FOUR VIEWS ON CHRISTIANITY AND PHILOSOPHY by Paul Gould and Richard Brian Davis, general editors

In a relatively new addition to the helpful and enlightening “Counterpoints” book series, this volume looks at the relationship between Christianity and philosophy, attempting to answer the main questions of “How are they Different or the Same”? and “Can One Discipline Inform or Enhance the Other Discipline”? Four viewpoints are provided by the contributors: “Philosophy Trumps Christianity” (Christianity has nothing in common or anything valuable to offer to Philosophy); “Christianity Trumps Philosophy” (Materialistic Philosophy has nothing in common or anything valuable to offer to Christianity); “Philosophy Confirms Christianity” (Philosophical methods help inform and verify the findings of orthodox Christianity); and “Philosophy Reconceived Under Christianity” (The Truths of Christian Theology and Worldview forces a reconsideration of the practice and methodology of Philosophy).
Following the very useful methodology of the other books in this series, each participant presents an essay on their opinion of the questions presented by the editors, with the other three presenters able to offer critiques of each essay/viewpoint, and then a concluding rejoinder by the presenting essayist. With this method, readers are able to thoroughly investigate the various propositions presented, and interact with the opposing arguments and rebuttals --- providing a well-rounded and even-handed view of the stipulated positions to make one’s own conclusions, or to lead to further investigations along one or several avenues. The concluding thoughts from the editors help immensely in tying all of the arguments together for a nice summary of the findings of the presenters. This book is written at a level that would be most helpful for college and seminary students, pastors, and interested and informed laymen.

Standard disclaimer. I got an advanced copy of the book from NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. I would like to thank them and Zondervan For the ability to be able to read it in advance.
I think in getting this book I bit off a little more than I could chew. That is why it took me so long to read it.
A few semesters ago, I took a Introduction to Philosophy class and have become fascinated with the idea that Philosophy and Christianity have so much in common yet be so different. I was approaching this book as a way for me to explore Christianity in respect to philosophy. I was not really prepared for what I was reading in that respect. That does not make the book bad, just not what I was thinking when I requested it.
The book is a compilation of four ways to look at the two subjects.
Conflict view - philosophy is better than Christianity
Covenant view - the exact opposite
Convergent view - philosophy confirms Christianity
Confirmation view - trying to make philosophy in a Christ centered fashion.

Of the four I feel that the author of the Conflict view did the best in explaining and defending his point of view. Of the four, the confirmation view was the one I tend to adhere to and felt it was handled fairly well.

Each author gives his point of view, the other three get a chance to make their comments and then the original author gives his rebuttal to the comments they have made.

I liked the format, but as I said, I had to take a lot of time to read as I was not fully understanding some of the terms. This is not for the average reader. While good, it is more something that I would expect to see in a classroom.
I do recommend it, but make sure that you have a good grasp of both the theology of Christianity and the understanding of how Philosophy works.

What is the relationship between Christianity and Philosophy? Though textbooks tell us that philosophy is about the love of wisdom, many believe it is much more as it deals with wonder, with topics beyond the reach of normal sciences and various other disciplines. It could be a way of thinking or a manner of interpreting the world. Theological textbooks are full of philosophical thoughts. Philosophy studies are rarely discussed without referring to Christian thought and historical theology. There are many ways in which we can enter the study of philosophy. We could venture in via famous names like the Greek philosophers (Aristotle, Epicurus, Plato, Socrates, etc); Romans (Augustine, Cicero, Plotinus, Ptolemy, Seneca, etc); Modern era, contemporary, and Eastern philosophers. We could compare between Eastern and Western thought; or philosophical thought through various eras. In this book, the approach is more focused in comparing directly the Christian faith and philosophy. Four views are discussed. When it comes to seeking greater truth, the Conflict model argues that philosophy is superior to Christian thought. The Covenant model argues the reverse. The Convergence view asserts that Philosophy and Christianity need each other as they complete the meaning of philosophy. The Conformation model views the need for philosophy to be shaped in the Christian thought. The usual format for this counterpoints series is for each contributor to first state the position followed by respondents from others. This way, the views can be enlarged, sharpened, and strengthened for the benefit of the readers in terms of learning and understanding.


Four professors of philosophy are invited to contribute to this fascinating engagement. Graham Oppy begins with the Conflict view by first stating his position as a "metaphysical naturist." He admits his position is not consistent with the orthodox Christian viewpoint. He distinguishes Christianity from Philosophy as the former is a "religion" while the latter is a "domain of inquiry." He makes a distinction between "philosophy" and "Christian philosophy," advances a "neutralist" understanding of philosophy, and then applies it to a few topics pertaining to Christianity. Topics like naturalism, God, the Trinity, the Incarnation, Resurrection, and Atonement. He challenges us to think about what is truly representative of the Christian and the Naturalist worldview. Should it be the best of each or the average? The most consistent or the inconsistent views of each? Oppy is Professor of Philosophy at Monash University and is an atheist.

The second view is the Covenant view championed by K. Scott Oliphint, Professor of Apologetics and Systematic Theology at Westminster Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania. He bases his arguments on beliefs and practices passed down through tradition and "theological necessity." Both Christian thought and philosophy have their specific principles to adhere to. He makes a distinction that the former is based on God's revelation while the latter is more humanistic. He derives the covenantal approach as according to how God takes the first initiative and we can know of nothing unless He chooses to reveal to us. The implication is that philosophy comes under this umbrella of grace and revelation.

The third view is the Convergence view advocated by Timothy McGrew, Professor of Philosophy at Western Michigan University. He sees no contradiction between Christianity and Philosophy because "philosophy confirms Christianity, and Christianity completes philosophy." On some difficult issues like the problem of evil and suffering, he distinguishes logic from premise. Having a right logical argument is different from the assumptions the logic are based upon. He believes that there are multiple clues that point to the existence of God, and philosophy alone cannot draw any conclusions. It is only when it is supported by the Christian worldview before one gets the full picture.

The fourth view is the Conformation model argued by Paul Moser, Professor and Chairperson of Philosophy at Loyola University Chicago. He contends that while philosophy is a love of wisdom, Christian philosophy goes beyond toward the love of God's wisdom. The question does falls back on whether we are willing to conform our views to God's.

The arguments and counter-arguments make this book a very illuminating read. Each author proposes his views on a set of issues and tries to compare both philosophy and Christian thought. Each chapter follows what I term a 1-2-1 approach. First, the author proposes a view. Second, the three other contributors make their comments, agreements, and contests. Third, the author is given a chance to write a rejoinder, to summarize the overall presentation and to make concluding statements about the interactions. I believe that if time and space permits, each view could even be expanded to a book by allowing the discussion to go two or three rounds before the rejoinder. (**) At the same time, there are also interactions possible for respondents to interact with each other separately. The combinations are limitless. Philosophy can often conjure in the minds of many that it is dry or boring. This method of counterpoints make it a really interesting read.

(**) The Evangelical Philosophical Society has provided such an extended discussion here by K. Scott Oliphint, Timothy McGrew, Paul Moser, and Graham Oppy.

Rating: 5 stars of 5.

conrade
This book is provided to me courtesy of Zondervan Academic and NetGalley in exchange for an honest review. All opinions offered above are mine unless otherwise stated or implied.

Part of Zondervan’s //Counterpoints// series, //Four Views on Christianity and Philosophy// offers wonderful insight for those interested in the interaction between Christianity and philosophy. The four contributors include one atheist (Graham Oppy) and three Christians of varying tradition (K. Scott Oliphint, Timothy McGrew, and Paul Moser). As is typical of the series, each contributor presents an essay, which is followed by a response from each of his peers. This text, however, is different from others I’ve read in the series in that it contains a rejoinder from the contributor after the responses—a welcomed addition to the template!

Conflict Model: Graham Oppy’s naturalist perspective is not surprising, and many of his finer points of argument are left to citations of outside sources due to limited space in this work. It is doubtful that readers of the intended audience will be persuaded by his arguments, but inclusion proves quite helpful for stimulating intellectual engagement. Though adamant and firm in his conviction that there is no God, his writing maintains a sense of humility (as much as can be expected from any professional philosopher) and welcomes his counterparts as part of a larger philosophical community, something I’ve found to be uncommon in these sorts of atheist vs. Christian philosophical exchanges.

Covenant Model: K. Scott Oliphint promotes God-given theology as the only true philosophy (and that it’s not philosophy because it’s God-given). Oliphint is a staunch Calvinist and, to his detriment, simply cannot move beyond Calvin. His arguments may make sense to those already indoctrinated with Calvinism, but he puts forth no real argument for his perspective, runs in circles, and fails to rightly engage with his counterparts. This is, however, a good example of this perspective on Christianity (what Oliphint believes to be true orthodoxy) and philosophy, and is thus worth wading through in order to better understand its presuppositions and blind spots.

Convergence Model: Timothy McGrew embraces philosophy as a God-given tool to help us better understand our reality and sees it as a means by which one may be brought closer to God, though not all the way. He maintains that revelation and something beyond pure reason is necessary for us to be brought into a right relationship with God (e.g., it may be reasoned demonstrated that Jesus was a real person, but to believe that he is the Son of God—and God—requires revelation beyond pure reason). Though he has not been brought over himself, even Oppy acknowledges that this bridge may bring atheists to Christianity.

Conformation Model: Paul Moser believes that using any reason or natural evidence for God is actually sinful because one can only come to God through some sort of direct revelation embodied in some sort of “experience” that he claims is the hallmark of a Christian. (McGrew notes in his response that he hopes Moser isn’t saying what he thinks he’s saying—that McGrew isn’t a Christian—because he does not share the same sort of conversion experience [218], but Moser implies at the end of his rejoinder that McGrew is not “led by God’s Spirit” [224], which amounts to placing him outside of Christ when read in conjunction with his other points.) Though distinct, the views of Oliphint and Moser may appear to be virtually identical in practice, which is why they praise each other’s perspectives with few exceptions.

In total, no contributor really recognizes his blind spots, although it is difficult when they aren’t being well noted (or noted by those who seem to be intentionally misreading them). Oppy and McGrew appear to be the most reasonable and engaging of the four, perhaps because Oliphint and Moser are paradoxically professional philosophers who believe philosophy is outside of God. I would, however, still recommend reading for anyone interested in the ongoing debate regarding Christianity and philosophy.

*I received a temporary digital copy for review from Zondervan via NetGalley.