Preface
Usually, the study of church history is surveyed through the usual four divisions of church history (Early, Medieval, Reformation, Modern). As I have reflected upon the best way to survey historical theology for our present purpose, it has appeared to me that an alternate threefold division of historical theology will be more satisfactory. Therefore we will look at Christian apologetics and theological epistemology in …
Section 1: The Early Church
Section 2: The Augustinian Church
Section 3: The Modern Church
Two great perspectives about defending the faith become visible in church history. They constitute the two alternatives that must be evaluated in light of the Word of God. To understand the nature and development of those two alternatives, we must begin at the beginning of the history of the early church and, by means of six key figures, survey their development throughout the entirety of church history. In each of the three periods of church history the contrasting views of two of these key figures will be set before us. In this way, we will better understand these two views and their development. This understanding will help us ask the right questions of our answer key, the Bible. In this way, we will be able to develop a biblical and balanced view of apologetics.
The Early Church
Justin Martyr and Tertullian
Greek Philosophy and Christian Apologetics
Introduction: The Intellectual Setting of the Early Church
A historical introduction to Christian apologetics must include some reference to Greek philosophy. If Christian apologetics is “the vindication of the Christian philosophy of life against the various forms of non‑Christian philosophies of life,” then one must understand those philosophies in order to assess the value of any apologetic.
The history of Greek philosophy can be divided into three fairly well‑marked epochs:
- The Pre‑Socratic Era 585 B. C. ‑ 399 B.C.
- The Era of Plato and Aristotle 385 B. C. ‑ 323 B.C.
- The Hellenistic Age 300 B. C. ‑ A. D. 529
It is, of course, the so‑called Hellenistic age which interests us. In the Hellenistic Age there are three major philosophies: Epicureanism, Platonism, and Stoicism. Our interest is mainly in the latter two philosophies. Kelly remarks, “Both the Stoicism and, to an even greater extent, the Platonism which flourished in the first two Christian centuries … had borrowed from the other, and indeed the intellectual attitude of great numbers of educated people might be described as either a Platonizing Stoicism or a Stoicizing Platonism.”[1]
Our interest in Greek philosophy is not finally in the details of any one of its manifestations but rather in the general views which it held. Several of its general characteristics must now be mentioned:
(1) There is a tendency in Greek thought to adopt a monistic view of being. This means that the Greek philosophers assumed that there was only one kind of being. Anything that existed was being. Being was one and without origin.
(2) There is a tendency to view the world as in tension or balance. It was in tension between being and non-being. What does this mean? Heaven (the world of spirit above) was viewed as real—possessing true being. Matter, the stuff out of which the material world we live in was made, is viewed as non-being. The spiritual world was characterized by a basic one-ness or ultimate unity. Being was basically one. Matter, on the other hand, was endlessly different. It was, therefore, characterized by complete diversity. It was, therefore, impossible to see any harmony or unifying themes in it. It was, thus, meaningless.
(3) There is a tendency among the Greek philosophers to achieve meaning in this world in tension between being and non-being, spirit and matter, reason and meaninglessness by means of the logos. The logos principle unfolds and applies the principle of being and unity to matter or non-being, the principle of meaningless change and diversity. Thus, by imposing order, form, and reason on matter, the logos makes the world as we know it. The logos principle mediates being, unity, and rationality into the meaninglessness, diversity, and constant change of matter. Thus, the logos principle brings about the world as we know it in which exist both universals and particulars.
(4) There is a tendency to identify human reason with the logos principle. There is, therefore, a tendency to deify human reason. It is the representative of the human soul of the being, spirit, and rationality in the world.
(5) Everything that has been said under the first four points leads to the conclusion that in all of Greek philosophy, there is no thought of creation in the Christian sense. “God” is a nameless and indescribable principle of being and rationality. The logos principle emanates from this abstract supreme being and mediates rationality to the world. Being and non-being, rationality and irrationality, spirit, and matter are thought of as equally eternal principles existing in everlasting contradiction and interaction.[2]
I. Justin Martyr
His Significance
The difference of opinion among Christians to which we previously referred as to how to defend the Christian faith emerged with the first Christian theologians who ever set out formally to present and defend Christianity to the surrounding world. Van Til designates the period of the Apologists as “the first major combat between the Christian and Greek paideia.”[3] By paideia here, Van Til means a system of teaching. These early defenders of Christianity were called the Apologists. These Christians lived in the second century, about 100 years after the apostles, around 150-200 A. D. They wrote in order to defend Christians and present Christianity to the Romans and Greeks. Thus, they were very concerned that Christianity should appear reasonable to the world dominated at that time by Greek philosophy.
His Background
The most famous of these apologists was Justin Martyr. He lived approximately A. D. 110-165. One writer makes these very significant remarks about the background and conversion of Justin:
Justin was a Gentile, but born in Samaria, near Jacob’s well. He must have been well educated: he had traveled extensively, and he seems to have been a person enjoying a competence. After trying all other systems, his elevated tastes and refined perceptions made him a disciple of Socrates and Plato. So he climbed toward Christ. As he himself narrates the story of his conversion (in his Dialog with Trypho the Jew—SW), it need not be anticipated here. What Plato was feeling after, he found in Jesus of Nazareth. The conversion of such a man marks a new era in the gospel history. The sub-apostolic age begins with the first Christian author,‑-the founder of theological literature. It introduced to mankind, as the mother of true philosophy, the despised teaching of those Galileans to whom their Master had said, “Ye are the light of the world.”[4]
His Apologetic
- Its Character
It is not surprising that Justin, with this background, used ideas popularized in Greek philosophy to present Christianity to the secular world. As we have seen, Greek philosophy had developed a vague idea of a supreme being at this time who by means of His Logos or Reason gave order, life, and reason to the world of matter. Thus, the Logos which emanated from this supreme being mediated between the supreme being and the world of matter. Human beings were reasonable creatures endowed with free will because in reality a little spark of this divine logos or reason dwelt in them.
Justin Martyr adapted these ideas to Christianity and used them as means to communicate the gospel to the heathen. It was easy to identify the Greek’s supreme being with God the Father and the Logos with the Son or Word of God. The Christian idea of being made in the image of God and possessed of freedom and reason was identified with the Greek idea of men as inhabited by a spark of divine fire. The main writings of Justin Martyr in which he presented his views are His First and Second Apologies directed toward the Gentiles and his Dialog with Trypho the Jew.[5] They will be cited below.
- Its Advantages
Of course, there were a number of advantages to Justin’s method. No doubt, it made Christianity appear more intellectually respectable to the Greek world. It also helped make the Christian doctrine of the Trinity seem less contradictory to the Greeks. Also, Justin’s identification of Jesus Christ with the Greek Logos helped explain the measure of virtue and knowledge to be found in Greek culture and philosophy.
- Its Problem
The problem with Justin’s apologetic was that it assumed a very favorable view of Greek philosophy and its relation to Christianity. Justin’s view was that Greek philosophy was inspired by the same Logos who became incarnate in Christ. What the Greeks had partially and fallibly in the Greek philosophers, that the Christians have completely and infallibly in Christ. This quite positive evaluation of Greek philosophy is stated in his Second Apology.
I confess that I both boast and with all my strength strive to be found a Christian; not because the teachings of Plato are different from those of Christ, but because they are not in all respects similar, as neither are those of the others, Stoics, and poets, and historians. For each man spoke well in proportion to the share he had of the spermatic word, seeing what was related to it …. For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and ineffable [indescribable—SW] God, since also He became man for our sakes …. For all the writers were able to see realities darkly through the sowing of the implanted word that was in them. For the seed and imitation imparted according to capacity is one thing, and quite another is the thing itself, of which there is the participation and imitation according to the grace which is from Him (II, 13).
Even some Reformed theologians have shared Justin’s somewhat positive view of Greek philosophy. W. G. T. Shedd represents many defenders of the Christian faith who respond positively to Justin’s evaluation of Greek philosophy. He applauds Justin because “He perceives that a system of philosophy like the Platonic is favorable to the principles of ethics and natural religion; … and therefore insists, and with right, that so far as it can properly go, it is not unfriendly to the system of revealed truth.”[6] Shedd thought that it was very wise to take over “Greek theism,” and use it in the defense of Christianity. The perspective of Shedd and Justin Martyr is simply that Platonism is right as far it goes, but it does not go far enough.
- Its Disadvantages
The disadvantages of Justin’s defense of the faith are related to his favorable view of Greek philosophy. It seems clear that he was insensitive to or ignorant of the basic contradictions between Christianity and Greek philosophy. The result of ignoring these contradictions would be to misrepresent or pervert the Christian faith even as he was trying to defend it and commend it to others. The evidence for Justin’s ignorance of the contradictions between Christianity and Greek philosophy follows:
First, Justin appeals to heathen analogies to the miraculous history of Christ. He refers to the stories of the Greek myths which speak of terrible sufferings and marvelous ascensions to heaven of the sons of Jupiter. He then remarks that Christians teach “nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter” (I, 21). Thus, Justin can say, “… though we say things similar to what the Greeks say, we only are hated on account of the name of Christ” (I, 24). Justin’s argument may be intended simply to point out that the Greeks taught things similar to what Christians teach. It is injustice, therefore, if Greeks persecute Christians while they themselves teach similar things. Nevertheless, the question must be asked, Does not Justin speak in a very unguarded fashion when he says that Christian doctrine is “nothing different” and “similar to” heathen teachings? Is he not endangering the uniqueness of Christianity?
Second, what Justin teaches about the freedom of the human will is not Christian (I, 43, 61, II, 7). The occasion for Justin’s statements upon this subject is quite interesting. In the midst of arguing for the claims of Christ on the basis of fulfilled prophecy, Justin realizes that his claims may be seen as implying “that whatever happens, happens by a fatal necessity.” In this paragraph Justin, therefore, proceeds to argue that …
We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, and chastisements, and good rewards, are rendered according to the merit of each man’s actions. Since if it be not so, but all things happen by fate, neither is anything at all in our power. For if it be fated that this man, e. g. be good, and this other evil, neither is the former meritorious nor the latter to be blamed. And again, unless the human race have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions, of whatever kind they be (I, 43).
Justin can also speak of the one “who chooses to be born again” in the waters of baptism (I, 61). In his Second Apology, Justin returns to this theme in even more clear language.
The Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they committed. And this is the nature of all that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both … (II, 7).
We must not overreact to these statements. Christianity is not fatalism. It maintains the serious, moral responsibility and freedom of men. Due both to Stoicism and Gnosticism there was a fatalistic tendency in Justin’s day which did not do justice to human responsibility and freedom. Yet one must ask, Has Justin been pushed into a view of human freedom which is imbalanced? He never does explain how prophecy and foreknowledge are consistent with his view of human freedom. Is there not, perhaps, here a naive adoption of a Platonic view of human freedom? This question appears to be answered with a yes when in the paragraph following his initial assertion of free will we hear Justin saying, “And so, too, Plato, when he says, `The blame is his who chooses, and God is blameless’ … ” (I, 44).
Third, Justin adopts the Greek idea that the supreme being is nameless. “For no one can utter the name of the ineffable God; and if any one dare to say that there is a name, he raves with hopeless madness” (I, 61). “But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given” (II, 6). Justin misunderstands the incomprehensibility of God to mean the namelessness of God. Again, the influence of Greek philosophy with its idea of the supreme being as an indescribable, abstract principle of rationality and being has influenced Justin.
Fourth, more justification for our concerns about Justin’s positive view of Greek philosophy becomes evident when he says that “He (Christ‑-SW) is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them … ” (I, 46) Justin is thinking of the operations of Reason (the Logos) in nature. Therefore, in these statements of Justin there is clear confirmation of our fears. Justin plainly deviates from the Christian faith by teaching the salvation of the Greek philosophers purely through their obedience to natural revelation. This alone shows that he has exceeded the limits of orthodoxy out of his sympathy for Greek philosophy.
Clearly, Justin has purchased the advantages of his defense of the faith only at a great cost to the Christian faith itself. Van Til’s assessment is penetrating. He says that because Justin lived early in church history he had some excuse for not being aware of the dangers of using Greek philosophy to defend Christianity. Yet he points out that Christians must not be deceived into thinking that high and noble forms of non-Christian philosophy are not filled with dangers for the Christian faith.[7] The dilemma which Justin Martyr faced and failed to solve continues to be important for Christians in their Apologetics. How do we explain the good in the world without denying the unique truthfulness of Christianity? How do we recognize the goodness in the world without being tempted to ally ourselves with the world?
II. Tertullian
His General Significance
Tertullian was a Christian pastor who worked and wrote around the years 200-225 shortly after Justin. He is known as an anti-Gnostic father. Gnosticism, the most dangerous of the early heresies to assault the church, stressed the absolute contrast between the world of spirit and the world of flesh. One of its primary heresies was, therefore, that the earthly Jesus and the divine Christ were two different beings. Thus, they were Docetists, those who taught that the Christ only seemed to be a man. Since he was struggling with this heresy which had deep roots in Greek thinking, Tertullian manifested more awareness of the danger of Greek and worldly philosophy than Justin did. The different perspective enunciated by Tertullian may be seen in G. H. Clark’s pithy summary of Tertullian.
Whereas Justin had spoken appreciatively of the pagan literature, Tertullian is best known for his harsh condemnation of it. Skilled in the rhetoric of the law schools, he declaims, What has the Christian in common with the philosopher? Jerusalem with Athens? The Church with the Academy? Revelation with reason? And to illustrate his contempt for all heathen rationality, modern authors sometimes quote him as accepting the Gospel in the words, Credo quia absurdum [I believe because it is absurd‑-SW]. There is no evidence that Tertullian used this particular phrase, although he did say, Sepultus resurrexit; certum est quia impossible est [I am confident of the resurrection; it is certain because it is impossible‑-SW].[8]
His Specific Importance
Because of this attitude about philosophy Tertullian emphasized the importance of simple faith in the Scriptures as the final authority. Listen to what he says:
After Jesus Christ we have no need of speculation, after the gospel no need of research. When we come to believe, we have no desire to believe anything else; for we begin by believing that there is nothing else which we have to believe.” … “My first principle is this. Christ laid down one definite system of truth which the world must believe without qualification, and which we must seek precisely in order to believe it when we find it.” … “What you must seek is what Christ has taught, and precisely as long as you are not finding, precisely until then, you must go on seeking until you do find it.[9]
His Remaining Weakness
Greek philosophy sneaked into Tertullian’s thought too. Specifically, his teaching about the Trinity and the soul were deeply influenced by a Stoic form of Greek philosophy.[10] Even here, however, Tertullian’s teaching was increasingly biblical. It tended more and more to contradict and violate the Stoic philosophy he used to present his Christian teachings. It is obvious, therefore, that the emphasis of Tertullian is on the gulf that separates Christ and Plato and the need for forsaking philosophy to believe the Scriptures.
III. Assessment
The General Concern: Justin’s Apologetics had a subtle but powerful tendency to distort Christianity.
The advantages of Justin’s adaptation of Greek philosophy to the Christian cause carried with them some very great disadvantages. The basic problem was that in adapting Greek philosophy to Christianity there was a subtle, but powerful tendency to adapt Christianity to Greek philosophy.
The problem with Justin’s methodology is that it assumes that the Greek concept of God, the Logos, human reason, and human freedom are the same as that of Christianity. It assumes that one can use Greek philosophy to present Christianity without changing the meaning of Christianity in the process. We must ask, Is human reason and human freedom the same thing when it is viewed as a spark of divine fire inhabiting a material body?
The Fundamental Difference: The Greek and Christian concepts of God are in basic contradiction.
Even more basic is the difference between the Greek and Christian concept of God revealed in Plato’s Socratic dialogue, Euthyphro. Gordon H. Clark describes it, “In the dialogue Euthyphro the question is raised whether pious acts are pious because the gods like them or whether the gods like them because the acts are pious.”[11] Now, think about that question in Christian terms. Are things good and just because God likes them? Or, does God like them because they are good and just? The answer is, of course, that God Himself is the ultimate standard of right and wrong and that things are good and just simply because He esteems them so. Otherwise, you have a standard of right and wrong above God and to which He must subject Himself. But that is not the view that Plato adopts. Clark says:
… he notes the logical possibility that pious acts are pious because the gods like them; but instead of arguing against such a view, he merely brushes it aside as unworthy of consideration. To his thoroughly Greek mind it seemed obviously absurd. But if the gods like pious acts because the acts are pious, it follows that there is a standard, a norm, or a quality of piety superior to the will of the gods. The existence of such a standard independent of the will of the gods is of course consonant with Greek presuppositions.[12]
Van Til’s comment on the Euthyphro is trenchant:
Here then is a complete disjunction. On the one side we have God as the sovereign Law-giver …. On the other side we have an abstract or impersonal law that is assumed to be independent and therefore above any law-giver …. When Socrates demanded that deeds be holy irrespective of what gods or men say about them he was deceiving himself. What he really wanted was a concept of the holy that he, independently of God, could understand and approve. It was his own concept of justice that he set over against the concept of justice as given by any such being as the Creator-Redeemer of men …. the … disjunction … is…between the God of Christianity … and the idea of the self-sufficient man.[13]
The Twisted Results: Justin’s Apologetic bore terrible fruit in the end.
It is obvious that a Christianity clothed in Greek philosophy will subtly, but powerfully deviate from the Bible. This is very evident in Justin’s assessment of the spiritual condition of the Greek philosophers. “He [Christ—SW] is the Word of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived reasonably are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them … ” (I, 46) By this statement Justin has logically denied that the gospel is necessary for men to be saved and has attributed saving light to the operations of the Logos among the Greek philosophers.
Even more serious errors would proceed from the adaptation of Christianity to Greek philosophy. Some of Justin’s spiritual descendants would become the Arian heretics of the fourth century and deny the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity.
These facts should make us wary of building a defense of Christianity on the foundation of non-Christian philosophy. Christianity, built on the foundation of Greek philosophy, tends to cease being Christianity. We come down on the side of Tertullian when he asks, “What has the Christian in common with the philosopher? Jerusalem with Athens? The Church with the Academy? Revelation with reason?”[14] Nevertheless, if we agree with Tertullian, we must still ask, What about the apparent morality, wisdom, knowledge of God and success of non-Christian cultures? How can this be explained if Christ is the sole source of truth and light? Another question raised here is this: If the Christian has nothing in common with the Greek philosopher, how shall he defend the faith to him? Is there no common ground or point of contact between the believer and the unbeliever? If there is common ground, what is it?
[1]J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) 19.
[2]One meaning of dialectic given in Webster’s New World Dictionary (The World Publishing Company, Cleveland, 1966) is “the method of logic used by Hegel and adapted by Marx to his materialist philosophy: it is based on the contradiction of opposites (thesis and antithesis) and their continual resolution (synthesis).
[3]Cornelius Van Til, Christianity in Conflict (Unpublished Syllabus) 25.
[4]Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, reprinted 1973) 159.
[5] I will cite the First Apology as (I) with the appropriate paragraph; the Second Apology as (II) with the appropriate paragraph; and the Dialog with Trypho the Jew as Dialog with the appropriate paragraph.
[6]Quoted from Van Til, Conflict, 26-27.
[7]Van Til, Conflict, 27. Van Til remarks, “Again we observe that there was much excuse for the Apologists for not sensing the subtle method by which the enemy was using Greek theism in order, with its idea of a vague primacy of teleology, to lull Christians to sleep. Throughout the history of the Christian church one of the greatest dangers, if not the greatest danger threatening it has been the idea that there are high and noble forms of non-Christian thought that stand ready to join a common expedition against secularism and materialism.”
[8]G. H. Clark, Thales to Dewey, (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1957) 215.
[9]Van Til, Conflict, 66-67. The citations from Tertullian are from Prescriptions against Heretics, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14.
[10]For the influence of Greek philosophy on Tertullian, cf. J.N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper&Row, 1978), 175, where he says that Tertullian’s materialist and traducianist view of the soul was borrowed from Stoicism. Cf. also p. 345 and on the Trinity, 109-125. Cf. also The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield: Tertullian and Augustine (vol. 4), 3-109 for a lengthy discussion of the influence of the logos christology on Tertullian and his movement away from it in a more and more biblical direction.
[11]Clark, Thales, 57-58.
[14]Tertullian, “Prescription against Heretics,” trans. Peter Holmes, in Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson (Peabody, MA: Hen- drickson, 1994), 3:249.
Dr. Sam Waldron is the Academic Dean of CBTS and professor of Systematic Theology. He is also one of the pastors of Grace Reformed Baptist Church in Owensboro, KY. Dr. Waldron received a B.A. from Cornerstone University, an M.Div. from Trinity Ministerial Academy, a Th.M. from Grand Rapids Theological Seminary, and a Ph.D. from Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. From 1977 to 2001 he was a pastor of the Reformed Baptist Church of Grand Rapids, MI. Dr. Waldron is the author of numerous books including A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, The End Times Made Simple, Baptist Roots in America, To Be Continued?, and MacArthur’s Millennial Manifesto: A Friendly Response.
