All right, I said I wanted to make two footnotes and a disclaimer before we begin. Footnote number one. In November, Michael Horton gave a lecture at the Center for Classical Theology meeting in San Diego. I attended it. It was very good. And it's available online, they just posted the video. I watched it again and I realized that the first 20 minutes or so of Dr. Horton's presentation is a summary of much of what I've given you in the last three weeks. And so I'm sure that having sat through that, many of those ideas percolated into my mind. So I want to give him credit for that. He was speaking about the concept of sola scriptura in the church fathers. And if you're interested, it would be easy to find it online. Just Google Michael Horton solo scriptura video or some such thing, and I'm sure you can come up with it pretty quickly. So that's footnote number one. Appreciate what Dr. Horton had to say. I'm sure that my ideas are based on what he presented. Number two. Much of what I'll be saying on Acts 17 today is based on what I've read in this book. I mentioned it last week by Gregory Lanier, Apocryphal Prophets and Athenian Poets, and I found that to be very helpful. So if you get hold of this and you're looking at it and you say, Renahan sounds a lot like Lanier, this is the footnote to say, yeah, that's right, Renahan sounds a lot like Lanier at that point. Then the disclaimer. I am not at all well-versed in philosophy. I simply don't know much. I've done a whole lot of reading in the last couple of months. Someone else would be better suited to directly address questions of ancient philosophy than me, but that's my task. If anyone is watching this and they say, he's really skipping over a lot of things, I will admit it right now. And what we're going to talk about today, I'm generalizing. To be honest, I have read a lot since November. I think I have a basic grasp on these things, but I do not have an advanced grasp. So I've done my best to give generalizations and to simplify things. So I hope that that will be the case. But please, I don't want to present myself in any way as having any expertise in these matters. Any competent student with two months to prepare would do just as well as what I'm going to give you right now. Don't think anything special about this. The Bible, Theology, and Philosophy, Session 4. This is where we left off last week. This principle, under the light of nature. The principle of Sola Scriptura requires us to recognize and accept the importance of the light of nature and the truths it teaches us. Now that's what I want to investigate today. And hopefully, in the time that we have, there are three things that I want to notice. We'll consider this principle in the New Testament. We'll look at Paul and Greek philosophy. And secondly, we'll ask the question, what about Augustine, Aquinas, and this principle today? And then time permitting, we'll look at Colossians 2.8 as an objection. So those are the three points that I hope to be able to cover in the time that's given to us today. So where may we see this principle applied in the New Testament? And I asked you to look at Acts 17. between these two weeks. And so I want to read it to you again, and then I want to notice some things about this, because it's a really helpful passage that will shed a lot of light on our subject. You remember what I've said, the scripture is primary, it's sufficient, it's clear, but we have to define those things quite specifically. We said that the clarity or the perspicuity of scripture applies to the gospel, that somewhere or other in the Bible you can find everything that's necessary to be saved. But we also acknowledge that there are many things that are deeper and are not apparent on the surface. And I want to suggest to you in Acts 17 that that's the case. That you can read it, and you can understand it, and it's clear on the surface. But there's much more to this text than perhaps meets the eye. And that's my goal in the first part today, is to show you those things that are beyond the first reading that you might have of the text. Let's pick it up in verse 16. This is the word of God. Now, while Paul was waiting for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him as he saw that the city was full of idols. So he reasoned in the synagogue with the Jews and the devout persons, and in the marketplace every day with those who happened to be there. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him. And some said, What does this babbler wish to say? Others said, He seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities, because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting? For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know, therefore, what these things mean. All the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new. So Paul standing in the midst of the Areopagus said, Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. For as I passed along and observed the objects of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription, To the Unknown God. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you, the God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from us, from each one of us, for in him we live and move and have our being, as even some of your own poets have said, for we are indeed his offspring. Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man. The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, but others said, we will hear you again about this. So Paul went out from their midst, but some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite, and a woman named Damaris, and others with them." That's the word of God, that's the text, that's what we're working with in our first portion here today. Before we look directly at Acts 17, let's think about one or two facts. Who was Luke's audience in writing both Luke's gospel and the book of Acts? Who was the audience? Can somebody tell me the name of the person who is designated at the beginning of the gospel and the beginning of Acts? Theophilus. Very good. What can we tell from that name? It's a Greek name. It's a Greek name. It means friend of God or lover of God. And he seems to be the one to whom Luke is writing. I'm assuming Luke being the author of the Gospel of Luke. He's the one to whom Luke is writing. Now that tends to give us an idea The book of Acts, perhaps even the gospel of Luke, is geared towards an audience with Greek understanding, out of a Greek culture, who's been influenced by that upbringing rather than a Jewish environment. I think that's a fair assumption based upon the man's name. Now there's another thing that we know. Paul was born in Tarsus in Cilicia, which is a Roman province to the north of Israel on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea. Now that was a Greek province. It was governed by Rome, but it was a Greek province, and Paul was born there, and that's where he received his Roman citizenship. Thirdly, we know that he was raised in Jerusalem. So we don't know how much time he actually spent in Tarsus of Cilicia, a Roman city with Greek culture, because then he tells us that he was raised in Jerusalem. He was brought there apparently by his parents. And we learn in Acts 22, that he studied under Gamaliel. Now Gamaliel was the most important rabbi teacher in Israel. Of all of them he was the most famous and Paul was able to have a seat in the school of Gamaliel. Now historians tell us some interesting things about both Cilicia and about the Jewish rabbinic schools as Gamaliel is an example. And that is that Tarsus and Cilicia was at the heart of Greek philosophy. Typically you would think of Rome, but many of the important philosophers either were born in Tarsus or in Cilicia in the state, the province, or they spent significant amount of time there. So Greek philosophy would have been in the air. If Paul had any education in Tarsus, he may have been exposed to Greek philosophy there. But even more directly, historians tell us that in the rabbinical schools, there was time that was spent devoted to learning Greek philosophy. They recognized the importance of the world in which they lived. They were not strictly limited to instruction in Hebrew language, Old Testament, Jewish customs and cultures, but they also gave instruction in Greek philosophy. Expected that Paul would have had some kind of instruction in Greek philosophy. This is some of the background that we have here. Some more facts. Luke highlights Paul's encounter with Greek philosophers and he names them the Epicureans and the Stoics. Now this is the only time in all of the New Testament that any of the schools of Greek philosophy are explicitly named. This is the only place. As Paul interacts with them, and I'm going to suggest that there's more places in the New Testament than these. This is all that we'll have time to look at today. Paul speaks their language. He speaks their philosophical language. He is able to communicate with them because he understands the concepts that are central to these views and is able to adopt some of them into his speech or reject others as he speaks to them about the gospel of Christ. Paul's speech in the Areopagus is significantly wedded to his understanding of Greek philosophy. Now, as I think it's Lanier who points out, we don't have any evidence that Paul ever read any of the major works of the philosophers. What we have is evidence that he understood what these philosophies were. Now, let me suggest something to you. My friend Jason Walter used to be my co-pastor when we were in Vista, California. has more than once said something that is really helpful and really important. He says, if something's in the Bible, there's a reason that it's in the Bible. If something's there, there's a reason why it's there. We need to ask The question, what is the reason that Luke mentions the Epicureans and the Stoics? Now, hear me carefully. I'm not about to argue that we all ought to go out and buy all the books and learn about the Epicureans and Stoics. That's not my point at all. You can read through the book of Acts without any knowledge of the Epicureans and Stoics and not miss the primary message that Luke is making. So, I'm not going to argue that we need to become a school of philosophy teaching Epicureanism and Stoicism. But I will say this, if we believe that every word of the Bible is inspired and it is sufficient, when we read this language, we ought to pause and ask the question, what did the Epicureans believe? And what did the Stoics believe? And how does that affect what Paul has to say? You know, I think oftentimes when we read through a passage like this, we think of the Epicureans and the Stoics just sort of as color that Luke throws in. He gives us some information, some names about some of his audience. But I would argue our doctrine of inspiration tells us that there's something more that's going on, and we ought to take the time to learn something about the Epicureans and something about the Stoics, because doing so will give us even more insight into what it is that Paul says to them. Now remember what I said, we don't need to become a school of philosophy. That's not my point. And if you don't want to go home and get out a Bible encyclopedia and read the article on Epicureans and read the article on Stoics, that's perfectly fine. But you will be helped in your understanding of what goes on in Acts 17 if you take a little bit of time to do that. Now another thing that perhaps we need to say before we get to talk about these two schools, and that's why I said earlier on I'm not an expert in these things at all, One more thing that we need to say about these two schools is that oftentimes they're quite inconsistent with themselves. Now these were the two major philosophical schools during the era when the New Testament was being written, while the gospel is going out into the Gentile world. There were other schools, but these are the two most prominent ones, and they were at odds with each other. They did not agree. They had significant differences. The Stoics, the most important, the Epicureans have their place. But Luke is not just giving us their names so we can say, okay, that's an identity of somebody in the audience. He's giving us those words, and Theophilus would have understood this. You see, that's why I started out with Theophilus as a Greek. Being raised as a Greek, he would know something about Epicurean philosophy and Stoic philosophy. Right away, he has an advantage over us because we're not brought up with those things. Now, you've heard the word Stoic before, right? Sometimes we talk about a person's personality and we say, he's a Stoic. Well, what we mean today by stoic, meaning doesn't really show much emotion, just goes along evenly, that's not necessarily what stoicism in the apostolic era was. So don't think in those terms. We use, in fact on Jeopardy a couple of weeks ago, the answer to the question was epicure. Do you know that English word epicure? An epicure or a gourmand is a person who lives the high life. He wants the best food and the best drink and the best surroundings. That's an epicure. He wants to live in luxury. Of course, you have to be wealthy to do that, but that's a modern English word. Now that's related to Epicureanism. Again, it's not exactly the same. So we have to kind of do away with our modern categories when we come to think about first century Stoicism and Epicureanism. One more thing to notice here, look at verse 18. Greg Lanier really helped me on this one because it has confused me. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him and some said, what does this babbler wish to say? Now we're going to come back to that word babbler because it's important. Others said, he seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities. Here's what I always wondered about. It says divinities. It's clearly about divinities. And then Luke goes on and he says, because he was preaching Jesus and the resurrection. Now that's not divinities, is it? That's a divinity. But let me translate it just a little bit differently for you. I want to translate it I'm going to say a Greek word, but you're going to recognize it as I do so. Let me read it this way. Others said he seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities because he was preaching Jesus and Anastasia. That's the Greek word for resurrection. Now that's a female name. And typically in the mythology of the day, the powerful male god had a female consort. So it's likely that what they were hearing, not understanding, remember these men have no conception of the gospel of Jesus Christ at all. Paul's coming to them as a blank slate, in a sense, just what they know of Greek philosophy. And so they hear him say, Jesus et Anastasia, and they're thinking, that's the male God, Jesus, and Anastasia is the female God. Rather than what we read, we say Jesus and the resurrection. So that's probably what's going on here with this plural He's a preacher of foreign divinities, Jesus and Anastasia. Let's talk about the Epicureans just a little bit. Now remember, I said this is the most generalized overview of these two schools of Greek philosophy that you'll ever run into. Nothing special in my presentation about them. I've tried to express what they're all about. The first principle that I've laid out here among the Epicureans, this is a quotation, the goal of human life is the pursuit of pleasure. Now that's where the modern English word Epicure is related to this. Although the first century Epicureans were not looking to live my best life now. Their idea of the pursuit of pleasure was actually simple pleasure. It wasn't hedonistic pleasure. It was simple pleasure. That's what they were all about. So your best life now would be to learn how to live in pleasure. Put aside all of the things that you might want and have a simple life and enjoy the simple life that you live. That's their point. So when you see that, that's what is intended. They say, the body is untroubled by physical suffering and a mind free of mental anguish. That's the pursuit of pleasure. So you try to do away with physical suffering. They didn't have Tylenol. I don't know how they did it. try to do away with physical suffering, and a mind free of mental anguish. So you don't let exterior troubles into your mind. You find ways to set them aside so that they don't interrupt your pleasure. That's what the goal is. Thirdly, they believe that death is the cessation of life. So Epicureans denied any kind of afterlife. Right away, if you're thinking about what Paul is saying, you know that he's going after the Epicureans. And then, the gods pay no attention to human life. Humans need not fear them. And as a result, Epicureans tended to mock worship. Worship was mocked. Now, this is where they're very inconsistent, because they typically joined in with the kind of religious activities that were present in the culture, even though they mocked them. You'd say, well, that's inconsistent. Yeah, of course it is. But that's what they did. They followed along. And so whatever rituals happened to be, they would go along with them. Notice how Paul uses Epicurean categories as he speaks this little sermon. He may have said much more, but what Luke reports to us, we can see that Paul uses Epicurean categories. In verses 22 through 24, he presents themes that they would appreciate. The foolishness of folk religion. Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said, Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. That's an interesting term, you are very religious, because it's a form, it's a word that could be taken in two ways. It can mean very superstitious, or it can mean very devout. Lanier points out that at this point the Stoics would have been enjoying what Paul said because they were critical of the Epicurean view of religion. And they could say, yes, we agree with you. It's very superstitious how the Epicureans give themselves over to rituals that they deny have any value. It's superstitious. But he uses this. Then he goes on, God does not dwell in temples. That was a principle of Epicureanism. The gods have no interest in human affairs. So why do you set up temples and why do you involve yourselves in rituals to worship and follow them? The gods don't care about us. So you perform these rituals. It doesn't matter because the gods are not watching. They're not influenced. They're not moved by what you say and do. So you have that. And then I would argue that Paul speaks their language. In these cases, Paul is using terms that the Epicureans could have recognized. He brings them into his speech, and as he does so, in a sense, he's speaking their language, but immediately he turns it over against them. Notice how Paul rejects Epicurean categories. For example, verse 24, he speaks about creation. The gods of the Epicureans were created, they were not creators. They didn't have the power to create. Paul goes after them and asserts that the God he is proclaiming is the one who has created all things. Likewise, he argues for providence in verse 26. He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and boundaries of their dwelling place. The Epicureans rejected any form of divine care for the world. So when Paul says this, he's going, I think Lanier puts it this way, he goes for the jugular. He directly opposes the ideas of the Epicureans at this point. And then, I've already hinted at this in verses 30 and 31, he speaks about judgment. Now, for Paul, the fact that there is a God necessarily implies a kind of judgment, a God who is active in the world. Again, rejected by the Epicureans who didn't believe that there was anything that would take place after life. And so when Paul speaks about these things, he's rejecting Epicureanism. So already what we can see here, remember I've said this is the simplest overgeneralization, Paul is interacting with the Epicureans as he works his way through this speech. That's part of his audience. Now what about the Stoics? There's a lot more material about the Stoics and their relationship to the New Testament than there is the Epicureans. This is a case like we saw last week with the ancient Near Eastern material, where I think many go way too far in seeing Stoic influence in the New Testament. You can find some who find it virtually on every page, and I think that that's just going far beyond what the evidence will hold up. But we have a specific instance here in Acts 17. What do we know about the Stoics? Well, they had four cardinal virtues, that is, four essential points. I don't know, could we call them the four points of Stoicism? I don't know. But they had four points, four virtues. Self-control, justice, courage, and wisdom. These are the four things that Stoics were to learn, that they were to govern their lives. And we're going to see in a few minutes that Paul specifically addresses two of these in the sermon. So this is what the Stoics, these were their central pillars, their cardinal virtues. Now, some other things about them. They rejected and ridiculed folk religion. They spoke against temples for gods. But unlike the Epicureans, they believed in divine creation and they named Zeus as the creator. Now we have to be really careful with their idea of Zeus because Zeus was not a personal being. Zeus was a power that manifested itself in the universe. The technical term is panentheism. which means God is the universe and the universe is God. Anybody who's been a fan of Star Wars, the Force is a demonstration of panentheism. When Obi-Wan Kenobi in the first movie describes what the Force is to Luke Skywalker, it's panentheism. That's the Stoic view of Zeus. So they could speak of Zeus, they could worship Zeus, but in many ways Zeus is everything and everything is Zeus. But they did believe in this kind of creation. They also believed in providence. So they believed that Zeus was the one who guided and governed the world and kept it in place. They strongly believed in fate. So they had a view of The future that was determined by God. Let's put it that way. It's not predestination. It's not the sovereignty of God. Fate is a better word to describe it. But there's an analogy with our view of God's sovereignty and his decree and predestination. So similarities but differences. And also they urged overcoming what are called passions. Passions are all of the anger, the lust, any of those things that you would have in your life. Stoicism tried to teach you to overcome these things. When we talk about somebody as stoic, sort of an echo of what they meant at this point. But ancient Stoicism is much more. Now, you'll find if you do any searching on the internet about this, that there's actually a modern Stoicist movement, which is really interesting. And it very much reflects the ancient Stoicist movement. So if you hear words like mindfulness, right, you hear that when you're reading books, that's a Stoic term. The whole idea of that is to be in touch with everything that is around you. So Stoics would think in those terms. Here are some quotations from Stoics. Zeno, who was the founder of the Stoic movement, said this, God, or Zeus, is indestructible and ungenerated, being the designer of this orderly arrangement. Now that sounds a lot like our doctrine of God and Creator. But it isn't when you remember that they viewed that God is everything and everything is God. So it's a very different view. It makes the material universe eternal, is what it does. So that God, who can be personalized as Zeus, has lived for eternity. Then Seneca, another one of their leaders, God is near you, he is with you, he is in you. Now that can sound like sort of a Christian idea, can't it? Many of the early church fathers recognized that Stoicism and Christianity had much in common, especially when it comes to ethical systems. The Stoics were high in terms of ethics. And so someone, we don't know who, at some point created a dialogue, a series of letters, between the Apostle Paul and Seneca. Now we know that Paul didn't write them. These are not authentic letters, but still they're ancient. And the idea was, by whoever put these together, is that the Stoics and the Apostle Paul had so much in common that Paul and Seneca could correspond with each other and share what they had in common. Fascinating stuff. So this is what Seneca said, God is near you, he is with you, he is in you. And then of course, either the poet Aratus or Cleanthes, they lived at the same time. And there's some debate as to the source. Most come down on the side of Aratus rather than Cleanthes. But this is the word, we are his offspring. which is quoted by Paul in Acts 17.28. That is a stoic maxim. We are his offspring. You see, again, Paul is using the language of the audience to whom he's speaking. You could almost say he's reading the room. And he's so well-versed in Greek philosophy that he's able to address the Epicureans, and he's able to address the Stoics. So we have these things that we know about them, and some of them seem to be common with Judeo-Christian values. Notice how Paul uses Stoic philosophical categories. For example, in verse 22, he criticizes folk religion. Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. I think I already mentioned that this can have a double sense. It could mean very devout, which I suppose that word could be used of all of you who are here today. You're here because you are very devout. Or the same word could be used to speak about somebody at Halloween who has all of the fears that typically come up at that time of year. They're very superstitious. The same word can be used each way. And this is exactly how the Stoics would have used this language. They would have been opposed to or they would have mocked folk religion. Secondly, they rejected temples. verse 24b and 25, being Lord of heaven and earth does not live in temples made by man, nor is he served by human hands as though he needed anything. The Stoics could have stood there and said, Amen. Amen, we agree with this. And then also Paul gives an emphasis on creation, providence, and divine nearness in verse 24 and 26 and 27 and 28. In all of these ways he's using Stoic categories as he's speaking to these Stoics. He's employing their thought world. He's entering into it. Now that's a good method to use when speaking evangelistically, especially with those who don't have any background in Judeo-Christian thought. You find ways to enter into their thought world, use their categories, and show them that that's right, but you're wrong in other ways. In fact, that's what Paul also does Well, let me finish this. Notice how Paul uses Stoic philosophical categories. So we went through the cardinal Stoic virtues. He seeks to impart wisdom in verse 23. Take a look at that. As I passed along and observed the object of your worship, I found also an altar with this inscription to the unknown God. What therefore you worship as unknown, this I proclaim to you. So he is seeking to impart wisdom. He's using that familiar category. And then he speaks about ultimate justice in verse 31 when he speaks about the judgment that is to come. He has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed. And of this he has given assurance to all by raising him from the dead. See what Paul does here is he speaks the Stoic language. That's exactly what he does. Here's a slide. I think I put the book cover up on the screen last week. Here it is again. This is this book that I held in my hand earlier. Lanier helps us to see not only does Paul use Stoic categories positively, but he also critiques them. So he challenges their superstitions in verse 29. we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man." Now generally the Stoic didn't do that, but we're going to see in Acts chapter 14 some Stoics did, and Paul here is challenging that. So he challenges their superstitions. He challenges their views of creation and providence by speaking about judgment and the resurrection. They didn't have a category for the resurrection. He wasn't speaking about Jesus and Anastasia. He was speaking about Jesus and the resurrection. They misunderstood apparently at the beginning by saying he proclaims foreign divinities, but by the end he's trying to make it clear. He's not talking about a woman who's the female consort of Zeus or of Jesus. Rather he's speaking about the resurrection of the dead where bodies come back to life and return to life. So he challenges their views of creation and providence. Greg Lanier puts it this way, as he offered up Stoic philosophical commonplaces, he also wove in scriptural reasoning. Well, that's exactly what he did. Lanier has a footnote in which he labels all of the places from the Old Testament that support the language that Paul uses as he weaves back and forth between Epicurean, Stoic, and Judeo-Christian ideas that are based in Holy Scripture. So what we see here is Paul employing that which is good from the Greek philosophers while challenging that which is false among the Greek philosophers. Very interesting. Now I want you to notice verses 18 and 32. Let's take a look at these. 18 and 32. Some of the Epicurean and Stoic philosophers also conversed with him, and some said, what does this babbler wish to say? Others said he seems to be a preacher of foreign divinities. Let's skip down to 32. Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked, but others said, we will hear you again about this. Now, Luke twice gives us responses that these groups seem to give to him. And a fairly close exegesis of the text, which we can't do right now, would show us this is what the Epicureans and this is how the Stoics responded. So the Epicureans responded by saying, what does this babbler say? I should have said this earlier. I forgot. This word babbler is an important word. literally translated, it refers to a bird who travels through the woods and picks up seeds. Spermalogos is the word. And it was an insulting word and was directed at people who pretended that they knew something about their subject and wanted to impress you with what they knew about the subject, but they didn't really know anything. Somebody watching this might say, Renahan is a spermalogos at this point. Well, I've already admitted that I don't know much of it, so I think I've taken care of that. But if someone pretends that they know an important subject and they speak about it and they give you the impression that they're the expert, but they really know nothing, that would be a babbler. See, it's an insult. And so Paul heard the insult, but what did he do? In the speech that he presents in the Areopagus, he weaves into it the categories of the Stoics and the Epicureans and response to them. Lanier has a great statement. He says, Paul was no poser. He understood these things and was able to speak to them in their language, in their own categories, and show where they were right and show where they were wrong. So the Epicureans are the ones who responded by saying, what does this babbler say in verse 18? And some of them mocked in verse 32. But it was the Stoics who said, he is a preacher of foreign divinities. We've already explained that one. And we will hear you again about this. They're divided among themselves. The Epicureans reject him. The Stoics say, okay, there's something here. We'll listen to you again, because Paul is able to understand and to speak their language to them. I want to look at one more text. Turn to Acts 14. There are many other places in the New Testament we could turn to. Lanier spends a long time on 2 Peter 3. And he argues that 2 Peter 3 largely reflects Stoic values, important parts of Stoic theology or mythology, whichever it should be called, as Peter writes. But we just don't have time to get to that. Paul in Lystra, Acts 14, 8-18. Now at Lystra there was a man sitting who could not use his feet. He was crippled from birth and had never walked. He listened to Paul speaking, and Paul, looking intently at him and seeing that he had faith to be made well, said in a loud voice, Stand upright on your feet. And he sprang up and began walking. Did you ever notice how the miracles in the Bible are perfect? they give to the person who has been injured or born blind or something, perfect health afterwards. They're not the sort of marginal miracles that oftentimes some in our day talk about. They're perfect miracles. So he says this, the man sprang up. When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices, saying in Lyconian, Now, we don't know if Paul could speak the Lycanian dialect at this point. Luke knows what it was and he's able to translate it for us. They spoke in their local dialect, the gods have come down to us in the likeness of men. Barnabas they called Zeus and Paul Hermes because he was the chief speaker. And the priest of Zeus, whose temple was at the entrance to the city, brought oxen and garlands to the gates and wanted to offer sacrifice with the crowds. But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out into the crowd crying out." Now remember, this is another instance of interaction with Greek idolaters, Gentiles and their mythology and their religion. That's important to keep in mind. They cried out, men, why are you doing these things? We also are men of like nature with you. And we bring you good news that you should turn from these vain things to a living God who made the heaven and the earth and the sea and all that is in them. Are you maybe seeing some language that Paul is using here that he uses again in Acts 17? In past generations, he allowed all the nations to walk in their own ways. Yet he did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness. Even with these words, they scarcely retained the people from offering sacrifice to them." Let me summarize what we've read. Paul performs a miracle. The crowds think that Paul and Barnabas are gods, Zeus and Hermes. Zeus is always the great god. Whatever system it is, in the Greek system, it's Zeus. But this is folk religion. This is not Athens. This is out in the provinces, out in the countryside. So what we see here is not perhaps as pure as the Stoics were who spoke to Paul in Athens. mixture of religious practice among these people. The priest of Zeus tries to offer sacrifices, and Paul and Barnabas frantically seek to stop him. But what's going on? Paul and Barnabas speak. We are men of like passions with you. I went back to the King James Version translation because I think it's very helpful. If the Stoics have a doctrine about controlling your passions, they recognize that all people are subject to passions. And Paul uses this language that they would have understood to say, we can't be Zeus and Hermes because we're like you. And we need to learn to control our passions in the way that you would want to control your passions. This is an important text in the formulation of the doctrine of God. because here Paul is saying God doesn't have passions in the way that humans have passions. So where men of like passions turn from these vain things to the true God, in the past he allowed Gentiles to walk in their own ways, but he left a testimony of himself. Now there you can see this whole idea of providence that would have been familiar to Stoics along the way. I want to pause for just a moment and I want to Take a look at something out of this book. There it is on the screen. The Nature of the Gods by Cicero. I'm sure that this is the first time ever that The Nature of the Gods by Cicero has been used at Heritage Baptist Church. I don't doubt that. But I was reading one of the books that I have here on the table with me and he pointed me to something that I thought was really interesting. Now, Cleanthes was the second most important leader of the Stoics. Zeno was the founder. The next generation, or two generations later, Cleanthes took up the leadership. In this book, The Nature of the God Cicero, a Latin orator has a dialogue between three individuals, Epicurean, Stoic, and then a third school called the Academics. They're called that because they met in a place called the Academy, not because they were particularly academic. We're not going to pay any attention to them. They're not important for us. But what's really interesting is the four reasons for humans why impressions of the gods are imprinted on human minds. And this all has to do with Acts 14. First thing he says that Cleanthes points to is foreknowledge of forthcoming events. Now what he means by this is they were very superstitious and they had a belief that Soothsayers and fortune tellers could look forward to certain events. They could tell you, if you were a general, whether or not you'd be triumphant in battle as you went out. And they believed in this stuff, so they believed that these soothsayers could only know these things if there was a God who gave that revelation to them. In a sense, it's like the prophets of the Old Testament, only in the way that the prophets of the Old Testament themselves received revelation from God to know what was coming. like that, but unlike it. The second reason why humans can know why there are gods. The abundant blessings derived from our temperate climate, the fertility of our lands, and a host of other advantages. Mediterranean climate. Everybody wants to live in a Mediterranean climate, so move to San Diego or move to the Mediterranean. Thirdly, the terror arising from natural disasters. These give evidence of the acts of the gods. An earthquake. Middle East and Turkey, what's now Turkey, is an earthquake-prone zone. And so when these kinds of disasters would come, thunder and lightning storms and all the rest, this was proof that there are gods. And then fourthly, the movement and beauty of the sun, moon, and stars, sufficient proof that they are not the outcome of chance. And you know, in ancient philosophy, much of it was natural philosophy that dealt with things like the movement of the earth and that which is around us. Now, those are the four reasons. Now, look at this. Paul in Lystra, remember who he's talking to? He's talking to pagans. He's talking to a priest and a bunch of people who want to sacrifice to him. Notice what he says, verse 17, speaking about the one true God. He did not leave himself without witness, for he did good by giving you rains from heaven and fruitful seasons, satisfying your hearts with food and gladness. That's one of Paul's arguments why they should not offer up sacrifices to he and to Barnabas, but they're simply the representatives of the one true God. Now remember what the second of Cleanthes' four principles were, his second proof. From the abundant blessings derived from our temperate climate, the fertility of our lands, and a host of other advantages. When Paul says what he does in verse 17, again, he's drawing on a Stoic principle. The Stoics believed that the blessings that they had around them in that temperate Mediterranean climate were a result of the blessings of Zeus and the gods. And so Paul uses their language as he speaks to them in this point. Now, that's not obvious in the text. but it begins to shine forth. And I owe that reference to David Haynes in his book, Natural Theology. He points this out, and he's the one who pointed me to Cicero. So I bought Cicero and read Cicero. I always want to check on my sources, and there it was. That's the quotation from this translation, The Nature of the Gods. What may we conclude? Well, we must say this. Paul in no way approves of Stoicism or Epicureanism. In no way does he approve of these philosophical systems. But Paul approvingly uses common ideas. He's not afraid to pull in that which is held in common as part of the presentation that he makes to them. He rejects the false ideas while he approves the common ideas. This may be controversial. We may follow this method while employing our norming norm. Remember what the norming norm is? It's scripture. I would argue that we can follow this method so long as the scriptures are always primary. They are the standardizing standard by which we evaluate that which we read from other authors. Someone would object, but we're not apostles. My answer is, that's right, we're not. We should never claim to be apostles. But if we don't use an apostolic method, what method should we use? I don't want to suggest a human method. I want to say, if the apostles use this method, then we can do so. Remember what I said before, Paul in the speech in Athens weaves together scripture with his use of the philosophical ideas of the Stoics and the Epicureans. He's not afraid of truth as truth when spoken by Zeno or Cleanthes or Aratus. In fact, one of your own poets has said, we are his offspring. He's not afraid of that. But at the same time, he weaves in the truth of scripture. And we ought to be willing to do that. So I don't think that that's a very powerful objection, because it doesn't give an alternative. Well, what's the alternative then? If God has given to us a standard by which we can judge, let's use that standard and benefit from the writings of different individuals. What about Augustine or Aquinas? Somebody sent me a screenshot of a text or a Facebook post or something that really troubled me where a man said, Augustine and Aquinas are Roman Catholics. We should not use them. There's a little bit more to it than that. But I was really troubled by that because everybody uses Augustine. Augustine is regarded across Protestant and Catholic as a church father to be revered. Not always agreed with, but to be revered. Aquinas, maybe he's a little bit more difficult. But let's answer this question. I'll do my best, all right? Now, this is what I want to argue. During the life of Luther, So we're talking up until the mid-1550s. You could say the Reformation begins at 1517. I think it's actually a little bit later than that. But during the life of Luther, several leading cardinals and bishops expressed agreement with or sympathy towards the views of Luther and the Reformers. I'll give you the conclusion here. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't really come into being until the Council of Trent in the mid-1550s. To say anyone before that is a Roman Catholic is to say something misleading because it simply isn't true. It's not accurate. Remember that Luther developed his ideas over time. Have any of you ever read the 99 Theses of Martin Luther? If you have, you'll notice something interesting. He's not arguing against the use of indulgences. He's arguing against the abuse of indulgences. He still has room in his theology for the use of indulgences for the forgiveness of sins. He's concerned with Tetzel selling them to build St. Peter's, the Vatican in Rome, and impoverishing German peasants. That's why I say October 31, 1517 isn't really the beginning of the Reformation because Luther still is holding on to certain Catholic doctrines in terms of salvation. We need to be more nuanced than that. Now let's talk about some sympathetic Catholics, and I'm using that on purpose. It doesn't say Roman Catholics. It says Catholics. Sympathetic Catholics between 1520 and 1549. On justification, Cardinal Gesparro Contarini writes about sola fide, faith alone. Cardinal Reginald Pohl, very important in the English Reformation, writes about sola fide. Cardinal Marino Grimani, he writes sola fide gratia Christi, by faith alone through the grace of Christ. That's surprising, isn't it? But this is during Luther's lifetime, you have these statements. And on Sola Scriptura, Cardinal Girolamo Serrapando writes a treatise, a commentary actually, in which he argues for our understanding of Sola Scriptura. Is that surprising? Now, why do I put these before you? It's to say we have to be really careful about who we call a Roman Catholic and how we use that term. In April of 1541, there was a colloquy. That's sort of a formal discussion that was held by two sides. It was called by the emperor. And so you had Protestants and you had Catholics who were invited to come. Notice the date, 1541. Among the Protestants, Philip Melanchthon, you know his name, he was Luther's sidekick, Luther's theologian. Martin Bucer, the reformer of Strasbourg, who ended up being called over to England and taught at Cambridge University. John Calvin, Calvin was not an active participant, but he was called to be a witness. He sat through the proceedings. For the Catholics, Johannes Eck, who debated Luther more than once, Johann Groper, and then Gaspar Contarini. He's one of the names we just mentioned, one of the cardinals. So the idea that the emperor had in having this colloquy was that they might find common ground because it was thought that there was common ground and perhaps the separation in the church could be healed. Now listen to Calvin's comment. This is a letter that Calvin wrote after the Regensburg colloquy and its statement on justification. That's one of the statements that was made by this. What does Calvin say? This is astounding. You will be astonished, as I am, I am sure that our opponents have yielded so much. Our friends have thus retained also the substance of the true doctrine, so that nothing can be comprehended within it which is not to be found in our writings. If you consider with what kind of men we have to agree upon this doctrine, you will acknowledge that much has been accomplished. So in 1541, John Calvin himself is arguing that a reconciliation can take place because there's so much in common. These people are not yet Roman Catholics that waits for an event ten years later, and that event is the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent is the high point of the Counter-Reformation on the part of the Pope. This is Reginald Pold's letter to the Council of Trent written in January 1546. Another astounding statement. Now Reginald Pold later became the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury under Bloody Mary. But this is what he says, "'We who have the office of fathers must act in everything by faith and hope and place our trust in the power of Christ, whom God the Father calls his right hand, and in the wisdom of Christ, who is the wisdom of the Father, whose ministers in all things we acknowledge ourselves to be.'" So he's saying we're the ministers of Christ. He goes on to talk about how they should act. "'Therefore, what in his great love of God the Father and in his mercifulness toward our race, Christ did, justice itself now enacts of us that we should do. Before the tribunal of God's mercy, we the shepherds should make ourselves responsible for all the evils now burdening the flock of Christ. The sins of all we should take upon ourselves, not in generosity but in justice, because the truth is that of these evils we are in the great part the cause, and therefore we should implore the divine mercy through Jesus Christ. Wow. Again, that's the beginning of the Council of Trent. Paul's hope was that the Council of Trent would be able to find reconciliation with the Protestants. He became so discouraged that he soon left the Council of Trent and was no longer a participant in it. And so the Council of Trent went on to become the ultimate Roman Catholic council. It made decisions such as this, the church is the final interpreter of scripture. It's a rejection of sola scriptura. Luther and the Regensburg doctrine of justification were rejected. So Luther and the way he put justification together, but also the Regensburg, that's the one we just read about that Calvin was present. They reject that as well. Indulgences and mass-oriented devotions were to be approved. So God would receive us into his presence on the basis of indulgences and what we do at the mass. And it was then that the Roman Catholic Church was born. And it concludes with a series of what are called anathemas. Now you know the word anathema from the New Testament. It's the strongest possible curse. Anathemas were to be pronounced on anyone who disagreed with the findings of the Council of Trent. What about Augustine and Aquinas and others? Pre-Tridentine or Trent theologians, pre-Trent, should not be viewed in the same way as post-Tridentine Roman Catholics. Were they correct in some ways? Yes, they were. Did they make some theological mistakes? Yes, they did. But how shall we evaluate their views? There's a simple two-word answer, sola scriptura. And so, when they agree, when we're able to look at what they write about the Word of God, we can agree with them and we can accept them. I was reminded this morning as we were observing the Lord's Supper, there's eight words in the New Testament that maybe are the most difficult words that we encounter. This is my body. This is my blood. Several different views. There are those who take those words literally, and that's Rome, but it's also Luther and Lutheranism. They take those words literally. So when Thomas Aquinas argues for transubstantiation, which he does, he's using philosophical terms to convince us that the bread and the wine, while they're still the bread and the wine, are actually the body and blood of Christ. And we reject that altogether. But we reject that from the Lutherans as well. You remember the story of Luther and Zwingli? This is my body. This is my blood. And Luther would not give that up because he was a literalist. Well, we're not literalists. We don't believe that what we partook of this morning was anything different than a little piece of bread and a quick sip of wine. That's all that they were. But they cause us to lift our hearts up to Christ who comes and meets us in our observance of that ordinance. You can find, it's fairly simple to find in someone like Aquinas, clear statements of justification by faith alone. Very clear statements, just like we can find them in Cardinal Gasparini. And we ought to rejoice at what we see in those things, but at the same time we reject them. And when we look at Martin Luther, and we see in Luther great statements about justification, we rejoice with them. Lynn and I have been to a Lutheran church once or twice, and it's their gospel preaching. They're believers like us. And yet when it comes to observance of the supper, when they believe that it literally is the body and blood of Christ, they do so in a different way than Rome. We say, no, no, no, no, no, we disagree. See, we have to be really careful not to make blanket statements about someone. And if we make those blanket statements, When you say Augustine and Aquinas are Roman Catholics and we should have nothing to do with them, I want to raise my hand in protest and say, no, they're not. Because they lived long before the Council of Trent placed an anathema on all of us who disagree. Do we agree with everything that they wrote? No. Can we profit from what they wrote? Absolutely. And we need to profit from what they wrote. We need to think about their thought world and their categories and what they're teaching us and helping us. So that's what I want to argue for here. All right. What about texts such as Colossians 2.8? See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ. Well, what do we say? Let Matthew Henry answer that for us. There is a philosophy which is a noble exercise of our reasonable faculties and highly serviceable to religion, such a study of the works of God as leads us to the knowledge of God and confirms our faith in him." So he's interpreting this to say this is not a rejection of philosophy altogether, but a vain human philosophy. How many of you noticed when our brother was preaching from 1 Corinthians 9 that Paul uses logic and reason in the points that he makes? Don't muzzle the ox while he treads out the grain. Now you read that and you say, okay, that's about agriculture, but that's not the point Paul is making, isn't he? It doesn't say anything about that in Deuteronomy, but what it's about is the fact that we are to support our pastors. We have to deduce that from that text of scripture. In fact, if you read the scriptures closely, you'll notice that this happens over and over again. It's the same thing that Jesus does in his debate with the Sadducees in Matthew 22. He sends them to Exodus chapter three, Have you not read in the scripture where it says, I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob? He's not the God of the dead, but of the living. Now, the text in Exodus 3 doesn't say anything about resurrection, but Jesus draws that point out of it. That's what it's all about. I'm sorry that I have rushed so quickly through these four weeks. Thank you for giving me the extra time. We needed it all. We still probably need more. I hope that this is helpful to you.