This impulse to get behind the curtain—to know and explain God on our own terms—is not new. It is as old as the garden. The first temptation was not merely to disobey, but to cross a boundary: to become “like God,” to grasp what belongs to God alone, and to possess knowledge in a way creatures were never meant to possess it. That is the root of what I am calling the Athens OS: the perennial human project of mastering reality, and even God Himself, by explanation, system, and control.

After reading Peter Leithart’s article, “Aristotle’s Teleology: Craft and Theology in Aristotle,” I found myself almost completely unable to make sense of it. Of course, if I had spent years studying philosophy and learning its history and technical vocabulary, I’m sure I would have done better. Still, one line at the very end was perfectly clear:

“Again, a neat trick: Order and purpose in nature; nature closely resembling craft; all in a theistic universe in which everything desires and strives toward god. Yet he achieves all of this without positing immanent gods or even demi-divine intelligences. Elegant, neat, and, of course, utterly incompatible with Scripture.”

On that one point, I agree entirely: this is utterly incompatible with Scripture.

Reading this article pushed me to a simpler conclusion—the real problem is Aristotle. I do not want to be an Aristotelian. I do not think the Bible speaks this way. Maybe Tertullian was right after all: “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” So much Christian theology has been built using an alien operating system rather than the Bible’s own native grammar. Scripture does not presuppose the conceptual machinery the Greek philosophers constructed.

Paul’s judgment on philosophy is blunt: “For the wisdom of this world is folly with God” (1 Cor. 3:19). What if we actually took that as our axiom? What if we returned, not to Aristotle’s categories, but to the Bible’s own operating system: “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth”? This is a statement of fact without explanation. The Bible tells us what God does and what He is like, but it does not explain Him or invite us to peer behind the curtain.

The scope of the revelation given by Scripture is restrained by design. The meaning of Scripture is one and not open to endless speculation. It is perspicuous, not esoteric—given to be heard and understood but not decoded by an elite class. To press beyond the plain sense of Scripture is not faithful exegesis but a gnostic impulse, a search for hidden mechanisms where God has given us His words and works instead.

If the meaning intended by Scripture is one, then what may be deduced by good and necessary consequence must also have a limit. Not everything that can be deduced from Scripture is therefore true, nor does Scripture invite us to treat deduction as an unlimited engine of meaning. The Sadducees, for example, had arguments drawn from Scripture for denying the resurrection, yet Christ rebukes them precisely because their reasoning, however coherent, went beyond what the text intended to teach. Their error was not a failure to reason, but a failure to submit their reasoning to the scope and purpose of Scripture itself.

What follows is an attempt to explain that simpler, cleaner, Biblical OS or as I call it Jerusalem OS. To understand this OS, we must first look at the Aristotelian OS or as I call it the Athens OS.

The Theistic Proofs of God

Thomas Aquinas, the Doctor of the Roman Catholic Church—and the one who, more than anyone, brought Aristotle into Christian theology as an organizing philosophical principle—constructed a Natural Theology based on reason and Aristotelian logic. He offered the famous rational proofs for God and posited that God is the “unmoved mover” in a causal chain of origins. God, in his system, was seen as the First Cause.

Using the word system is a tell. God is not to be thought of as a cog in a system. He is the Creator of all systems but is not in the system itself. To bring God down to our level and argue in such a manner is to forget the Creator–creature distinction. He is the living God and not part of creation.

Properly speaking, God does not cause anything. He simply creates. The word simple is intentional here. God’s acts are without parts, composition, or division—they are simple. If we think of God’s power as acting through a causal chain, we divide His being. Power cannot be separated from His being. God is one. He simply is. He is not composed of attributes as parts. He is the great I AM. Properly stated—God acts, not God’s power acts. Describing God’s attributes is a human way of speaking, but it does not imply any division in God.

Now, He created a world that manifests the appearance of cause and effect, but that is only a description of creation and not a power above creation or a thing beside or alongside God doing something. God does not have to go to Aristotle’s causal machinery to create the world. Cause is not a thing; it is a description of relations between things as seen by creatures.

If we really see how Aristotle uses the word cause, it is his definition of god: a thing with power. Notice that the “unmoved mover” need not be personal at all. It is just a power that runs a machine. Is that not what philosophers are looking for—an organizing principle that explains everything?

The dream of Plato and Aristotle was to discover that grand unified theory of knowledge—but God cannot be known that way. We know Him in part and in a creaturely way. That is the limit. God, in all of His perfections, is incomprehensible.

The drive to bind God into a system that we can understand and manipulate is the telos of all false religion. Idolatry is the making of a god in our image instead of accepting the God who reveals Himself to us in His Word and in creation. Once God is made like us, we can feel safe and in control—and the purpose of false religion is thus defined. It becomes a psychological response to the fear of losing control.

Rational Proof

Aristotle is often credited with having written the book on logic, and it has long been said that philosophy is the handmaiden of theology. In one sense, this is true: any work of theology must be subject to the canons of reason. The law of non-contradiction, for example, applies as a tool for understanding God’s revelation to us. It is how we, as creatures, predicate and avoid incoherence. Logic, in this sense, describes true relations between created things. But what does this say about the Creator? Is God bound by the laws of logic?

God is not bindable. God creates the order we recognize as logical. Two plus two is four because God is a God of order and has made the world in an intelligent manner. We learn by observing the two revelations he has given us—his creation and his Word—and we use reason to understand these two revelations. God, however, does not use logic as a process of discovery. He created the order that is logical. He stands above his creation, not as part of it. The order He created is logical, but it is not part of His being. Properly speaking, God does not reason discursively or infer step by step—He knows.

This may seem pedantic or obvious, but the problem arises when logic is given free rein and steps out of its proper, creaturely role in knowledge acquisition and begins to map out God’s being—as though God could be known in this way. That is a category mistake. It is an error to think that God uses logic or can be explained logically in his inner life.

Read More