 |  |
if they only knew what were right. There is a mixture of truth and error in this teaching
that is sad. Socrates meant so well, but, alas, he did not allow for the fact that man is
fallen, and that reason itself is not necessarily obeyed. However, Socrates was more
correct than some have thought when he put together ignorance and vice, and knowledge
and virtue. He saw clearly the leaves, the flowers, the fruit that should grow upon the
tree, but he failed, as all unaided reason must, to discover the one and only root-hold.
Peter, the inspired fisherman, could have taught him that virtue and knowledge and piety
are only possible after a mighty change, and the partaking of a new life and power.
"According as His DIVINE POWER hath given unto us all things that pertain unto
life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him that hath called us to glory and virtue"
(II Pet. 1: 3).
How Socrates would have embraced this revelation no one but the Judge of the secrets
of men knows, but on the surface it would seem to provide the "one thing needful".
"Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises; that by these ye
might be partakers of the DIVINE NATURE, having escaped the corruption that is in the
world through lust" (II Pet. 1: 4).
Here is a divine power, and a divine nature, both growing out of what the Apostle
refers to in the opening verse of the epistle: "Like precious faith with us, through the
righteousness of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ" (II Pet. 1: 1). This is indeed the root
of all virtue. Having this foundation Peter can go forward with confidence, where
Socrates had to limp and halt. "And beside this, giving all diligence, add to your faith
virtue; and to virtue knowledge" (II Pet. 1: 5). Knowledge and virtue are certainly
associated here, but they are "added", and this presupposes a foundation already laid, the
foundation of "faith". Peter could say: "Add to your faith virtue, and to virtue
knowledge." Socrates could only point out that virtue is knowledge, without being able
to provide the one or the other.
That vice and ignorance go hand in hand is common knowledge. Speaking of the
Gentiles, the Apostle writes:
"Having the understanding darkened, being alienated from the LIFE OF GOD through
the ignorance that is in them" (Eph. 4: 18).
What Socrates did not know was that ignorance not merely beclouds the reason but
alienates from the very "life of God". Again and again we come back to the one great
difference between Philosophy and Revelation--the emphasis upon a Person. Peter
speaks of "the Divine nature"; Paul speaks of "the life of God", and "the truth in Jesus"
(Eph. 4: 21).
Socrates held that no one is willingly wicked. The statement is too sweeping, but it
contains an element of truth. Men have always attempted to justify their deeds. There
are very few who set out to do wrong, knowing it to be wrong. In most cases an attempt
is made to colour the action so that it may appear right. As a particular instance, let the
reader consider the reasons given by any nation to justify the declaration of war. Is there