christian orthodoxy against secular and autonomous reasoning.

The Impact on My Life

I have struggled for a long time with the reformed doctrine of Unconditional Election. If God, in his sovereignty, elects some to be saved, He also, in his sovereignty, condemns the other, the so-called “reprobated” in the literature, to eternal punishment. Why would an all-loving God elect some but forsake others? 

The revelational epistemology reminds us that any knowledge we can have is because of God’s revelation. We are like clay questioning the potter’s sovereignty (see Romans 9:6-29). We must put ourselves back into the creation order, fully accepting that God is the Creator and that we are His creation. He wants us to know about Him, and that is why we know.

The question is not whether or not Unconditional Election is ethical, but rather whether this is the teaching of the Scripture. In Paul’s own words:”…God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of him who calls …” (Romans 9:11). “So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” (Romans 9:16)

The other verse is even more direct: “…even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love he predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will.” (Ephesians 1:4-5). Additionally, the following also support God’s sovereign election: Romans 8:29-30, John 6:37-39, Acts 13:48, 1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 and 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

I was overwhelmed by the amount of teaching that points to Unconditional Election with such clarity. How could I question God’s intention without paying attention to His teaching? 

“Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes”. (Job 42:6)  

And so shall we all.

Note: The main references for this article:

Frame, John. A History of Western Philosophy and Theology 

Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of The Faith