It is said that the humanistic philosopher Protagoras summed up the Grecian philosophy when he said, “man is the measure of all things.” Protagoras lived in the 400's B.C. and it was his idea of a humanistically centered philosophy that really controlled Greek thinking from then on. It should be noted, however, that humanism was no new idea. Though it might not have been so clearly stated up to that point, humanism began in the Garden of Eden when man tried to become like God by partaking of the forbidden fruit. The events that led to the Great Flood, were brought about because man's “every imagination . . . was only evil continually” (Gen. 6:5). During the time of the judges “there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes” (Jgs. 17:6). The list of man's placing himself and his own desires above God's commandments of righteousness is virtually endless. That being true, Protagoras did not come up with anything new; he was just the one who is known for stating it so succinctly.
Socrates, though younger than Protagoras, was on of his contemporaries and seems to have been strongly affected by his philosophical ideas. During the days of Socrates, Sophism was the dominating philosophical idea. The sophists believed that since there were no real gods to punish men, men should live however they felt they should live. In essence, it was the first introduction of outright relativism. When men abandon the one true God, they abandon the only source of absolute truth. From that point, morals become totally relative to each person. When Socrates began his own quest to deal with the issue of morals, he was extremely dissatisfied with the sophist conclusion. For that reason, Socrates set out to answer the question, “what is the best way to live?” Basically, Socrates was on a quest for absolutes. Sadly, however, Socrates concluded that there was no God or gods. Because of his denial of the deities, Socrates was sentenced to death by the Athenian government. By his life of study and final conclusion, Socrates proved that when one does not reason from an immutable God, there can be no foundation upon which to build a system of absolutes. If the human being does not reason from the belief in God, he will end in a denial of God.
In Acts 17:18, we see one of the most vivid clashes of humanism and Christianity as Paul went toe to toe with the most respected philosophers of the day. The verse tells us that Paul was confronted by Epicureans and Stoics. The Epicureans were basically hedonists because they believed that there was no creator god and the gods that did exist were totally disconnected from the lives of human beings. As a result, they believed that life was to be governed by pleasure and though their intentions were for properly regulated, governed pleasure it turned into total hedonism as the philosophy was practiced by the younger generations. Stoicism on the other hand adhered to the belief in God but that all things, including God, were bound by fate. They viewed happiness as being achieved only by one's insensibility to pain. Though their ultimate view of the future state differed greatly, they were basically pantheists and believed that they would eventually be absorbed into god.
When Paul went before those philosophers he was mocked by both because he was seemingly ignorant to both. To the Epicureans he was naïve to believe that there was such a creator God as he detailed in the following verses. To the Stoics Paul was foolish to believe that God was personal rather than being in part of all creation. It was for that reason that they called Paul a “babbler,” which literally meant “seed picker.” In essence, the philosophers were accusing Paul of being an ignorant fool who was making a sad attempt at gleaning truth from their great wisdom or worse yet distorting the Grecian gods. Instead of allowing himself to be challenged to a philosophical debate, Paul simply declared the truth of God and made appeal to their innate knowledge of God.
The fact that the philosophers had an inborn knowledge of God brings us to Romans chapter 1. In Romans 1, Paul clearly shows that man has an ingrained knowledge of God simply from seeing the creation around him (vs. 18-20). There can be no clearer statement that men are accountable to God simply by the declaration of His magnificent creation. It was that truth that Paul leveraged in Acts 17 as he pointed out their own ignorant worship of the “UNKOWN GOD.” They knew there was a God but they would only worship Him in their own ignorance. As the Athenian philosophers “knew God” and “glorified him not as God” they became “vain in their imaginations . . . professing themselves wise, they became fools” (Rom. 1:21, 22) In the darkness of the Greek philosophy, there was a hint of truth but instead of seeking out that truth they became immersed in their vain imaginations.
It is those Greek philosophies that have rippled through history manifesting themselves in every aspect of culture even to the present. In recent years especially, there has been a resurgence in the blatant denial of absolutes. Men are seeking for a God but they do not want the God of the Bible because He demands accountability; He demands obedience; He demands a life of righteousness. Instead of embracing the one true and righteous God, they embrace the God of their “imaginations . . . professing themselves to be wise, they became [or are becoming] fools” (Rom. 1:22). This just illustrates the truth of Ecclesiastes 1:9 which tells us that “there is no new thing under the sun.”
For the believer, this should make us stop and think about what our driving principle really is. It is so easy to allow a man-centered thought process to taint our thinking. We must always reason from God to man, not the other way around. The entire purpose of history, creation, and mankind has been to give glory to God.
To GOD ALONE "be Glory forever. Amen" (Rom. 11:36).
