Reading: Sphere Sovereignty, Perfections, & the Creation of Matter

Today we resume our discussion of Plato. We've come now to his last dialogue, the "Laws", in which he retracts some of the more draconian measures he recommended in the "Republic". He now wishes for the city-state to be ruled by law rather than by philosopher-kings. There will still be those who interpret, apply, and administer the law. They will hold significant power in the state. However, for Plato, this differs from having a philosopher-king or a group of philosopher-kings as part of the Guardian class, dictating actions for every citizen.

Plato presents this in a way that is both charming and persuasive. However, his view of the state remains totalitarian. To illustrate, imagine a crown representing those who rule or administer the law. Plato envisions the state as a political institution encompassing all, from individuals to families, businesses, schools, and institutions of worship, art, and charity. Hence, the laws of the state impact every facet of life. This omnipresence is what I previously referred to as 'totalitarian'.

Personally, as a Christian, I find this view objectionable. My beliefs align with the notion that the state shouldn't be all-encompassing. Scriptures hint at distinct authorities in human life. For instance, parents are seen as the authority within a family. Similarly, business owners have authority in their businesses, and officials hold sway in the state. Abraham Kuyper's term "sphere sovereignty" captures this concept beautifully. It implies that various aspects of life have distinct and separate authorities, preventing a hierarchical structure.

Considering an individual at the center, they have multifaceted interests ranging from health, education, and earning a living, to justice, art, and charity. These interests birth institutions that respect different forms of authority. For instance, while parents set a child's bedtime, the state doesn't. Similarly, religious institutions determine their membership criteria, not the state.

Comparing Plato's view with Kuyper's, we see stark differences. Plato's state regulates every institution in society, whereas Kuyper's view limits the state to public justice matters.

Additionally, in "Laws", Plato revisits his theory of the forms or perfections. An enlightening segment features an "Athenian stranger" engaging in a philosophical dialogue. Their discourse explores the nature of change, leading to the conclusion that the "soul" is the first principle of the world, not birthed from matter but the cause of physical bodies.

But this raises questions: Why does the soul produce both good and evil? Is there a divine entity that cares about humans? Through further discourse, the Athenian stranger posits that two souls must exist - one as the source of good and the other of evil. This perspective connects the world's order with an entity possessing every perfection, indicating divine care for every aspect of the world.

While Augustine once aligned this view with the God of Scriptures, a thorough examination reveals key differences between the biblical God and Plato's first form. The biblical God creates everything "ex nihilo" or out of nothing, encompassing space, time, matter, energy, and all governing laws. Plato's world soul, on the other hand, only forms matter which preexists in space.

Thus, while Plato's world soul brings order to pre-existing chaos, the biblical God initiates creation itself. The distinction between these views is paramount for understanding their implications for society and the nature of divinity.

The very first thing that Genesis reveals is God redeeming humans from death. God created them mortal; it says "the dust of the ground," which signifies human mortality. But He breathed into them His own Spirit, God's own spirit, and gave them the gift of everlasting life. In this act, we see redemption on God's part.

All the rest of the scripture is concerned with the history of redemption, of God trying to redeem his fallen and lost creation, human beings. Until finally, He comes incarnate Himself into His own world and redeems that world, the whole human race. Plato's idea of the world soul is something that people believe works for good. But it's opposed. Opposed by what? The evil world. So there must be two of them, representing good and evil. These forces didn't originate from the Good God. Christianity doesn't claim that. It says there is one Creator. This creator has ordered the creation, made human beings for fellowship with Him, and put forth a plan of redemption to bring them to Himself.

The existence of evil in the world remains a mystery. Evil emanates from fallen human hearts that do not submit to God's will, from malevolent intentions. But nature also has its calamities—earthquakes, fires, floods—events humans don't cause but still lead to immense suffering. We aren't provided an explanation for why God shaped the world in this manner. We are merely told that He did and that He remains in control. There isn't an evil world soul counteracting Him, so there's no eternal stalemate between good and evil. In the Christian worldview, this conflict resolves with the return of Jesus Christ. The end entails a resurrection to eternal life and the establishment of God's everlasting kingdom. Plato lacked any such conception.

Sticking to the idea of God, Augustine posits them as equivalent. He viewed God as the primary form, unmatched in comparison and the first principle of all created things. But this isn't entirely accurate. Plato argued that God didn't conjure matter in space and that the world, as created by God from existing matter, was inherently imperfect. In contrast, the biblical view asserts that with Christ's return and the inauguration of His eternal kingdom, creation will align perfectly with God's will, forming the best of all possible worlds. This divergence is vital.

For instance, praying to the world soul in Plato's philosophy seems futile. According to Plato, the world soul strives to best the evil world soul but will never entirely succeed. The differences between the two perspectives are profound. Another distinction in Plato's philosophy is that the world soul epitomizes rationality. This soul, bound by laws of logic and mathematics, possesses no emotions and is strictly rational. Plato discerns a significant divide between what is rational and what the senses perceive. This physical world is a stark contrast to the rational realm. The biblical view, however, proclaims that God created everything, whether visible or invisible.

This includes even the laws of logic and mathematics. These laws guide our reasoning and proofs. God originated everything aside from Himself, and comprehending His essence surpasses our cognitive capacities. The comparison between these two philosophical standpoints is striking. Augustine, arguably, did theology a disservice by equating the God of the scriptures with Plato's world soul. This amalgamation shifted the trajectory of philosophy and the philosophy of religion.

Post-Augustine, debates on the existence of God and the attempts to prove His existence predominantly centered around proving the existence of a perfect mind. Rarely did they focus on proving a Creator distinct from His creation or a Redeemer, as depicted in scriptures. They didn't aim to confirm the triune God revealed in Scripture or His incarnation as Jesus Christ. Instead, the debate boiled down to whether a being with utmost perfection existed. Some theologians, like St. Basil of Caesarea, disagreed with Augustine's tradition. St. Basil stated that if perfections exist, God must have created them, as they fall within the scope of visible and invisible realities God created. Taking such views seriously indicates that many proofs of God's existence miss the mark.

I want to emphasize a point I've made previously. If God is the creator of all laws, then it's an error on our part to try and subject Him to these laws. By attempting to construct a proof of God's existence, we inadvertently place Him within the confines of these laws. If God authored these laws, they shouldn't bind Him. Consequently, any being we can prove with these laws might not truly be God or the origin of these laws of proof. From a strictly biblical perspective, it's misguided to seek proof of God's existence. We know God not because He is the conclusion of a logical proof but because we encounter Him in our personal experiences.

The most common religious experience shared by believers is the profound realization, upon reading the Gospel, that it conveys the self-evident truth about God. Numerous other religious experiences have been recorded throughout the ages, but this recognition of the Word of God remains universal. I previously shared a quote from Calvin on this: "Scripture bears on its face such evidence of its truth, as white and black do of their color, and sweet and bitter of their taste."

Augustine's identification of the God of Scripture with Plato's ideal God from his later dialogues - a being possessing every perfection - arguably led theology astray. The Eastern Church never subscribed to this idea and hence didn't need reform. However, by the 16th century, the Reformation saw theologians like Luther and Calvin recognizing these Hellenistic influences on theology – Hellenism being the term for the adoption of Greek philosophical ideas. These theologians challenged the prevalent blending of Platonic thought with biblical theology.

Plato's influence persists, especially in two domains: mathematics and Christian theology. Many contemporary religious texts implicitly adopt Plato's notion of God as the epitome of perfection.

However, suggesting God possesses only perfections is too simplistic. What does it mean to say God is infinitely good, just, or loving? One unresolved question is: why must there be a maximal degree of any attribute? Why can't attributes, like the number series, simply continue indefinitely? St. Anselm raised this concern himself, but his dismissive reply didn't adequately address it.

Further, if we claim God embodies only perfections, what becomes of His relationship with imperfect beings like us? Such a relationship isn't a "perfection." The Bible is replete with instances of God engaging with humans, rebuking them, praising them, forgiving them, and more. These relationships change, illustrating that God isn't static. The New Testament recounts how Jesus bore the sins of the world, and how this affected His relationship with God the Father.

Theological arguments that God is subjected to the laws of creation diminish Him to the status of a mere creature. Such a stance is arguably unbiblical. God's interactions with His creation, including the consequences of our free-will decisions, highlight His dynamic nature.

In conclusion, we've extensively discussed Plato and his influence on theology. While I've reiterated many points, I hope they've been made clear. Later, we'll revisit these topics and explore an alternative view of God, as endorsed by the Cappadocian Fathers, St. Gregory Palamas, Luther, Calvin, and the 20th-century Swiss theologian Karl Barth. This view is rooted in the Bible and isn't influenced by Platonic thought. As we wrap up our discussion on Plato, I encourage you to prepare for our exploration of Aristotle, Plato's most renowned student.