Is philosophical theism a step on the way to Biblical theism?

If the starting point is atheism, yes.

If the starting point is Christian theism, no.

"Is this a step to belief in the God of the Bible, or is the God of the Philosophers a completely different entity, a false god?"

I think Paul adequately answers that in two passages in the Bible. You can only go so far with supposed philosophical arguments as they believe in a false god or gods or a pantheistic view of god.

I Cor 2:1-5 And I, when I came to you, brothers,a did not come proclaiming to you the testimonyb of God with lofty speech or wisdom. 2For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. 3And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, 4and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, 5so that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of menc but in the power of God.

I Cor 1:17-25 For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

18For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise & the discernment of the discerning I will thwart.”

20Where is the one who is wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preachb to save those who believe.

22For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, 23but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Then in Acts 17 Paul takes on all the philosophers of his day on Mars Hill at the Areopagus.

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. 17So 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. 18Some 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. 19And they took him and brought him to the Areopagus, saying, “May we know what this new teaching is that you are presenting?

20For you bring some strange things to our ears. We wish to know therefore what these things mean.” 21Now all the Athenians and the foreigners who lived there would spend their time in nothing except telling or hearing something new.


22So Paul, standing in the midst of the Areopagus, said: “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious. 23For 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. 24The God who made the world and everything in it, being Lord of heaven and earth, does not live in temples made by man,c 25nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything, since he himself gives to all mankind life and breath and everything. 26And 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, 27that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us, 28for

“‘In him we live and move and have our being’;d

as even some of your own poets have said,

“‘For we are indeed his offspring.’e

29Being 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. 30The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all people everywhere to repent, 31because 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.”

32Now when they heard of the resurrection of the dead, some mocked. But others said, “We will hear you again about this.” 33So Paul went out from their midst. 34But some men joined him and believed, among whom also were Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris and others with them.

dms1972 said:

By 'philosophical theism' I mean belief in a First Cause, or Prime Mover - the God of the Philosophers. Is this a step to belief in the God of the Bible, or is the God of the Philosophers a completely different entity, a false god? I am not very well up on Aristotle, so I can't say quite how he conceived of God. Pascal after his conversion expressly drew a distinction between the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob and the god of the philosophers. It was the latter and not the former that was the object of his faith.

For CS Lewis it was one step from an Hegelian idea of Absolute Spirit to belief in God simply. He wrote in Surprised by Joy.

"Perhaps, even now, my Absolute Spirit still differed in some way from the God of religion. The real issue was not, or not yet, there. The real terror was that if you seriously believed in even such a 'God' or 'Spirit' as I admitted, a wholly new situation developed. As the dry bones shook and came together in that dreadful valley of Ezekiel's, so now a philosophical theorem, cerebrally entertained, began to stir and heave and throw off its graveclothes, and stood upright and became a living presence. I was to be allowed to play at philosophy no longer. It might, as I say, still be true that my 'Spirit' differed in some way from 'the God of popular religion'. My Adversary waived the point. It sank into utter unimportance. He would not argue about it. He only said, 'I am the Lord'; 'I am that I am'; "I am."

Click to expand...

The Orthodox Church acknowledges, if not the god of, at least the religion of the philosophers as a form of "proto-christianity". While the philosophers had an imperfect knowledge of God, their ideas of God were not necessarily wrong for their time.

So the answer to your question I suppose is yes. An awareness of God, first cause, etc., can be a first step toward acknowledging God.

HTacianas said:

An awareness of God, first cause, etc., can be a first step toward acknowledging God.

Click to expand...

I suppose it can, but causing and control and knowing and being powerful can be things of egotistical interest.

And God is personal.

dms1972 said:

How does modern atheism - the idea that the universe came into existence without a cause - come about?

Click to expand...

Well, if everything started with the big bang and then DNA evolved in various organisms until mankind developed > then the ability to believe in atheism is based in how DNA has made humans able to have thoughts about abstract things. And DNA, also, then, has produced ones capable of experiencing God and writing and believing the Bible. These would be very high-level abilities for inanimate atoms and molecules to interact to produce. After all, atheists do not believe in the existence of other than material stuff. So, I would say they must think atoms and molecules produced us humans with our atheism and Christianity, so different . . . from the same materials which act according to set scientific principles. We are supposed to be the result of the same scientific principles of matter functioning; yet, atheists can be so upset about Christianity while Christians can be not particularly pleased with the agendas of atheists. If all is only material, then material at a higher level of complexity develops consciousness and willingness to fight with itself! But rocks right next to each other just be still.

dms1972 said:

Epicurus for instance never denied the gods existed, he said they were inactive, they didn't interfere in the affairs of men, even so they were paragons of moral virtue and to be admired and emulated.

Click to expand...

Well, God is personal with people, not distant and uninvolved; so such gods would not really necessarily be a stepping stone, in idea, to there being God our Heavenly Father. And Jesus is so not conceited, that Jesus left Heaven itself in order to come to us and share with us and rescue us from our sins. So, such gods might really be a way of keeping things from going on to Christianity.

However, the idea that they should be emulated can feed into the Biblical encouragements to follow God's example. But we do not do this on our own, by our own process of choosing and self discipline. But God in us works in our nature so we more and more share with Him in how He is and loves > 1 John 4:17, Ephesians 4:31-5:2.

So, those gods might be considered to be not personal, and only emulated in theory. But God in us can have us experiencing how He is and loves.

dms1972 said:

How has the modern anti-supernatural view come about?

Click to expand...

One of my theories is that certain people want things a certain way, and so they decide that certain beliefs and ideas must be true, since they support what those people want, and/or how they are and live. Therefore, if their agenda does not match with supernatural ideas, they will reject those ideas.

But, also, I think, it is possible for someone to just take an intellectual journey of "logic", to conclude non-supernatural things. And ones can be doing both agenda motivated and intellectual developing of what they decide to claim is true.

God is also God of the philosophers. Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas don't have some kind of monopoly over other philosophers that try to know God. God uses whatever we are to lead us more and more to himself.

philosophy is as dead as God who is wisdom is - not dead at all. it's still going on because it is a profoundly human thing and Jesus is more human than most.

com7fy8 said:

I suppose it can, but causing and control and knowing and being powerful can be things of egotistical interest.

And God is personal.

Click to expand...

yes, love in some ways is a very weak thing to the world.

com7fy8 said:

One of my theories is that certain people want things a certain way, and so they decide that certain beliefs and ideas must be true, since they support what those people want, and/or how they are and live. Therefore, if their agenda does not match with supernatural ideas, they will reject those ideas.

But, also, I think, it is possible for someone to just take an intellectual journey of "logic", to conclude non-supernatural things. And ones can be doing both agenda motivated and intellectual developing of what they decide to claim is true.

Click to expand...

it's easy to believe in the material world because it forces us to believe it. science is a very passive form of understanding.

even when Jesus came to the world he did not come as the king of rome but rather as a poor guy in some tiny unimportant and conquered country. God seems to try to not compel us and being free from God has certain kinds of advantages for the development of some types of souls, at least for a time.

dms1972 said:

What about Panentheism: God is in all, and all is in God, but God is not the same as the universe (which would be pantheism or paneverythingism). How does Pantheism differ from Biblical theism? Some theologians such as Jurgan Moltmann seem to lean toward Panentheism in their theology. I think its somewhat unbiblical but not as far from Biblical Theism as pantheism.

Do Panentheists believe in creation out of nothing (ex-nilhilo)? Do they see God and the universe while being distinct, yet somehow dependent on each other or developing together?

Click to expand...

panentheism is very close to Christianity, especially in the most profound parts of Christianity. pantheism says that only God exist which is further away from the Christian revelation because even the Son of God is not just God, he is fully human too.

it seems obvious to me that there is a part of God that becomes which is one reason why God can be so personal with us as he can react and learn and grow with us. we are born in him and he is born in us. the very notion that each person is unique only gives glory to God and his kingdom.

if we are not in God then how do we exist? the other option is either that we are God or that there is another that is equal to God and that stands outside of God.

the development of God is just the reverse side of our own development. creation out of nothing is creation out of Gods own self or out of his love or his divine power or creative energy. it does not take away from God that he develops. it reveals the Holy Spirit who is our helper and it shows that God is overflowing with himself and is so rich that he even has his others, who are us.