Is the foundation of my faith theological or philosophical? What is the difference? By far, the vast majority of Christians are theological Christians and not necessarily philosophical Christians, and while on the surface it may look similar to the casual onlooker, especially those who do not understand the difference, at the foundation, it can be quite different. While I have no emotional judgmentalness against theological Christians for their foundation, I have chosen a different foundation, and therefore a different starting point, than they have.
Historically, a Christian who embraced philosophy was termed a “Christian philosopher,” a thinker whose intellectual pursuits were anchored in theology as the foundational discipline. Figures like Augustine or Thomas Aquinas embodied this: theology, rooted in divine revelation and scripture, provided the unshakable truths, while philosophy served to explore, defend, or elucidate them. Reason was a secondary tool, subordinate to faith. But what if we reverse this order, grounding thought in Logocentric philosophy — a system centered on the Logos as reason, word, or divine order — and building theology atop it? This essay contrasts the “Logocentric Philosophical Christian” with the traditional Christian Philosopher, using a robust toolkit: Ayn Rand’s Objectivism (minus atheism), John Locke’s “law of reason,” Frédéric Bastiat’s “The Law,” the Trivium method, Richard Paul’s critical thinking framework, Socratic humility, Plato’s Allegory of the Cave, and Aristotle’s metaphysics and logic.
For the Christian Philosopher, theology is the starting point. Augustine accepted God’s existence and scripture’s authority as givens, employing Neoplatonism to unpack them, while Aquinas used Aristotelian philosophy to reinforce doctrines like the soul’s immortality, always with faith as the bedrock. Philosophy was a handmaiden to theology, clarifying divine truths rather than questioning their validity. This approach treats philosophy as a servant of theology, a means to unpack or justify what is already believed—reasoning from a predetermined conclusion rather than forward from evidence, which could be considered to some a subtle form of sophistry.
Sophistry is the use of clever but flawed or deceptive reasoning, often prioritizing persuasion over truth. It involves arguments that appear sound on the surface but lack genuine substance or logical integrity upon closer examination.
The Logocentric Philosophical Christian, however, begins with Logocentric philosophy, where the Logos — understood as rational order or the divine “Word” (John 1:1) — forms the foundation. Theology is not a pre-accepted truth but a structure erected upon this rational base. Drawing on Rand’s Objectivism, which asserts that morality stems from reason, and Locke’s “law of reason,” tying moral law to rational principles, this Christian demands that faith and ethics align with the Logos’ logical coherence. Belief in God becomes a reasoned conclusion, not a presupposition, rooted in the conviction that the Logos underpins reality.
Bastiat’s “The Law” complements this framework. Bastiat argued that law should rationally protect liberty and property, reflecting human nature’s inherent order. For the Logocentric Philosophical Christian, divine commandments like “Thou shalt not steal” are not mere edicts but expressions of the Logos’ rational design for human flourishing. Theology emerges as an elaboration of this order, portraying God as the source of a logical moral framework rather than an arbitrary ruler whose will trumps reason.
The Trivium — grammar, logic, rhetoric — and Richard Paul’s intellectual traits (e.g., courage, perseverance) and standards (e.g., precision, relevance) equip this Christian to rigorously test theological claims. They ask: Does the Logos support the doctrine of redemption? Is it clear and consistent? Unlike the Christian Philosopher, who might accept the Incarnation as a divine mystery, the Logocentric thinker seeks its rational grounding in the Logos, using these tools to ensure theology withstands intellectual scrutiny.
Socratic humility and Plato’s Allegory of the Cave deepen this approach. Socrates’ quest for truth through questioning aligns with the Logos as a pursuit of rational clarity, prompting the Logocentric Philosophical Christian to approach faith with skepticism: “What does the Logos reveal about Christ’s nature?” Plato’s Cave, where prisoners ascend from shadows to sunlight, mirrors this journey — faith is not blind acceptance but an escape from illusion to the reality of the Logos. This contrasts with the Christian Philosopher, who starts in the “sunlight” of revelation and uses philosophy to describe it.
Aristotle’s metaphysics and logic provide the structural rigor. His concept of a first cause — a rational necessity behind existence — resonates with the Logos as the ordering principle of reality. The Logocentric Philosophical Christian might reason: “The Logos, as rational cause, points to God, and theology elaborates this insight.” Aristotelian logic ensures that theological claims, like the problem of evil, are tested syllogistically: “If the Logos is good and omnipotent, how does suffering fit?” This differs from the Christian Philosopher’s tendency to accept evil as a mystery within God’s will.
In practice, this shift reorients faith’s expression. The Christian Philosopher treats scripture as authoritative, using philosophy to interpret it — Aquinas harmonized Genesis with Aristotle’s cosmology. The Logocentric Philosophical Christian sees scripture as a human articulation of the Logos, open to rational critique. They might view the Bible as shadows on Plato’s cave wall, pointing to the truer light of divine reason. Morality shifts too: where the Christian Philosopher derives ethics from God’s will, the Logocentric thinker roots it in the Logos, arguing that “do unto others” reflects rational reciprocity, with theology affirming this insight.
This fosters a dynamic relationship with God. The Christian Philosopher’s bond is one of submission to revealed truth, a faith accepted then explored. The Logocentric Philosophical Christian’s connection is a thriving dialogue with the Logos — a relationship where faith is forged through reason, as in Plato’s ascent from the cave. Prayer might be both intellectual and spiritual: “Show me how your Logos orders existence.” This aligns with the “dynamic and thriving” faith described, where God is engaged as the rational principle animating reality, not a distant commander.
Yet this approach balances tensions and strengths. It risks over-rationalizing the transcendent — Rand’s logic or Aristotle’s causality might strain against miracles or grace. Its strength, however, is resilience: a faith built on the Logos endures doubt and life’s challenges, offering a theology that integrates reason and revelation. Unlike the Christian Philosopher, who defends a fixed structure, the Logocentric Philosophical Christian constructs their belief as a rational ascent, with the Logos as guide and goal — a faith not inherited but actively pursued in the light of divine order.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1q0dr3t3qxs70zl0y5ccz7zesdepek3hs8mq9q76
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. You can give it a try by contacting me for a private session.
