To me this series is almost incomprehensible. I GUESS it's based on a misreading (IMHO) of what Paul says about "philosophies." What he is referring to is the bizarre "systems" of the Gnostics, who have since the beginning tried to co-opt Christianity and replace it with bad news.
It intrigues me that Plotinus, who was NOT a Christian, wrote a "tractate [essay] "Against the Gnostics", which I have read, though it was decades ago, and argued rightly that they were wrong because they thought the material world to be evil BECAUSE it was material. But a good "god" (he wouldn't use that term) wouldn't make an evil world. In some respects a good philosopher can be closer to the truth than a heretic.
Others may argue, and argue well, about the role the inspired community, the Church, plays in the interpretation of Scripture. I want to plead briefly for philosophy.
I think men philosophize, well or poorly. We wonder, we are made to wonder and to try to explain what a "thing" is, what we mean by "cause." We ask, "What do you mean by that?" We sort things out.
Informed by Scripture, for example by Thomas's calling IHS, "My Lord and my God," and by the First Commandment, we wonder how Jesus can be God and yet there is One God, whether and how we can say, "God suffered and died," How we can talk about IHS' being tempted.
And one reason we do this is so that we can evangelize. If someone accuses us of, as I have heard us accused, of polytheism, shall we just say, "Shut up and believe?"
Also, I think the article is, if not downright dishonest, at least tendentious. To quote the judgments of the highly anti-Christian Gibbon as though they were authoritative is, at best, questionable. He thought Christianity contributed greatly to the fall of Rome. And using the word "substance" without explanation will be at best confusing to readers who have no acquaintance with the term's philosophical use.
These days when people say "substance," they usually mean something like "material" or even "stuff." This understanding makes the ancients look like they were talking about some weird "ectoplasm" or "aether," when that is not what they meant at all.
And this shows that basic problem which is, as I said, that man MUST philosophize, and therefore he will do so well or poorly. These days we tend to do so poorly. We confuse what a thing IS with what it is MADE OF or even, sometimes, what it LOOK LIKE.
For example, a critical part of the pro-abortion argument was "It's just a clump of cells." The answer is, "It is MADE OF a clump of cells and it LOOKS like a little ball of cells, but it IS a human at a particular stage of physical development." That's a philosophical distinction which implies that the "What-it-IS," (or, for some, the "SUBSTANCE") is different from the appearance or the material.
I would venture that the vast majority of modern men are unwitting victims of lousy philosophy. And part of how this came to be is precisely that they rejected the philosophical aspects of Christian thought, mistakenly thinking that they could rely on Scripture alone while they used philosophical arguments in an attempt to explain that belief.
Baconian empiricism and Cartesian skepticism have infiltrated the modern mind so greatly that a very great many of those who profess Sola Scriptura in fact betray a kind of sloppy modernism in their thought.
And one outcome of this is precisely the rejection of Christian moral principles as a key element of political discourse. This sort of Christian renounces reason and uses it badly, so the non-Christian says, "You're just trying to impose your cultic values on us." And, to be consistent, the Christian has to say, "That's right, but my cult is the true one. I can't explain it; I won't explain it; you just have to believe or go to hell -- and take society with you."
So, I think the direction of this series of articles is not only wrong but anti-evangelical and anti-human, because God made us, among other things, to reason.
I actually enjoyed reading your post...you make some good point that I agree with. Not the quoted paragraph of course.:)
It's difficult to post material like this precisely because it is a snapshot of a particular piece of a belief system. It's not designed to teach or show one the entirety of the gospel. It's designed to show one aspect that perhaps one person who is being called by God will find inspirational or enlightening.
This particular article is a chapter from a much larger booklet that advocates that the bible teaches a binitarian, and not a trinitarian view, of the Godhead. Taken by itself it is incomplete so I certainly can understand your frustration and perhaps some of the conclusions you've come to.
I think men philosophize, well or poorly. We wonder, we are made to wonder and to try to explain what a "thing" is, what we mean by "cause." We ask, "What do you mean by that?" We sort things out.
But then we come to a point wherein the meter to measure such a thing must be invented... How does one define 'well or poorly'? By what standard? And within that, Only 'well' OR 'poorly'? Can it be so truly binary? Is there only 'value' or not?
And finally, is there no point at where man's reason must inevitably fail? Is there something too big for man to define or even begin to comprehend? Where is that high-water mark?
Informed by Scripture, for example by Thomas's calling IHS, "My Lord and my God," and by the First Commandment, we wonder how Jesus can be God and yet there is One God, whether and how we can say, "God suffered and died," How we can talk about IHS' being tempted.
So one MUST devise an answer, even if it is not proven? Are we not supposed to 'prove all things'?