Philosophy As A Tool Of Self Defense Theology Religion Essay

Print   

02 Nov 2017

Disclaimer:
This essay has been written and submitted by students and is not an example of our work. Please click this link to view samples of our professional work witten by our professional essay writers. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of EssayCompany.

The Jews demand signs, and Greeks desire wisdom but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling-block to Jews, and foolishness to Gentiles; but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. For God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom; and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength. . . . But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong. (1 Corinthians 1:22:25, 27)

Paul, the apostle of the Gentiles, warned against the seductions of philosophy: " See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the universe and not according to Christ" ( Colossians 2:8). Yet three centuries later, philosophy had entered into Christianity so completely that it left a deep impression on its doctrine, theology and the mindset of the early Christians. How did philosophy come to dominate the Christian religion? In this paper we shall observe the multifaceted interaction between philosophy and early Christian thought, mentioning three stages of development, and the influence, Greek philosophy had on early Christianity both good and bad.

Philosophy as a tool of self defense

As the gospel and the teachings of Jesus were being proclaimed with great vigor and zeal, many Christians had to face persecution in the hands of the Romans. Martyrs like Ignatius and Polycarp went to their deaths gladly but somewhere in the mid-second century, some Christians began to see it as their duty to stand up and defend the faith in public forums rather than face persecution silently.

Justin Martyr before converting to Christianity was a Greek philosopher and specialized in Platonic philosophy. Justin always had an ardent search for the truth and thus we see in his life a transition from being part of a Stoic group to a Pythagoreans and finally a Platonist who spoke about the perception of immaterial things. In spite of all this, he was still not satisfied and settled for a natural religion. During his meditations he happened to meet an old man who asked him a question about God, the nature of human souls and their transmigrations from bodies to bodies after death. Justin answered him as a Platonist would do, but the old man made him see how inconsistent his answers were. "The soul is not immortal in its own right. Plato is wrong where he says that the soul is life. The soul has life only because it receives it from God. So the soul lives because God will it to live and as long he wills it." Deeply impressed by this discovery, Justin asked the old man where could he find that doctrine and being answered that it was not to be found in the books of philosophers, but in Holy Scripture, he felt at once a burning desire and this it led to his conversion to Christianity. [1] Thus the Christian faith looked much more rational than philosophical reason itself, because Christianity could appear to some philosophers as the best answers to the questions asked by philosophy.

Following the gospel of John, chapter 1 verse 1 "In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God, and the Word was God", the early Christian apologist Justin Martyr identified Jesus as the Logos, and used this as a way of arguing for Christianity to Jews as well as the Greek audience who would accept this concept. However, Justin does not go so far as to articulate a fully consistent doctrine of the Logos.

During this time, Christianity did not accept the Platonic argument that the spirit is good and the flesh is evil, and therefore the man Jesus could not be God. Nor did it recognize any of the Platonic ideas that would make Jesus something less than fully God and fully human at the same time.

Justin tried to enforce a fusion of biblical thought and Greek philosophy, we see this when he correlated the ancient time of Moses with the old tradition of Plato’s visit to Egypt. But while Justin shows association with such ideas, his views differ in that "they regard the work of God in Christ both as the fulfillment of the promises of God recorded in the scripture and as the perfection of the philosophical quest. Far from simply justifying a Platonic interpretation of the Scriptures, these ideas suggest to Justin that the philosophers have played an important subordinate role in the preparation of men for Christ." [2] The implication of Justin’s position is certain that Christ is the bearer of truth which the Platonists sought as the means of the soul’s perfection.

Tatian, Justin’s immediate successor, maintained that if the Greeks possessed any truth, they must have got it from the Scriptures. He suggested that "man fell under the domination of the passions because of the loss of the soul of the truly rational element – the mind (nous) of contemporary Platonic anthropology- which is the source of its communion with the divine Word. This had an important bearing on later attempts, to employ the Platonic trichotomous anthropology (body, soul, and mind), which Justin had only vaguely mentioned, in an effort to explain the human condition, in terms which require the decisive action of God for its betterment." [3] 

Theophilus of Antioch, another disciple of Justin, develops further his claim for the antiquity and accuracy of the Scriptures. "Theophilus actually ventures to demonstrate that the scriptures are more ancient and true than those of the Greeks and the Egyptians or any other historians, by contrasting their accurate information about such events such as the deluge, with the vagueness of other records and by establishing their chronological priority to those pagan writers." [4] He tries to say that scripture is more true than the errors of the pagans. Since pagans had varied thoughts and philosophies which were inconsistent and inaccurate as compared to the significance of scripture. He also affirmed that God is ‘creator’ of the world as opposed to Plato’s idea of God being a ‘maker’ – who made out of pre-existing matter.

Athenagoras attempted to justify by rational argumentation the Christian faith, in the resurrection of the dead. In order to convince them, he began by establishing that the "resurrection is not impossible to God; because he who has created man, and has given him life, can give life back to man after he has lost it. Moreover just as God can achieve the resurrection, he can will it, because to do so is neither unjust in itself nor unworthy of God." [5] These preliminary conclusions aim to prove that faith is not opposed to reason, or, in other words, it does not involve any rational impossibility.

As a number of early church fathers eagerly defended the faith, there were also many who sought to combat heresies. These heresies were a result of the systems of philosophy and the application of Greek philosophical thought to Christian doctrine. "As bishops anxious to refute heresies that troubled some Christians, Irenaeus and Hippolytus wrote long expositions of heretical views, tracing them to Greek philosophical positions. Irenaeus argued, that it did not follow that just because men are endowed with greater and less degrees of intelligence, that they should therefore change the subject-matter (of the faith) itself, and should conceive of some other God besides Him who is the Framer, Maker, and Preserver of this universe (as if He were not sufficient for them), or of another Christ, or another Only-begotten." [6] For them philosophy was not essential to understand and interpret the doctrines of the Christian church.

Thus the church fathers of the second century felt the challenge that Greek philosophy posed. They were skeptical of the fact that if it was adapted carelessly into Christian doctrine, it would produce heresies and confusion. There was also a multiplicity of philosophical thought and thus just accepting any foreign views into Christianity would be treacherous. Hence there was repulsion towards Greek philosophy and many church fathers like Tertullian argued that Christians should have nothing to do with Greek philosophy.

Greek philosophy also had a deep influence on a group of elite and intellectual Christians who were called the Gnostics, a heretic group whose views were totally opposed to the teachings of the faith. "One element these different currents, especially the Gnostics, had in common was "dualism": they denied faith in the one God and Father of all, Creator and Saviour of man and of the world. To explain evil in the world, they affirmed the existence, besides the Good God, of a negative principle. This negative principle was supposed to have produced material things, matter." [7] 

Irenaeus refuted this Gnostic dualism and pessimism, which desecrated physical realities. He determinedly claimed the original holiness of matter, of the body, of the flesh no less than of the spirit.

Philosophy as the Handmaid of Theology

The Bible speaks of a God who is ever the same and who does not change as men change. But because of the influence of philosophy, their interpretation differed from what the biblical writer actually intended. "Where the biblical writers were affirming the reliability and consistency of God in his attitudes of grace and of judgment towards men, the Fathers were interpreting them of a metaphysical changelessness of a very different character." [8] Due to these erroneous and inconceivable interpretations of biblical thought, there was more confusion which led to doubt especially among the pagan intellectuals. If Biblical thought and philosophy as so akin, that its knowledge can hardly differ. Then the questions that can be raised are; how can a God who is changeless as the Platonic ideas are changeless have become incarnate in human history? Can even an act of creation be acknowledged to such a God?

The early Fathers had a tendency to equate the living, creator God of the Bible with the changeless, passionless perfection of the ‘absolute’ which is of Greek philosophical thought. Author Maurice Wiles in the book Knowing Christianity: The Christian Fathers points out that "Instead of a positive imagery of a God, who is active and purposive love, they tend to define God by the kind of negative category i.e. God is without body, parts or passions, until we find God spoken of as inconceivable and ineffable, beyond thoughts and beyond words… Such an understanding can be understood to be the death of theology." [9] I wouldn’t totally agree with the author regarding ‘the death of theology’, because such negation was even used by the great Latin father Thomas Aquinas who was influenced by Denis the Areopagite. It was during this time that theology began to determine what can be said about God, who is incomprehensible to the senses and whom we cannot know directly. "We can never know the essence of God in this life, but we can approach that knowledge, through the successive addition of qualitative negations. Aquinas discusses God’s attributes by using the way of negation; for we can know what God is not and obtain a clearer knowledge of the divine substance to the degree we can remove more and more realities to it." [10] The fact that we cannot identify suitably the divine nature does not mean that we cannot say some things which could be of help towards perceiving God’s nature. Wiles, goes on to say that "there are times when our eyes cannot bear to look directly at the sun itself; they have then to infer its existence from the rays of light which reach us. So, though we are incapable of conceiving or describing the being of God himself, we can know him from his works, which stem from him like the rays of the sun." [11] 

Clement, a catechist in Alexandria was different from the rest, his main intention was not so much to defend the Christian faith but to teach it to unbelievers, or, at least, to convince them to accept it. He exhorted the pagans to renounce their worship of idols. He felt that "no man feels bound in conscience to feed during his whole life on the food of his infancy, nor to dress in his old age as he used to do when he was still a child; there is no more reason for any man to persevere indefinitely in error after recognizing it as such." [12] Clement then goes on to explain the love and mercy of Christ which is a great benefit to humankind, and invites the Greeks to turn to him as the only master of the truth.

Necessary to the Greeks before the return of the Lord, philosophy remains positive to the Christians, as long as they keep it in its proper place. "Philosophy is the study of wisdom, and wisdom is the knowledge of things divine and human, and of their causes. Wisdom therefore sways philosophy, as philosophy sways preparatory intellectual culture. Philo, a Jew, whose exegesis of Scripture was full of Platonic and Stoic elements, has thus become, through Clement, the inspirer of the famous formula: ‘philosophy is the handmaid of theology’." [13] The first task of a Christian philosopher is to reject from philosophy all that is false. Certainly, the doctrine of Christ is sufficient unto salvation, but philosophy can assist us in leading men to Christ and in inquiring into the meaning of faith after accepting it.

"Overall, Clements’s catechesis accompanied the catechumens and the baptized, step by step on their way, so that with the two ‘wings’ of faith and reason they might reach intimate knowledge of the Truth, which is Jesus Christ. Only this knowledge of the person, who is Truth, is the ‘true gnosis, a Greek term which means ‘knowledge’ or ‘understanding’. It is the edifice built by reason under the impetus of a supernatural principle." [14] Thus we now see a change in perspective or a paradigm shift, where philosophy was earlier refuted is now treated as a stepping stone to advocate and build on the Christian faith.

On the path to perfection, Clement also attaches as much importance to the moral values as he gives to the intellectual. For him the two go hand in hand, for it is impractical to know without living and not viable to live without knowing. "Becoming likened to God and contemplating Him, cannot be attained with purely rational knowledge: to this end, a life in accordance with the Logos is necessary, a life in accordance with truth. Consequently good works must accompany intellectual knowledge just as the shadow follows the body." [15] 

Christian moral teaching points to a new motivation i.e. eternal life with Jesus Christ and laid a greater stress on the outgoing sacrificial virtues like hospitality, alms giving, and humility. These however were not new virtues, they were also the moral maxims of pagan culture, but they figure with a new distinction in Christian teaching.

As we discussed earlier, Christianity could not accept the Platonic arguments that made the flesh ‘bad’ or Jesus some kind of ‘demi-God’. However, with a developing formulation of Church doctrine, the early fathers drew the image of God as without a body, parts or passions very largely from Platonic sources. This was a total contradiction to their earlier understanding and belief. It created a lot of doctrinal struggles and a hopeless task of trying to combine this conception of God with the biblical idea of him as self-giving love, to the point of incarnation and crucifixion. This also affected early Christian ethics. "If God be without passions, then the Christian’s goal must also be freedom from all passions, freedom from desire if he desires to be god-like." [16] 

Clement tried to bring out the importance of both ideals i.e. love of God and also love of neighbor. For him these two ideals stand clearly side by side. In Clement, "these ideals co-exist. But early Christians could not fathom this unity and thus their focus on the love of God, only, grew up the ideal of ascetic piety in which man seeks the eradication of the passions, etc. Its underlying conviction that God is most fully to be known by escape from the phenomenal world rather than through the sacramental use of it is Greek rather than biblical in origin." [17] Likewise, if to know God is to detach yourself from all worldly ambitions and also people, can give rise to a form of self- centeredness which deviates from what the scripture actually teaches.

The third century is dominated by the figure of one man, Origen. He was an apologist and preacher, biblical exegete and philosophical theologian. "He achieved the union of Greek philosophy and Christianity, for which Clement had prepared the way and thus constructed the first summa of Theology ever to be organized in the Church." [18] 

The Greeks could not fathom a monotheistic faith along with drawing a distinction between God the Father and God the Son. Origen tried to draw a relation between the transcendent realm and the physical world and also to distinguish between unity and multiplicity within the transcendent realm. Thus he had the formation of the transcendent sphere presented in three ranks. "At the top was the One, the supreme existent, the truly transcendent. It may also be called the Good, but strictly nothing can be said of it; it is ineffable and incomprehensible. Yet emanating from it in such a way as to leave it unimpaired and unaffected in its utter transcendence is the divine mind; as mind, it contains within itself the various ideas or ideal forms of the Platonic scheme. And thirdly there is the world-soul, emanating from the divine mind and mediating between it, and the world of the sensible experience. For Origen this ground plan must have appeared heaven sent. The most naturally congenial of the non- Christian philosophical traditions has been led to the conclusion that the divine must exist in three ‘hypostases’. Christian tradition spoke quite independently of the three divine beings, the three ‘hypostases’ of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Where philosophy provided the form, revelation could supply the content." [19] 

Origins contribution to the faith also brought along certain flaws which cannot be ignored and led to great heresies. Origen insists that prayers can be offered only to the Father. "When we offer our prayers to the Son, what we are really doing is asking him to convey them to the Father." [20] But in time the decree of the Church was clear. Praying to Christ was not to be understood in this manner. "The Christian trinity was not to be identified with the three-tier hierarchical trinity of Neo-platonic speculation." [21] This perpetrated the conflict over the person of Arius with the Church regarding the divinity of Christ in the early fourth century.

The weak point of Origen as a theologian was the weak point of Clement before him i.e., the over-emphasis and inclination on philosophy. "His system was developed on the basis of Greek speculation rather than on the basis of the Gospel… It is no cause for wonderment therefore that the Church did not consider Origen’s system a satisfactory synthesis of Christianity and pagan philosophy, though it is doubtful that he was ever condemned by the Church." [22] 

But should we use Greek philosophy to understand Christian doctrine? On the contrary, we should use Christian doctrine to evaluate philosophical theories. This would allow the Church to speculate philosophical beliefs and also keep scripture as its sure foundation. However, we shall see further, how philosophy was so intertwined in the peoples mindset that it would probably be difficult to draw distinctions and avoid parallelisms in order to explain the faith.

Philosophy as a foundation for Doctrine

Tertullian one of the famous Latin Apologists on his treatise On Prescription Against the Heretics shows that the situation was then different from what it had been at the time of Justin and Tatian. There are heresies, and we know they must exist in order to try faith and to oblige it to manifest itself in its purity. Yet, just as fevers may kill bodies, heresies may kill souls. There heresies are fostered by philosophy, which is the wisdom of the world. Tertullian has expressed his opposition to philosophy, and to any kind of philosophical thinking in matters of faith. Nobody has ever written the often quoted formula: "I believe because it is absurd". Tertullian himself has written: "credo quia ineptum" [23] 

Tertullian's attack on philosophy is quite right from one point of view: Greek philosophy has nothing to include to Christian doctrine by way of new content. Yet his position presents a practical problem: the science of the Roman Empire was built on a foundation of Greek philosophy, and science had made important advances, e.g. the recognition that the earth is spherical; the moon's light and other meteorological phenomena, etc. If the Christian abandoned Greek philosophy, he would have to abandon all worldly learning as well.

During this time, the Latin Church was no less creative and complicated than the Greek. After Tertullian, philosophy was looked at very optimistically. Minucius Felix, in his book ‘Octavius’ which is a Christian dialogue elaborates, that for the first time, the definitive truth about man and the world has been revealed to all. Christianity had an answer and explanation of the world which philosophy could not accomplish. Christianity spoke of a single God, creator and provider of all, was enlightening man on the secret of his origin and of his destiny. Christianity also elaborated on the end time, the immortality of the soul, rewards or punishments, all these and so many truths which the pagans have worked hard to ascertain and which the Christians glory in having received from God. [24] 

Lactantius emphasizes that Christianity untied both wisdom and religion, "where the one true God is worshipped, where life and every action are referred to one source, and to one supreme authority: in short, the teachers of wisdom are the same who are also the priests of God….Therefore religion is contained in wisdom, and wisdom in religion." [25] Lactantius on writing these lines, in a way prophesied what was to remain the condition of philosophy when practically all the philosophers were priests and philosophy became an integral part in the formation to the priesthood.

During this time many Christian writers had subordinated the Son to the Father either in origin or divinity. One of them is the doctrine of Arius whose theology made the Son to be a creature of the Father. "Arianism was a philosophical heresy; in this sense at least that to conceive a begotten son as inferior to an unbegotten father appeared as more rational than to ascribe to Father and Son the same degree of perfection. The reason being, the philosophy of Plotinus, who, together with Origen, clearly subordinated the Nous to the One and the World Soul to the Nous." [26] In other words, the Son or Word cannot be God in the same sense as the Father. This led to the convocation of the Council of Nicea by Constantine in 325. One of its main objectives was to judge the doctrine of Arius. The Cappadocians - Gregory of Nyssa, Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzus, it is to them that we owe the first sketch of what became the orthodox Trinitarian doctrine at the Council of Nicea which affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

Augustine, who was imbued with the doctrines of Platonists, adopted their teaching if it was consistent with faith, and those things which he found contrary to faith he amended.

His views are, for a Platonist, "the soul of man is immaterial and unlike the body, belongs properly to the true world of ideas; knowledge of that ideal world is made possible when the soul, reminded by objects in the world, remembers the forms of the ideal world which is its own original and true home. It is therefore memory which is the ultimate source of any knowledge of the truly real. Memory is therefore an appropriate image of the Father. "Reason" and "wisdom" had a long history of association with the person of the Son. So wisdom and understanding arises out of the memory, out of the source of man’s knowing, in a way that is analogous to the Son’s generation from the Father. Love also, the first fruits of the Spirit, had a similarly long history of special association with the person of the Holy Spirit. Thus the Spirit suggests to us that mutual charity whereby the Father and the Son love one another." [27] Augustine’s attempt to explain the trinity in a manner that would appeal the intellectuals is indeed a creative endeavor. However his explanation seems a bit vague and faint to be easily grasped. He too would have realized his inadequacy and attributed it to the human limitedness. It could be understood that "any further progress in understanding the being of God must be by a process that is as much devotional as purely rational." [28] 

We know from Scripture that God created man a compound of soul and body. (1 Thessalonians 4:23). Augustine has always upheld that man was the union of body and soul. Yet following Plotinus, who himself followed Plato on this point, Augustine also defined man : "a soul that uses a body; all that which is in the body comes to it from the soul, all that which is in the soul comes to from within." [29] 

No Christian thinker exemplifies more plainly the new approach towards philosophy, and no philosopher synthesizes his own theology with Platonism, more skillfully than Augustine. "The Christian God is thought of and described in terms of Plato's metaphysics. Christian doctrine, then, can be roughly synthesized with Platonism and vice versa since both are committed foremost to the same ultimately real principle." [30] A similar opinion appears in The City of God where Augustine mentions that according to Plato "the virtuous life is the ultimate end of man and that only those attain to it who know and imitate God and find their blessedness wholly in this" points out that there are no other philosophers that come nearer to Christianity than the Platonists, because "Plato says that the wise man is the man who imitates, knows, and loves God, and that participation in this God brings man happiness." [31] 

The Cappadocians also finally agreed that true philosophy could lead to knowledge of God, and that reason properly employed was a legitimate instrument both in defending and establishing Christian doctrine. In this respect it is fair to say that the fusion of philosophy and Christian theology in the East not only paralleled, but, in important ways, served as a model and impetus for the theological practices in the Latin West. [32] 

Philosophy did have its drawbacks and limitations in the way of explaining the Christian faith. Rather than making philosophy a foundation for Christian doctrine, it would seem less laborious to explain the faith solely by scripture. However, even though we may stress the supernatural disposition of God’s revelation in scripture "the rationalist critique of the time attacked faith and denied the possibility of any knowledge which was not the fruit of reasons natural capacities". [33] Thus it was necessary for the Church to make use to philosophy to explain the faith to the pagans. "Faith thus become the convinced and convincing advocate of reason" [34] 

Conclusion

Thus, we can clearly conceive that philosophy did have a great influence on the early Church Fathers and played a remarkable role in the formation of Christian doctrine. It was a tool to evangelize to the people and lead them to the fullness of Truth i.e. Jesus Christ.

We can thus conclude that, in most philosophical thoughts, there were inconsistencies. The wisdom of man could never match the wisdom of God. No matter how the Fathers tried to explain the faith using philosophical ideas, it always led to further debate or a warped understanding of the faith .For example, Christ is considered to be some kind of demigod, a second-rate Platonic Logos who achieved an advanced spiritual (metaphysical) state. The Arian view of Christ is strongly taught by the Watchtower Society also known as "Jehovah's Witnesses".

But, it is in morality and ethics that philosophy had its most influential and practical control in Christian theology. Philosophy came into Christianity gradually, first as offering a forum for discussion of Christian beliefs and a venue to defend the faith against slanders and misrepresentations. Later, it offered a common ground for discussion of common ideas, and a method for methodically organizing Christian beliefs. The adoption of Greek philosophy did change the character of Christianity. Planted on the bed of Greek philosophy, the Christian faith absorbed Hellenism, while Hellenism became Christianized or rather in simple terms; Faith built on Reason.



rev

Our Service Portfolio

jb

Want To Place An Order Quickly?

Then shoot us a message on Whatsapp, WeChat or Gmail. We are available 24/7 to assist you.

whatsapp

Do not panic, you are at the right place

jb

Visit Our essay writting help page to get all the details and guidence on availing our assiatance service.

Get 20% Discount, Now
£19 £14/ Per Page
14 days delivery time

Our writting assistance service is undoubtedly one of the most affordable writting assistance services and we have highly qualified professionls to help you with your work. So what are you waiting for, click below to order now.

Get An Instant Quote

ORDER TODAY!

Our experts are ready to assist you, call us to get a free quote or order now to get succeed in your academics writing.

Get a Free Quote Order Now