The struggle against Gnosticism left its mark in a variety of ways on the theology developed by the church fathers in the first several centuries. The presentation of the Christian faith which we find in the so-called anti-Gnostic fathers must be understood against the background of this polemical situation. For these theologians of the early church, belief in the divine creation occupied a central place in a way which was not true in the later Western tradition, where the doctrine of salvation was often emphasized at the expense of other facets of Christianity. It was Gnostic idealism, with its denial of creation, which impelled the church fathers to treat the doctrine of God and creation, together with the problem of man, the Incarnation, and the resurrection of the body, in such great detail. Another obvious characteristic was the nomistic point of view which can be seen, for example, in Tertullian. This can also be explained in part against the background of Gnosticism, with its proclamation of freedom from the Law and its antinomian misinterpretation of the Pauline concept of justification.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus came from Asia Minor, where as a child he had seen and been influenced by Polycarp of Smyrna, who, in turn, was a disciple of John. His theology, moreover, is representative of the Johannine tradition which is associated with Asia Minor. Most of his work, however, was done in the West. He became bishop of Lyons about 177, and he remained there until the time of his death (early in the second century).
Only two of Irenaeus’ writings are still extant. The one is his comprehensive refutation of the Gnostics, Adversus haereses, of which a fragment of the Greek original and a Latin translation remain. The second, Epideixis, is a presentation of the basic teachings of the “apostolic proclamation.” This was known only by name for a long time, but it was rediscovered in an Armenian translation in 1904.
What Irenaeus sought to do above all in his theological work was to defend the apostolic faith against Gnostic innovations. The gnosis of Valentinus was the chief threat to Christianity, in his estimation, inasmuch as it imperiled church unity on the one hand and sought to destroy the distinction between Christianity and pagan religious speculation on the other.
Irenaeus has been called the father of Catholic dogmatics. There is some truth in that expression, insofar as he was the first to attempt to provide a uniform summary of the whole of Scripture. Irenaeus rejected the Apologists’ view of Christianity as the true philosophy. He refused to employ the assistance of Greek speculation, and he did not agree with those who said that the content of revelation was simply a new and better philosophy. For him the Biblical tradition was the only source of faith.
Irenaeus was, therefore, a Biblical theologian in a pronounced sense of the term. While the Gnostics sought for revelation in a hidden knowledge that was at least in part independent of the Bible, in myths and in mystery-wisdom, Irenaeus held forth the Scriptures as the only basis of faith. The Old and New Testaments were the means whereby revelation and the original tradition reach us. Beyond the Old Testament, which he thought of above all as the foundation of the doctrine of faith, Irenaeus referred to a collection of New Testament writings which he considered to be similarly authoritative and which was largely the same as our present canon. The word “testament” was not, of course, used in this context. The canon had not yet been formally established at that time. Some of the New Testament writings were thought to be too controversial; they were accepted as canonical in some circles, while in others their apostolic authority was challenged. For the most part, however, the scope of the New Testament canon was established even prior to Irenaeus’ time. His own use of the New Testament writings is, to some degree, an obvious demonstration of this fact.
Irenaeus said nothing about the distinction between Scripture and tradition which appeared later on in the field of dogmatics. The oral tradition which he cited as having decisive authority was the teaching of the apostles and the prophets, which was entrusted to the church and perpetuated by those in the church who received the Gospel from the apostles. As far as content was concerned, this was nothing other than the proclamation deposited in written form in the Old and New Testaments. The Gnostics, on the other hand, distorted the teachings of the Bible by relying on traditions which did not originate with the apostles. In a well-known passage (Adversus haereses, III, 3, 3) Irenaeus referred to the unbroken line of Roman bishops, beginning with the time of the apostles, to demonstrate the fact that it was the church—and not the heretics—which preserved the correct tradition. It would be wrong, however, to read into this text the concept of apostolic succession which developed later. Irenaeus, after all, was primarily concerned about doctrinal content and not about ordination.
On some occasions Irenaeus spoke of doctrinal authority in terms of regula veritatis, “the rule of truth.” In similar fashion, the church fathers frequently made mention of regula fidei, “the rule of faith,” as the determining factor in questions regarding Christian teachings. The significance of these concepts has been widely discussed; some have professed to see in them a reference to the formal baptismal confession which was worked out in the struggle with Gnosticism, while others have interpreted the rule of faith to refer to the Holy Scriptures. That “truth” which, according to Irenaeus, was the “rule” (the Greek word καvωv [canon] was used in this connection) was the revealed order of salvation which is witnessed to in the Bible and summarized in the baptismal confession. “The rule of truth” was not, therefore, fixed in a specific formula; neither did it designate the Scriptures as a doctrinal codex. It rather referred to revealed truth as this was reflected not only in the baptismal confession and the Scriptures but also in the preaching of the church. It was this revealed truth that Irenaeus used to combat the Gnostics, and it was this that he sought to interpret and describe in a manner consistent with the genuine apostolic tradition.
Irenaeus therefore derived his theology from the Scriptures. What he desired to do, above all, was to present God’s order of salvation from the creation to the fulfillment (οικοvομια salutis). Time, in his estimation, was a limited epoch; it began with creation and will end with the fulfillment. It is surrounded at both ends by eternity. It is within the context of time that the salvation event takes place. Within this context God has carried out the deeds to which Scripture bears witness and on which man’s salvation depends. To the Gnostics salvation was not something accomplished within history; it was an idea, a speculative scheme which claimed that the soul could be elevated over the temporal and reunited with its divine origins through the instrumentality of gnosis. To Irenaeus all of this was actual history, with the fulfillment expected at the end of time. The difference between the Greek view of the world and the Christian concept of time is plain to see in these opposing points of view.
Creation was a part of the divine order of salvation. God’s Son, the Savior, was present before the beginning of time in His preexistent state. Man was created so that the Savior should not be alone, so that there should be someone to save (cf. Gustav Wingren, Man and the Incarnation According to Irenaeus, 1947, p. 28). Everything was created through the Son and for the Son. Salvation was accomplished for the same reason that God created: that man might be like God. Man was created in the image of God, but as a result of the Fall this similarity was lost. The meaning of salvation is that man might realize his destiny once again, that man might become the image of God according to the prototype discernible in Christ. Man stands at the center of creation. Everything else has been created for man’s use. But man was created for Christ and to become like Christ, who is the Center of all existence, the One who sums up everything in heaven and on earth. (Cf. Adversus haereses, V, 16, 2)
As seen from this point of view, creation and salvation are joined together because there is but one God who both creates and saves. The Gnostic teaching of the two gods blasphemed the Creator. It also implied that salvation was impossible. For if God did not create, neither can creation be saved. If God was not the Creator, neither would He save creation. But this is the goal of the entire order of salvation.
To the Gnostics salvation consisted of deliverance from creation, from the material world, and a return to pure spirituality. To Irenaeus, on the other hand, salvation meant that creation itself would be restored to its original state, that creation would finally achieve its Godgiven destiny. Salvation to Irenaeus did not mean, in other words, that the spirit of man would be released from its material bondage, but rather that the whole man, with body and soul, would be freed from the devil’s dominion, returned to his original purity, and become like God.
Man was created, according to Gen. 1:26, in God’s “image” and “likeness.” It has often been said that Irenaeus was the first to introduce the idea (widely accepted later on) which held that these concepts pointed to two distinct qualities in man. This, however, is not correct. For Irenaeus frequently used both of these concepts to express the same matter, and these passages would seem to be decisive. (Cf, Wingren)
When it is said that man was created in the image of God, this, according to Irenaeus, is indicative of man’s true destiny. It does not mean that man is the image of God but rather that he was created to become that. Christ, who is God Himself, is the image of God after which man was created. Man’s destiny, therefore, is to become like Christ. This is the goal of salvation and of the work of the Holy Spirit.
At the time of creation, man was a child; he was not then fully developed, but he was created to grow. If man had lived in accordance with the will of God he would have grown, and through the creative power of God he would have achieved his destiny—complete Godlikeness. Irenaeus understood growth, not as an inner development but as the result of God’s continued creativity.
But man departed from the way of obedience, having been tempted by the devil, one of the angels who, overcome by their envy of man, fell away from God. Thus it was that man came under the dominion of the devil. Man is caught up in the struggle between God and Satan.
The intent of the order of salvation, therefore, is to free from the clutches of the devil those whom he has wrongfully seized. This is the work of redemption, which was carried out through Christ. He has conquered the devil and thereby accomplished man’s release. But in spite of this, the struggle continues. It must be said, however, that it entered a new phase after the resurrection of Christ. As a result, the decisive battle has been fought out. What happens is that men are drawn into the victory of Christ and thereby receive the life which was lost through Adam’s fall.
This order of salvation can be pictured in various ways, such as release from bondage or as victory after struggle (see above). It can also be described in legalistic terms: naturalia praecepta—lex Mosaica—Christ, the new covenant, the restoration of the original law. The original law, having been given at the time of creation, expresses God’s will for man. Man’s destiny is to live in a manner consistent with this law, in obedience to God’s command. In so doing, man receives life and righteousness from the hand of God and goes forward toward the goal of perfection and Godlikeness. This law was written in the heart, and man is free to follow it or to break it. But when man goes contrary to God’s command, he comes under the dominion of sin. Thus it was that God entered into a new covenant with man, through the Israelites, and gave man the Mosaic law. The purpose of this law was to discipline man, to reveal sin and keep it in its place, and to maintain order in an external way until the coming of Christ. As seen in this context, Christ’s task was to abrogate the Mosaic law and to restore the law which was given at the time of creation and which had been obscured by the Pharisaic regulations. Christ frees from the thralldom of the Law through His Spirit, which regenerates man and fulfills the law within him. The Holy Spirit restores obedience, and man is thereby regenerated according to the law which was given at the time of creation. This original law was an expression of that which constituted man’s Godlikeness. There is, therefore, a parallel between the assertion that man was created in the image of God and that which is said about natural law.
Life and death are related to the Law, and Irenaeus described the order of salvation in these categories as well. Life and obedience to the Law go together. When man obeys God’s commands, he receives life from God, but when he falls into disobedience, he comes under the power of death. For disobedience to God is the equivalent of death. It was because of disobedience that the stream of life was broken, and when this was done death appeared in the world of men. Death, therefore, is not associated with the body and created life in an eo ipso manner; it is rather something that has been imposed upon man because of sin. This is reflected in Gen. 2:17: “For in the day you eat of it you shall die.” Salvation implies that life has been restored through Christ's victory over death. By believing in Christ, man can recover the life that was lost through the Fall. Salvation bestows the gift of immortality. The body will certainly die because of sin, in order that the power of sin might be reduced. The new life in the Spirit is activated by faith, and it reaches fulfillment after death. Then there will no longer be anything in man that belongs to death. The man who has been restored has realized the destiny for which he was created—to become like God and to live without dying.
The basic idea in Irenaeus’ presentation of the order of salvation is that the work of creation has been restored and recapitulated in the salvation wrought through Christ. In opposition to the Gnostics, who taught that salvation consists of the release of the spirit from the material world, Irenaeus insisted that God and man, body and soul, heaven and earth are able to overcome the split occasioned by the incursion of sin and to be reunited once again. This, for Irenaeus, was the meaning of salvation.
Christ is the second Adam, a counterpart of the first Adam. The latter brought death and ruin into creation because of his disobedience. Christ, through His obedience, restores creation to its pure state. Adam yielded to the temptation of the serpent and thus came under the dominion of the devil. Christ overcame temptation and thus vanquished the tempter’s power over mankind. He epitomizes the entire human race, just as the first Adam did. On the strength of His obedience and work of atonement, He became the fountainhead of a new humanity. He has perfected that which was spoiled through Adam’s fall. Through Him humanity continues to grow toward the goal of perfection. Creation is restored, and its destiny is realized. Christ’s redemptive work began with His birth of the virgin Mary and will be completed at the time of the general resurrection, when all enemies will have been subjugated to Christ, and God will be all in all.
Irenaeus described this entire oeconomia salutis in a single concept: recapitulation (αvακεφαλαιωσις). This word means “recapitulation”; it also connotes “restoration.” This concept is derived from Eph. 1:10, where mention is made of God’s decree concerning “a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth.”
For Irenaeus, therefore, “recapitulation” was a designation for all of Christ’s redemptive activity, from the time of His birth to the Day of Judgment. In carrying out this work Christ repeated that which happened at the time of creation, even though this was done, so to speak, in the reverse sequence. “He has recapitulated the first creation in Himself. For just as sin entered the world through one man’s disobedience, and death through sin, so also has righteousness come into the world through one man’s obedience, bringing life to those who formerly were dead.” (Adversus haereses, III, 21, 9–10)
Recapitulation also implies perfection, or completion. That which was given through Christ, and which comes into being through His obedience, is superior to that which was given at the time of creation. Man was still a “child” at that time. Because of the salvation which has been wrought, man can grow up to complete Godlikeness, as represented in the person of Christ.
Irenaeus developed his Christology in opposition to the Docetic point of view championed by Gnosticism. The work of salvation presupposes that Christ is both true man and true God. “If the enemies of man had not been overcome by man, they could not have been truly overcome; furthermore, if our salvation is not from God, we cannot be sure that we are saved. And if man has not been united with God, it would not be possible for him to share in immortality” (III, 18, 7; cf. Gustav Aulen, History of Dogma, p. 32). Here we find a strong emphasis on Christ’s humanity: a real man had to walk the way of obedience so that the order which was shattered by Adam’s disobedience might be restored. At the same time, it was God alone who could carry out the work of redemption. Christ is truly man and truly God (vere homo, vere deus).
The Son has existed with the Father from all eternity. But how the Son came from the Father is not revealed. As a result, man can know nothing about that. Irenaeus rejected the Logos speculations of the Apologists, in which the birth of the Son was compared to the way in which the Word proceeded out of reason. “Should it be asked, ‘How was the Son brought forth out of the Father?’ this is our answer: ‘Concerning His generation, or birth, or manifestation, or revelation, or however one will express HIS ineffable birth, no one knows; not Marcion, not Valentinus, not Saturninus, not Basilides. Only the Father, who brought forth, and the Son, who was born, know about this’” (II, 28, 6). The Apologists said that a birth took place in time (the Word proceeded from the divine reason at the time of creation). Irenaeus, on the other hand, seems to have contemplated the possibility of a birth in eternity, but he did not express himself in a specific way on this point.
It was typical of Irenaeus that he refused to explain more precisely how it was that Christ came forth from the Father; the same was true with respect to the relationship between God and man in Christ. He sought to set forth the content of Scripture without the assistance of philosophy and to hold fast to the rule of faith without giving way to mere speculation. In Adversus haereses, I, 10, 1 Irenaeus provided a brief summary of the faith which had been handed down from the apostles: “The church extends throughout the entire world, to the uttermost ends of the earth. It has received its faith from the apostles and their followers. This faith is in the one God, Father almighty, who made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all within them; and in Christ Jesus, God’s Son, who, to redeem us, took human form; and in the Holy Spirit, who, through the prophets, has proclaimed God’s order of salvation, the Lord’s twofold advent, His birth of a virgin, His suffering, His resurrection from the dead, His physical ascension into heaven, and His return from heaven in the glory of the Father. Christ shall return in order to ‘restore all things’ and to reawaken all flesh in the entire human race, so that all knees shall bow before and all tongues shall praise Jesus Christ, who, according to the invisible Father’s pleasure, is our Savior and King.”
There is in the theology of Irenaeus a parallel to the millennial doctrine, but he avoids speaking of the “1,000 years.” He rather refers to a “kingdom of the Son,” in which the dominion of Christ will be manifested in a visible way on earth. Furthermore, the Antichrist will be vanquished, nature will be renewed, and the faithful will reign with Christ in this “kingdom of the Son.” This will precede the second resurrection and the Day of Judgment. Eternity will begin after the judgment is complete, when the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father, and God will then be “all in all.” (Cf. Wingren, pp. 212 ff.)
Tertullian
In a long series of learned and incisive writings, Tertullian involved himself in the ecclesiastical controversies of his time in order to defend the Christian faith and to instruct the faithful. He was the first of the church fathers with a typically “Western style,” and in many respects he was the founder of the Western theological tradition.
Tertullian was born at Carthage in the middle of the second century; originally a pagan, he was converted to Christianity as a mature man. He practiced law in Rome for a time, but after his conversion he returned to private life in Carthage, where he devoted himself to studying and writing. His literary activity was confined approximately to the period between 195 and 220. In about the year 207 Tertullian associated himself with the Montanist movement, which later manifested sectarian tendencies.
As an author, Tertullian was very distinctive. In contrast to the earlier writers, he employed a formal style. He was prominent in the field of rhetoric, and his fund of knowledge was broad and deep. He was not a philosopher, however; he was more interested in social matters, and he had a good grasp of the law. He was a critical observer of life in general, and his writings manifest his strongly individualistic point of view. His deep interest in practical matters and his firm attachment to reality are characteristic of the Western point of view. As Karl Holl has written of Tertullian, “In him the Western spirit spoke clearly for the first time.” (Gesammelte Aufsätze, III, 2)
Passionate enthusiasm and an ingenious dialectic characterized Tertullian’s polemical writings. Because of his uneven, paradoxical and terse style, Tertullian is sometimes hard to understand.
The theological writings of Tertullian have exerted a widespread and significant influence. This has been true chiefly because he produced certain formulations that came into current usage and coined some theological terminology that has been a part of theological literature ever since (in the Latin language which he used). Furthermore, some of his concepts have provided the prototype for later developments in the field of theology. This was true, for example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, and original sin. Tertullian was the precursor of Cyprian, who became his disciple, and of Augustine.
Tertullian’s contributions to the age in which he lived were found in his polemical writings as well as in his pronouncements concerning practical ecclesiastical problems. Like the Apologists, he fought against paganism (cf. Apologeticum). Gnosticism was to him, as to Irenaeus, the chief opponent (cf. Adversus Marcionem; De praescriptione haereticorum). Finally, he also turned against Modalism (cf. Adversus Praxean). Tertullian wrote a number of books in order to develop his doctrinal convictions and to express himself with respect to practical congregational questions.
Tertullian’s theology was, to a large extent, conditioned by his struggle with the Gnostics. His well-known rejections of philosophy must be seen in this context, for in his estimation philosophy was the source of the Gnostic heresy. Valentinus learned from Plato, Marcion from the Stoics, and as a result they transformed Christianity into a pagan philosophy of religion. Wrote Tertullian: “The philosophers and the heretics discuss the same subjects, and they employ the same involved argumentation. Poor Aristotle! It was you who taught them dialectics, to become champions at building up and tearing down. They are so cunning in their theories, so labored in their inferences, so sure about their evidence, so officious in their debates, which become burdensome by virtue of the fact that they deal with everything in such a way that, in the final analysis, nothing has been dealt with. What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? What does the academy have to do with the church? What do heretics have to do with Christians? Our doctrine stems from Solomon’s hall of pillars, from him who had learned that man must seek for the Lord with a heart of innocence. For all I care, one can, if he pleases, bring forth a Stoic and Platonic and dialectic Christianity. Since the Gospel of Christ has been proclaimed to us, we no longer need to inquire, or to examine into such things. If we have faith, we have no desire for anything beyond faith. For this is the first principle of our faith: There is nothing beyond this faith which we must believe” (De praescript., 7). If one seeks for something beyond faith, he thereby reveals the fact that he does not really have faith. Such a man rather has faith in that for which he is seeking (ibid., 11). The Gnostics go beyond faith in their wisdom. The Christian, on the other hand, holds fast to the simple faith which is revealed in the Scriptures and preserved in the apostolic tradition. “To know nothing in opposition to the rule [of faith] is to know all things.” (Ibid., 14)
Tertullian’s rejection of philosophy was, therefore, involved in his struggle against the heretics. “The philosophers are the fathers of the heretics,” he wrote (Adversus Hermogenem, 8). But this rejection can also be explained thus, that Tertullian recognized a fundamental distinction between faith and reason in epistemology. That which a man believes cannot be comprehended with his reason. The knowledge of faith is different from the knowledge of reason. The former possesses its own wisdom, which has nothing to do with rational evidence. Concerning the resurrection of Christ, Tertullian said: “It is certain because it is impossible” (De carne Christi, 5; cf. De baptismo, 2). It is this kind of “irrationalism” which is usually characterized with the expression credo quia absurdum (“I believe because it is absurd”). This phrase is not to be found in Tertullian, but it certainly does express his thoughts on this point.
What has just been quoted, however, is representative of but one side of Tertullian’s understanding of faith and reason. Other passages in his writings set forth his more positive opinion concerning human reason. He does this without calling upon philosophy to bolster his arguments. In this matter Tertullian does not make the same strict demands upon theology as does Irenaeus.
It has sometimes been said that there is a rationalistic strain in Tertullian’s so-called natural theology. He did say on occasion that the non-Christian has a natural understanding of the one God; the soul of man is naturaliter Christiana. Tertullian also propounded the cosmological proof of the existence of God: the beauty and order of creation is proof of the Creator’s presence in the world, said he. These and similar thoughts were, however, intended to demonstrate the universality of Christianity and to support the Christian belief in a divine creation. As a result, one cannot justifiably accuse Tertullian of rationalism.
Even though he severely criticized philosophy, Tertullian frequently employed philosophical ideas and formulations. In opposing the spiritualism which was characteristic of Gnosticism, for example, he borrowed certain thought patterns from the Stoics, which were then shaped into a “realistic” theory. It is this realism which, to a certain degree at least, distinguishes Western thought from Greek thought. But Tertullian carried this to an extreme: theology, he said, must be connected with manifest reality at every point. The physical body provides the pattern for all reality. “Everything that is is a body of some kind; nothing is incorporeal except that which does not exist” (De carne Christi, 11). As a consequence of this thesis, Tertullian even ascribed corporeality to God, and he also contemplated the possibility that the soul has an invisible body. His theory concerning the origin of the soul was related to this; the soul, according to Tertullian, is transmitted by natural birth from one generation to the next. This concept is known as traducianism. The other theory concerning the origin of the soul is called creationism, which holds that the soul of each man is a new creation, direct from the hand of God. (Cf. Karpp, Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie, 1950)
The doctrine of the Trinity occupies an important position in Tertullian’s theology. In working with this facet of his theology, Tertullian adopted the Logos concepts of the Apologists and developed them further. His formulations provided the basis for the Trinitarian formulas and the Christology which were accepted later on.
Tertullian applied the Logos concept in the manner of the Apologists. Christ, he said, is the divine Word, which proceeded from out of God’s reason at the time of creation. When God said, “Let there be light,” the Word was born. Christ is one with God, and yet He is distinct from the Father. He has come forth from the essence of God as the rays emerge from the sun, as plants from their roots, or a river from its source. Therefore the Son is subordinate to the Father. He is the one who has revealed God, while God Himself is invisible. Like the Apologists, Tertullian used the expression “subordinationism.” He strongly emphasized that the Son and the Holy Spirit are one with the Father but at the same time somewhat different from the Father. “The Father is not the Son; He is greater than the Son; for the one who gives birth is different from the one who is born; the one who sends out is different from the one who is sent” (Adversus Praxean, 9). In order to express the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Tertullian coined the term persona, which eventually became the accepted term in this context. The Son, as an independent person, has come forth from the Father. The Logos has an independent existence. And yet the three persons are one, just as the sun’s rays are one with the sun. To express this unity, Tertullian used the term substantia, which parallels the Greek word ουσια “essence” or “substance.” This term, too, came to be commonly accepted in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The three persons preexisted in God. But when they proceeded from God and into time, this took place in accordance with the order of salvation. The Son went forth from the Father in order to declare the order of salvation. The three persons denote different stages in God’s revelation, but they are nevertheless one—just as the root brings forth a plant, and the plant bears fruit, while together they form one and the same plant. This view of the Trinity is usually referred to as an “economic” doctrine of the Trinity. The difference between the persons is described on the basis of their activity in the order of salvation.
Tertullian developed his Christology in opposition to modalism (of which more will be said later on). He drew a sharp distinction between the divine and human qualities in Christ. They have reference to two different substances, said he, which were united in one person, Christ, but not combined. When Christ said, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” it was not God the Father who cried out (“For if so, to which God did He cry?”)—it was the man, the Son, who cried to the Father. Christ suffered only as the Son, Tertullian asserted, and thereby rejected patripassionism (Praxeas), which so confused God and Christ that it claimed that it was the Father who suffered. It must also be pointed out, however, that Tertullian used such expressions as Deus mortuus and Deus crucifixus, which need not contradict what was said above. But he said nothing specific about the relationship between the divine and human qualities. The Logos appeared in the flesh, clad in a corporeal form, but was not changed into flesh. The subsequent doctrine of Christ’s two natures was based on Tertullian. His terminology can be presented schematically in the following manner:
One substance (ουσια)— three persons (υποστασεις): Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The person of Christ—divine and human nature (the substance of the Creator and human substance).
Irenaeus presented Christ as the Savior from the power of sin, who, through His Spirit, redeems man from the corruption of sin so that man can be restored to his original purity. Salvation was described, in other words, in terms of the recovery of health and wholeness. In Tertullian a different point of view comes to the fore: he presented Christ as the teacher who proclaims a new law (nova lex), thereby strengthening man’s free will so that he can live according to God’s commands. To live in a manner consistent with God’s law is set forth as the goal of salvation. This is achieved through instruction in the Law. The concept of merit is dominant. God rewards or punishes on the basis of merit. The relationship between God and man is seen in the contest of a judicial system. If God did not avenge and punish, there would be no reason to fear Him and to do what is right. Salvation, said Tertullian, is given as a reward for human merit. Good deeds as well as evil must be recompensed by God. This interpretation is clearly antithetical to that of Marcion, who so emphasized the love of God that all considerations of retribution and wrath were denied.
Tertullian’s doctrine of grace was also introduced into this scheme. It is grace which saves—by which Tertullian meant to say that grace takes away the corruption which has adhered to human nature as a result of the incursion of sin. The idea that this corruption is to be found in nature itself, and is transmitted through birth, is to be found in Tertullian. This is where the doctrine of original sin began to take form. Through grace man can receive the power needed to live the new life. Grace is conceived as a power which is bestowed upon man and thus enables him to live a meritorious life. On the basis of this doctrine of sin—grace—merit, which Tertullian developed in the course of his controversy with Marcion (who stressed God’s love), the foundation was laid for the doctrine of salvation which dominated Western medieval theology and, later on, Roman Catholicism.
As noted above, Tertullian joined the Montanist movement, partly as a result of the church’s lax practice with respect to penance. The Montanist sect originated in Asia Minor in the middle of the second century, and spread from there to Rome and North Africa. It was remarkable for its strong emphasis on prophecy and the free gifts of the Spirit, for its belief that the end of the world was near, and for its rigid asceticism and strict practice of penance.
Because of his association with the Montanists, Tertullian is remembered as having been something of a schismatic, but at the same time he was also one of the chief opponents of heresy, as well as one of the foremost architects of orthodox Western theology.
Hippolytus
Hippolytus, who was a bishop in Rome and an opponent of Pope Calixtus (whose attitude with regard to penance he sharply disapproved), was banished to Sardinia during a persecution (ca. 235), and he died in exile. He wrote a number of books (in Greek), some of which are still extant, in which he continued the defense of Christian doctrine against Greek philosophy and ecclesiastical heresy. His best-known work is entitled Philosophoumena (or The Refutation of All Heresy), which is actually an encyclopedic survey of the philosophical ideas which stemmed from the Greek natural philosophers, of the various magical and religious concepts prevalent in his day, as well as of the ecclesiastical heresies which, according to Hippolytus, had their roots in Greek philosophy. This work testifies to the author’s extensive learning and provides valuable knowledge concerning the various schools of thought which Hippolytus here describes. The polemical material, on the other hand, which was directed primarily at the Gnostics and the modalists, does not possess the same originality and power as do the polemics of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
Irenaeus
Irenaeus came from Asia Minor, where as a child he had seen and been influenced by Polycarp of Smyrna, who, in turn, was a disciple of John. His theology, moreover, is representative of the Johannine tradition which is associated with Asia Minor. Most of his work, however, was done in the West. He became bishop of Lyons about 177, and he remained there until the time of his death (early in the second century).
Only two of Irenaeus’ writings are still extant. The one is his comprehensive refutation of the Gnostics, Adversus haereses, of which a fragment of the Greek original and a Latin translation remain. The second, Epideixis, is a presentation of the basic teachings of the “apostolic proclamation.” This was known only by name for a long time, but it was rediscovered in an Armenian translation in 1904.
What Irenaeus sought to do above all in his theological work was to defend the apostolic faith against Gnostic innovations. The gnosis of Valentinus was the chief threat to Christianity, in his estimation, inasmuch as it imperiled church unity on the one hand and sought to destroy the distinction between Christianity and pagan religious speculation on the other.
Irenaeus has been called the father of Catholic dogmatics. There is some truth in that expression, insofar as he was the first to attempt to provide a uniform summary of the whole of Scripture. Irenaeus rejected the Apologists’ view of Christianity as the true philosophy. He refused to employ the assistance of Greek speculation, and he did not agree with those who said that the content of revelation was simply a new and better philosophy. For him the Biblical tradition was the only source of faith.
Irenaeus was, therefore, a Biblical theologian in a pronounced sense of the term. While the Gnostics sought for revelation in a hidden knowledge that was at least in part independent of the Bible, in myths and in mystery-wisdom, Irenaeus held forth the Scriptures as the only basis of faith. The Old and New Testaments were the means whereby revelation and the original tradition reach us. Beyond the Old Testament, which he thought of above all as the foundation of the doctrine of faith, Irenaeus referred to a collection of New Testament writings which he considered to be similarly authoritative and which was largely the same as our present canon. The word “testament” was not, of course, used in this context. The canon had not yet been formally established at that time. Some of the New Testament writings were thought to be too controversial; they were accepted as canonical in some circles, while in others their apostolic authority was challenged. For the most part, however, the scope of the New Testament canon was established even prior to Irenaeus’ time. His own use of the New Testament writings is, to some degree, an obvious demonstration of this fact.
Irenaeus said nothing about the distinction between Scripture and tradition which appeared later on in the field of dogmatics. The oral tradition which he cited as having decisive authority was the teaching of the apostles and the prophets, which was entrusted to the church and perpetuated by those in the church who received the Gospel from the apostles. As far as content was concerned, this was nothing other than the proclamation deposited in written form in the Old and New Testaments. The Gnostics, on the other hand, distorted the teachings of the Bible by relying on traditions which did not originate with the apostles. In a well-known passage (Adversus haereses, III, 3, 3) Irenaeus referred to the unbroken line of Roman bishops, beginning with the time of the apostles, to demonstrate the fact that it was the church—and not the heretics—which preserved the correct tradition. It would be wrong, however, to read into this text the concept of apostolic succession which developed later. Irenaeus, after all, was primarily concerned about doctrinal content and not about ordination.
On some occasions Irenaeus spoke of doctrinal authority in terms of regula veritatis, “the rule of truth.” In similar fashion, the church fathers frequently made mention of regula fidei, “the rule of faith,” as the determining factor in questions regarding Christian teachings. The significance of these concepts has been widely discussed; some have professed to see in them a reference to the formal baptismal confession which was worked out in the struggle with Gnosticism, while others have interpreted the rule of faith to refer to the Holy Scriptures. That “truth” which, according to Irenaeus, was the “rule” (the Greek word καvωv [canon] was used in this connection) was the revealed order of salvation which is witnessed to in the Bible and summarized in the baptismal confession. “The rule of truth” was not, therefore, fixed in a specific formula; neither did it designate the Scriptures as a doctrinal codex. It rather referred to revealed truth as this was reflected not only in the baptismal confession and the Scriptures but also in the preaching of the church. It was this revealed truth that Irenaeus used to combat the Gnostics, and it was this that he sought to interpret and describe in a manner consistent with the genuine apostolic tradition.
Irenaeus therefore derived his theology from the Scriptures. What he desired to do, above all, was to present God’s order of salvation from the creation to the fulfillment (οικοvομια salutis). Time, in his estimation, was a limited epoch; it began with creation and will end with the fulfillment. It is surrounded at both ends by eternity. It is within the context of time that the salvation event takes place. Within this context God has carried out the deeds to which Scripture bears witness and on which man’s salvation depends. To the Gnostics salvation was not something accomplished within history; it was an idea, a speculative scheme which claimed that the soul could be elevated over the temporal and reunited with its divine origins through the instrumentality of gnosis. To Irenaeus all of this was actual history, with the fulfillment expected at the end of time. The difference between the Greek view of the world and the Christian concept of time is plain to see in these opposing points of view.
Creation was a part of the divine order of salvation. God’s Son, the Savior, was present before the beginning of time in His preexistent state. Man was created so that the Savior should not be alone, so that there should be someone to save (cf. Gustav Wingren, Man and the Incarnation According to Irenaeus, 1947, p. 28). Everything was created through the Son and for the Son. Salvation was accomplished for the same reason that God created: that man might be like God. Man was created in the image of God, but as a result of the Fall this similarity was lost. The meaning of salvation is that man might realize his destiny once again, that man might become the image of God according to the prototype discernible in Christ. Man stands at the center of creation. Everything else has been created for man’s use. But man was created for Christ and to become like Christ, who is the Center of all existence, the One who sums up everything in heaven and on earth. (Cf. Adversus haereses, V, 16, 2)
As seen from this point of view, creation and salvation are joined together because there is but one God who both creates and saves. The Gnostic teaching of the two gods blasphemed the Creator. It also implied that salvation was impossible. For if God did not create, neither can creation be saved. If God was not the Creator, neither would He save creation. But this is the goal of the entire order of salvation.
To the Gnostics salvation consisted of deliverance from creation, from the material world, and a return to pure spirituality. To Irenaeus, on the other hand, salvation meant that creation itself would be restored to its original state, that creation would finally achieve its Godgiven destiny. Salvation to Irenaeus did not mean, in other words, that the spirit of man would be released from its material bondage, but rather that the whole man, with body and soul, would be freed from the devil’s dominion, returned to his original purity, and become like God.
Man was created, according to Gen. 1:26, in God’s “image” and “likeness.” It has often been said that Irenaeus was the first to introduce the idea (widely accepted later on) which held that these concepts pointed to two distinct qualities in man. This, however, is not correct. For Irenaeus frequently used both of these concepts to express the same matter, and these passages would seem to be decisive. (Cf, Wingren)
When it is said that man was created in the image of God, this, according to Irenaeus, is indicative of man’s true destiny. It does not mean that man is the image of God but rather that he was created to become that. Christ, who is God Himself, is the image of God after which man was created. Man’s destiny, therefore, is to become like Christ. This is the goal of salvation and of the work of the Holy Spirit.
At the time of creation, man was a child; he was not then fully developed, but he was created to grow. If man had lived in accordance with the will of God he would have grown, and through the creative power of God he would have achieved his destiny—complete Godlikeness. Irenaeus understood growth, not as an inner development but as the result of God’s continued creativity.
But man departed from the way of obedience, having been tempted by the devil, one of the angels who, overcome by their envy of man, fell away from God. Thus it was that man came under the dominion of the devil. Man is caught up in the struggle between God and Satan.
The intent of the order of salvation, therefore, is to free from the clutches of the devil those whom he has wrongfully seized. This is the work of redemption, which was carried out through Christ. He has conquered the devil and thereby accomplished man’s release. But in spite of this, the struggle continues. It must be said, however, that it entered a new phase after the resurrection of Christ. As a result, the decisive battle has been fought out. What happens is that men are drawn into the victory of Christ and thereby receive the life which was lost through Adam’s fall.
This order of salvation can be pictured in various ways, such as release from bondage or as victory after struggle (see above). It can also be described in legalistic terms: naturalia praecepta—lex Mosaica—Christ, the new covenant, the restoration of the original law. The original law, having been given at the time of creation, expresses God’s will for man. Man’s destiny is to live in a manner consistent with this law, in obedience to God’s command. In so doing, man receives life and righteousness from the hand of God and goes forward toward the goal of perfection and Godlikeness. This law was written in the heart, and man is free to follow it or to break it. But when man goes contrary to God’s command, he comes under the dominion of sin. Thus it was that God entered into a new covenant with man, through the Israelites, and gave man the Mosaic law. The purpose of this law was to discipline man, to reveal sin and keep it in its place, and to maintain order in an external way until the coming of Christ. As seen in this context, Christ’s task was to abrogate the Mosaic law and to restore the law which was given at the time of creation and which had been obscured by the Pharisaic regulations. Christ frees from the thralldom of the Law through His Spirit, which regenerates man and fulfills the law within him. The Holy Spirit restores obedience, and man is thereby regenerated according to the law which was given at the time of creation. This original law was an expression of that which constituted man’s Godlikeness. There is, therefore, a parallel between the assertion that man was created in the image of God and that which is said about natural law.
Life and death are related to the Law, and Irenaeus described the order of salvation in these categories as well. Life and obedience to the Law go together. When man obeys God’s commands, he receives life from God, but when he falls into disobedience, he comes under the power of death. For disobedience to God is the equivalent of death. It was because of disobedience that the stream of life was broken, and when this was done death appeared in the world of men. Death, therefore, is not associated with the body and created life in an eo ipso manner; it is rather something that has been imposed upon man because of sin. This is reflected in Gen. 2:17: “For in the day you eat of it you shall die.” Salvation implies that life has been restored through Christ's victory over death. By believing in Christ, man can recover the life that was lost through the Fall. Salvation bestows the gift of immortality. The body will certainly die because of sin, in order that the power of sin might be reduced. The new life in the Spirit is activated by faith, and it reaches fulfillment after death. Then there will no longer be anything in man that belongs to death. The man who has been restored has realized the destiny for which he was created—to become like God and to live without dying.
The basic idea in Irenaeus’ presentation of the order of salvation is that the work of creation has been restored and recapitulated in the salvation wrought through Christ. In opposition to the Gnostics, who taught that salvation consists of the release of the spirit from the material world, Irenaeus insisted that God and man, body and soul, heaven and earth are able to overcome the split occasioned by the incursion of sin and to be reunited once again. This, for Irenaeus, was the meaning of salvation.
Christ is the second Adam, a counterpart of the first Adam. The latter brought death and ruin into creation because of his disobedience. Christ, through His obedience, restores creation to its pure state. Adam yielded to the temptation of the serpent and thus came under the dominion of the devil. Christ overcame temptation and thus vanquished the tempter’s power over mankind. He epitomizes the entire human race, just as the first Adam did. On the strength of His obedience and work of atonement, He became the fountainhead of a new humanity. He has perfected that which was spoiled through Adam’s fall. Through Him humanity continues to grow toward the goal of perfection. Creation is restored, and its destiny is realized. Christ’s redemptive work began with His birth of the virgin Mary and will be completed at the time of the general resurrection, when all enemies will have been subjugated to Christ, and God will be all in all.
Irenaeus described this entire oeconomia salutis in a single concept: recapitulation (αvακεφαλαιωσις). This word means “recapitulation”; it also connotes “restoration.” This concept is derived from Eph. 1:10, where mention is made of God’s decree concerning “a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in heaven and things on earth.”
For Irenaeus, therefore, “recapitulation” was a designation for all of Christ’s redemptive activity, from the time of His birth to the Day of Judgment. In carrying out this work Christ repeated that which happened at the time of creation, even though this was done, so to speak, in the reverse sequence. “He has recapitulated the first creation in Himself. For just as sin entered the world through one man’s disobedience, and death through sin, so also has righteousness come into the world through one man’s obedience, bringing life to those who formerly were dead.” (Adversus haereses, III, 21, 9–10)
Recapitulation also implies perfection, or completion. That which was given through Christ, and which comes into being through His obedience, is superior to that which was given at the time of creation. Man was still a “child” at that time. Because of the salvation which has been wrought, man can grow up to complete Godlikeness, as represented in the person of Christ.
Irenaeus developed his Christology in opposition to the Docetic point of view championed by Gnosticism. The work of salvation presupposes that Christ is both true man and true God. “If the enemies of man had not been overcome by man, they could not have been truly overcome; furthermore, if our salvation is not from God, we cannot be sure that we are saved. And if man has not been united with God, it would not be possible for him to share in immortality” (III, 18, 7; cf. Gustav Aulen, History of Dogma, p. 32). Here we find a strong emphasis on Christ’s humanity: a real man had to walk the way of obedience so that the order which was shattered by Adam’s disobedience might be restored. At the same time, it was God alone who could carry out the work of redemption. Christ is truly man and truly God (vere homo, vere deus).
The Son has existed with the Father from all eternity. But how the Son came from the Father is not revealed. As a result, man can know nothing about that. Irenaeus rejected the Logos speculations of the Apologists, in which the birth of the Son was compared to the way in which the Word proceeded out of reason. “Should it be asked, ‘How was the Son brought forth out of the Father?’ this is our answer: ‘Concerning His generation, or birth, or manifestation, or revelation, or however one will express HIS ineffable birth, no one knows; not Marcion, not Valentinus, not Saturninus, not Basilides. Only the Father, who brought forth, and the Son, who was born, know about this’” (II, 28, 6). The Apologists said that a birth took place in time (the Word proceeded from the divine reason at the time of creation). Irenaeus, on the other hand, seems to have contemplated the possibility of a birth in eternity, but he did not express himself in a specific way on this point.
It was typical of Irenaeus that he refused to explain more precisely how it was that Christ came forth from the Father; the same was true with respect to the relationship between God and man in Christ. He sought to set forth the content of Scripture without the assistance of philosophy and to hold fast to the rule of faith without giving way to mere speculation. In Adversus haereses, I, 10, 1 Irenaeus provided a brief summary of the faith which had been handed down from the apostles: “The church extends throughout the entire world, to the uttermost ends of the earth. It has received its faith from the apostles and their followers. This faith is in the one God, Father almighty, who made the heavens and the earth and the seas and all within them; and in Christ Jesus, God’s Son, who, to redeem us, took human form; and in the Holy Spirit, who, through the prophets, has proclaimed God’s order of salvation, the Lord’s twofold advent, His birth of a virgin, His suffering, His resurrection from the dead, His physical ascension into heaven, and His return from heaven in the glory of the Father. Christ shall return in order to ‘restore all things’ and to reawaken all flesh in the entire human race, so that all knees shall bow before and all tongues shall praise Jesus Christ, who, according to the invisible Father’s pleasure, is our Savior and King.”
There is in the theology of Irenaeus a parallel to the millennial doctrine, but he avoids speaking of the “1,000 years.” He rather refers to a “kingdom of the Son,” in which the dominion of Christ will be manifested in a visible way on earth. Furthermore, the Antichrist will be vanquished, nature will be renewed, and the faithful will reign with Christ in this “kingdom of the Son.” This will precede the second resurrection and the Day of Judgment. Eternity will begin after the judgment is complete, when the Son shall deliver up the Kingdom to the Father, and God will then be “all in all.” (Cf. Wingren, pp. 212 ff.)
Tertullian
In a long series of learned and incisive writings, Tertullian involved himself in the ecclesiastical controversies of his time in order to defend the Christian faith and to instruct the faithful. He was the first of the church fathers with a typically “Western style,” and in many respects he was the founder of the Western theological tradition.
Tertullian was born at Carthage in the middle of the second century; originally a pagan, he was converted to Christianity as a mature man. He practiced law in Rome for a time, but after his conversion he returned to private life in Carthage, where he devoted himself to studying and writing. His literary activity was confined approximately to the period between 195 and 220. In about the year 207 Tertullian associated himself with the Montanist movement, which later manifested sectarian tendencies.
As an author, Tertullian was very distinctive. In contrast to the earlier writers, he employed a formal style. He was prominent in the field of rhetoric, and his fund of knowledge was broad and deep. He was not a philosopher, however; he was more interested in social matters, and he had a good grasp of the law. He was a critical observer of life in general, and his writings manifest his strongly individualistic point of view. His deep interest in practical matters and his firm attachment to reality are characteristic of the Western point of view. As Karl Holl has written of Tertullian, “In him the Western spirit spoke clearly for the first time.” (Gesammelte Aufsätze, III, 2)
Passionate enthusiasm and an ingenious dialectic characterized Tertullian’s polemical writings. Because of his uneven, paradoxical and terse style, Tertullian is sometimes hard to understand.
The theological writings of Tertullian have exerted a widespread and significant influence. This has been true chiefly because he produced certain formulations that came into current usage and coined some theological terminology that has been a part of theological literature ever since (in the Latin language which he used). Furthermore, some of his concepts have provided the prototype for later developments in the field of theology. This was true, for example, with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity, Christology, and original sin. Tertullian was the precursor of Cyprian, who became his disciple, and of Augustine.
Tertullian’s contributions to the age in which he lived were found in his polemical writings as well as in his pronouncements concerning practical ecclesiastical problems. Like the Apologists, he fought against paganism (cf. Apologeticum). Gnosticism was to him, as to Irenaeus, the chief opponent (cf. Adversus Marcionem; De praescriptione haereticorum). Finally, he also turned against Modalism (cf. Adversus Praxean). Tertullian wrote a number of books in order to develop his doctrinal convictions and to express himself with respect to practical congregational questions.
Tertullian’s theology was, to a large extent, conditioned by his struggle with the Gnostics. His well-known rejections of philosophy must be seen in this context, for in his estimation philosophy was the source of the Gnostic heresy. Valentinus learned from Plato, Marcion from the Stoics, and as a result they transformed Christianity into a pagan philosophy of religion. Wrote Tertullian: “The philosophers and the heretics discuss the same subjects, and they employ the same involved argumentation. Poor Aristotle! It was you who taught them dialectics, to become champions at building up and tearing down. They are so cunning in their theories, so labored in their inferences, so sure about their evidence, so officious in their debates, which become burdensome by virtue of the fact that they deal with everything in such a way that, in the final analysis, nothing has been dealt with. What does Athens have to do with Jerusalem? What does the academy have to do with the church? What do heretics have to do with Christians? Our doctrine stems from Solomon’s hall of pillars, from him who had learned that man must seek for the Lord with a heart of innocence. For all I care, one can, if he pleases, bring forth a Stoic and Platonic and dialectic Christianity. Since the Gospel of Christ has been proclaimed to us, we no longer need to inquire, or to examine into such things. If we have faith, we have no desire for anything beyond faith. For this is the first principle of our faith: There is nothing beyond this faith which we must believe” (De praescript., 7). If one seeks for something beyond faith, he thereby reveals the fact that he does not really have faith. Such a man rather has faith in that for which he is seeking (ibid., 11). The Gnostics go beyond faith in their wisdom. The Christian, on the other hand, holds fast to the simple faith which is revealed in the Scriptures and preserved in the apostolic tradition. “To know nothing in opposition to the rule [of faith] is to know all things.” (Ibid., 14)
Tertullian’s rejection of philosophy was, therefore, involved in his struggle against the heretics. “The philosophers are the fathers of the heretics,” he wrote (Adversus Hermogenem, 8). But this rejection can also be explained thus, that Tertullian recognized a fundamental distinction between faith and reason in epistemology. That which a man believes cannot be comprehended with his reason. The knowledge of faith is different from the knowledge of reason. The former possesses its own wisdom, which has nothing to do with rational evidence. Concerning the resurrection of Christ, Tertullian said: “It is certain because it is impossible” (De carne Christi, 5; cf. De baptismo, 2). It is this kind of “irrationalism” which is usually characterized with the expression credo quia absurdum (“I believe because it is absurd”). This phrase is not to be found in Tertullian, but it certainly does express his thoughts on this point.
What has just been quoted, however, is representative of but one side of Tertullian’s understanding of faith and reason. Other passages in his writings set forth his more positive opinion concerning human reason. He does this without calling upon philosophy to bolster his arguments. In this matter Tertullian does not make the same strict demands upon theology as does Irenaeus.
It has sometimes been said that there is a rationalistic strain in Tertullian’s so-called natural theology. He did say on occasion that the non-Christian has a natural understanding of the one God; the soul of man is naturaliter Christiana. Tertullian also propounded the cosmological proof of the existence of God: the beauty and order of creation is proof of the Creator’s presence in the world, said he. These and similar thoughts were, however, intended to demonstrate the universality of Christianity and to support the Christian belief in a divine creation. As a result, one cannot justifiably accuse Tertullian of rationalism.
Even though he severely criticized philosophy, Tertullian frequently employed philosophical ideas and formulations. In opposing the spiritualism which was characteristic of Gnosticism, for example, he borrowed certain thought patterns from the Stoics, which were then shaped into a “realistic” theory. It is this realism which, to a certain degree at least, distinguishes Western thought from Greek thought. But Tertullian carried this to an extreme: theology, he said, must be connected with manifest reality at every point. The physical body provides the pattern for all reality. “Everything that is is a body of some kind; nothing is incorporeal except that which does not exist” (De carne Christi, 11). As a consequence of this thesis, Tertullian even ascribed corporeality to God, and he also contemplated the possibility that the soul has an invisible body. His theory concerning the origin of the soul was related to this; the soul, according to Tertullian, is transmitted by natural birth from one generation to the next. This concept is known as traducianism. The other theory concerning the origin of the soul is called creationism, which holds that the soul of each man is a new creation, direct from the hand of God. (Cf. Karpp, Probleme altchristlicher Anthropologie, 1950)
The doctrine of the Trinity occupies an important position in Tertullian’s theology. In working with this facet of his theology, Tertullian adopted the Logos concepts of the Apologists and developed them further. His formulations provided the basis for the Trinitarian formulas and the Christology which were accepted later on.
Tertullian applied the Logos concept in the manner of the Apologists. Christ, he said, is the divine Word, which proceeded from out of God’s reason at the time of creation. When God said, “Let there be light,” the Word was born. Christ is one with God, and yet He is distinct from the Father. He has come forth from the essence of God as the rays emerge from the sun, as plants from their roots, or a river from its source. Therefore the Son is subordinate to the Father. He is the one who has revealed God, while God Himself is invisible. Like the Apologists, Tertullian used the expression “subordinationism.” He strongly emphasized that the Son and the Holy Spirit are one with the Father but at the same time somewhat different from the Father. “The Father is not the Son; He is greater than the Son; for the one who gives birth is different from the one who is born; the one who sends out is different from the one who is sent” (Adversus Praxean, 9). In order to express the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, Tertullian coined the term persona, which eventually became the accepted term in this context. The Son, as an independent person, has come forth from the Father. The Logos has an independent existence. And yet the three persons are one, just as the sun’s rays are one with the sun. To express this unity, Tertullian used the term substantia, which parallels the Greek word ουσια “essence” or “substance.” This term, too, came to be commonly accepted in the formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.
The three persons preexisted in God. But when they proceeded from God and into time, this took place in accordance with the order of salvation. The Son went forth from the Father in order to declare the order of salvation. The three persons denote different stages in God’s revelation, but they are nevertheless one—just as the root brings forth a plant, and the plant bears fruit, while together they form one and the same plant. This view of the Trinity is usually referred to as an “economic” doctrine of the Trinity. The difference between the persons is described on the basis of their activity in the order of salvation.
Tertullian developed his Christology in opposition to modalism (of which more will be said later on). He drew a sharp distinction between the divine and human qualities in Christ. They have reference to two different substances, said he, which were united in one person, Christ, but not combined. When Christ said, “My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?” it was not God the Father who cried out (“For if so, to which God did He cry?”)—it was the man, the Son, who cried to the Father. Christ suffered only as the Son, Tertullian asserted, and thereby rejected patripassionism (Praxeas), which so confused God and Christ that it claimed that it was the Father who suffered. It must also be pointed out, however, that Tertullian used such expressions as Deus mortuus and Deus crucifixus, which need not contradict what was said above. But he said nothing specific about the relationship between the divine and human qualities. The Logos appeared in the flesh, clad in a corporeal form, but was not changed into flesh. The subsequent doctrine of Christ’s two natures was based on Tertullian. His terminology can be presented schematically in the following manner:
One substance (ουσια)— three persons (υποστασεις): Father, Son, Holy Spirit.
The person of Christ—divine and human nature (the substance of the Creator and human substance).
Irenaeus presented Christ as the Savior from the power of sin, who, through His Spirit, redeems man from the corruption of sin so that man can be restored to his original purity. Salvation was described, in other words, in terms of the recovery of health and wholeness. In Tertullian a different point of view comes to the fore: he presented Christ as the teacher who proclaims a new law (nova lex), thereby strengthening man’s free will so that he can live according to God’s commands. To live in a manner consistent with God’s law is set forth as the goal of salvation. This is achieved through instruction in the Law. The concept of merit is dominant. God rewards or punishes on the basis of merit. The relationship between God and man is seen in the contest of a judicial system. If God did not avenge and punish, there would be no reason to fear Him and to do what is right. Salvation, said Tertullian, is given as a reward for human merit. Good deeds as well as evil must be recompensed by God. This interpretation is clearly antithetical to that of Marcion, who so emphasized the love of God that all considerations of retribution and wrath were denied.
Tertullian’s doctrine of grace was also introduced into this scheme. It is grace which saves—by which Tertullian meant to say that grace takes away the corruption which has adhered to human nature as a result of the incursion of sin. The idea that this corruption is to be found in nature itself, and is transmitted through birth, is to be found in Tertullian. This is where the doctrine of original sin began to take form. Through grace man can receive the power needed to live the new life. Grace is conceived as a power which is bestowed upon man and thus enables him to live a meritorious life. On the basis of this doctrine of sin—grace—merit, which Tertullian developed in the course of his controversy with Marcion (who stressed God’s love), the foundation was laid for the doctrine of salvation which dominated Western medieval theology and, later on, Roman Catholicism.
As noted above, Tertullian joined the Montanist movement, partly as a result of the church’s lax practice with respect to penance. The Montanist sect originated in Asia Minor in the middle of the second century, and spread from there to Rome and North Africa. It was remarkable for its strong emphasis on prophecy and the free gifts of the Spirit, for its belief that the end of the world was near, and for its rigid asceticism and strict practice of penance.
Because of his association with the Montanists, Tertullian is remembered as having been something of a schismatic, but at the same time he was also one of the chief opponents of heresy, as well as one of the foremost architects of orthodox Western theology.
Hippolytus
Hippolytus, who was a bishop in Rome and an opponent of Pope Calixtus (whose attitude with regard to penance he sharply disapproved), was banished to Sardinia during a persecution (ca. 235), and he died in exile. He wrote a number of books (in Greek), some of which are still extant, in which he continued the defense of Christian doctrine against Greek philosophy and ecclesiastical heresy. His best-known work is entitled Philosophoumena (or The Refutation of All Heresy), which is actually an encyclopedic survey of the philosophical ideas which stemmed from the Greek natural philosophers, of the various magical and religious concepts prevalent in his day, as well as of the ecclesiastical heresies which, according to Hippolytus, had their roots in Greek philosophy. This work testifies to the author’s extensive learning and provides valuable knowledge concerning the various schools of thought which Hippolytus here describes. The polemical material, on the other hand, which was directed primarily at the Gnostics and the modalists, does not possess the same originality and power as do the polemics of Irenaeus and Tertullian.
No comments:
Post a Comment