Tertullian on the Soul

[Dale]

“It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple; in other words uniform and uncompounded; simply that is to say in respect of its substance.”

This is from Tertullian’s A Treatise on the Soul.

It is the first sentence of Chapter 10:The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato, The Identity of Spirit and Soul

 

[BobRyan]

"with Plato" seems like an odd appeal to authority for a Christian.

"With Christ"
"With Paul"
"With Scripture"

would be my preference.

 

[Trusting in Him]

Why are you interested in what Plato has to say about the soul? A lot of these greek philosophers were not christians at all, but Gnostics instead. Do you really want to take seriously the teachings of the Gnostics? These are dangerous things to be messing around with!

 

[Brother-Mike]

“It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple; in other words uniform and uncompounded; simply that is to say in respect of its substance.”

I guess my question here would be WHY is it essential to a firm faith to declare the soul simple? Is there anywhere in the Bible that exegetically states this? if so, then why smuggle in Plato? And if not, then, well, same question - why smuggle in Plato?

Open to understanding and appreciative of any illumination

 

[BobRyan]

It seems to me that every time they tried to blend in greek philosophy of man - into Christian ideas and doctrines - they get a confused result.

In the Bible -- in some contexts a person "IS a soul" and in other contexts like Matt 10:28 a person "has a soul"

 

[ralliann]

I guess my question here would be WHY is it essential to a firm faith to declare the soul simple? Is there anywhere in the Bible that exegetically states this? if so, then why smuggle in Plato? And if not, then, well, same question - why smuggle in Plato?

Open to understanding and appreciative of any illumination

The apostle did the same here...
Ac 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

 

[sandman]

"with Plato" seems like an odd appeal to authority for a Christian.

"With Christ"
"With Paul"
"With Scripture"

would be my preference.

I understand what you are saying, but Plato was the one who popularized the immortality of the soul….

He believed at death… the body and soul were separate but stated…. it was not the end of the soul, and that the soul was indestructible… He was a student of Socrates who believed the same…. as did Pythagoras before him.

Fast forward to Augustine (354-430 a.d.) who also believed like Plato, that death meant the destruction of the body without the soul. He endorsed Plato’s philosophy of immortality in his book “City of God”. And consequently, Augustine’s theology became the standard for the Roman Catholic Church ……and the lie continues today.

 

[SarahsKnight]

"with Plato" seems like an odd appeal to authority for a Christian.

"With Christ"
"With Paul"
"With Scripture"

would be my preference.

Exactly. .... And yet folks who believe in the particular meaning of life, death, and the nature of the soul as you and I do, are far more likely to be accused of things such as heresy or looking outside of Scripture to find our truths, than the majority of Christians who assume the same basic view of the soul that Plato did. =/

 

[Dale]

"with Plato" seems like an odd appeal to authority for a Christian.

"With Christ"
"With Paul"
"With Scripture"

would be my preference.

It isn't an appeal to authority. It's like a Baptist saying, "We agree with the Catholics that God created the universe."

 

[fhansen]

“It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple; in other words uniform and uncompounded; simply that is to say in respect of its substance.”

This is from Tertullian’s A Treatise on the Soul.

It is the first sentence of Chapter 10:The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato, The Identity of Spirit and Soul

If it's truth it doesn't particularly matter where it came from-philosophers certainly could be right on many matters-not saying that the subject at hand is necessarily true to begin with. And yet it seems Mr Tertullian was being a bit nit-picky with the whole concept in any case. I doubt God cares exactly how we view the soul.

 

[Dale]

Why are you interested in what Plato has to say about the soul? A lot of these greek philosophers were not christians at all, but Gnostics instead. Do you really want to take seriously the teachings of the Gnostics? These are dangerous things to be messing around with!

I’m interested in what Septimus Tertullian had to say about the soul. Two of the longest pieces written by Tertullian are Against Marcion and Against the Valentinians. Marcion taught a simple form of Gnosticism and Valentinus taught a complex form of Gnosticism. Tertullian opposed them both, labeling both as heresies. Tertullian certainly knew a Gnostic when he saw one and steered clear of them.

 

[Dale]

I guess my question here would be WHY is it essential to a firm faith to declare the soul simple? Is there anywhere in the Bible that exegetically states this? if so, then why smuggle in Plato? And if not, then, well, same question - why smuggle in Plato?

Open to understanding and appreciative of any illumination

When God gave Adam a soul, He breathed in the Breath of Live. I’m sure that is a symbol, an analogy, but take a look at it. Does a breath have parts? Does a breath have a Part 1 and a Part 2? Does it have a high end and a low end? No, simple and undivided is a good description.


I’m not trying to “smuggle in” Plato. Tertullian referred to Plato because Plato was widely read and studied by educated men at the time, and so useful in putting a point about the soul across.

 

[eleos1954]

“It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple; in other words uniform and uncompounded; simply that is to say in respect of its substance.”

This is from Tertullian’s A Treatise on the Soul.

It is the first sentence of Chapter 10:The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato, The Identity of Spirit and Soul

There is nothing about us that is immortal ... only God is immortal. We receive the gift of immortality when Jesus returns (not before) ... just as Adam & Eve ate from the tree of life (before it became guarded and not accessible) .... once again we will eat from the tree of life in heaven and will do so for eternity.

1 Timothy 6:16

King James Bible
Who (God) only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father's side, has made Him known.

 

[Brother-Mike]

When God gave Adam a soul, He breathed in the Breath of Live. I’m sure that is a symbol, an analogy, but take a look at it. Does a breath have parts? Does a breath have a Part 1 and a Part 2? Does it have a high end and a low end? No, simple and undivided is a good description.

I’m not trying to “smuggle in” Plato. Tertullian referred to Plato because Plato was widely read and studied by educated men at the time, and so useful in putting a point about the soul across.

It's a beautiful Saturday here so I figured "hey, what better time than to relax and cozy up to some Tertullian and dive a little deeper!". So I've been using the following copy of "A Treatise on the Soul" (I'll henceforth abbreviate as ATOTS):

CHURCH FATHERS: A Treatise on the Soul (Tertullian)

(perhaps there are better translations out there - if so much obliged if anyone wishes to share).

First off, to me at least this is a case of context-makes-all-the-difference. As @ralliann pointed out earlier, Paul himself quotes from Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17:28, but the context here is that he was addressing Athenians at the Areopagus. So this was an exercise in finding common ground with his audience rather than necessarily an endorsement of the teachings of Epimenides or Aratus.

Similarly, once I started hacking through ATOTS, it's clear to me that Tertullian's first sentence of Chapter 10 ("It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple...") is a rare and generous nod to Plato, given that the first nine chapters of the work are seemingly dedicated to the destruction of philosophy's navel-gazing into the nature of the soul

For example, here's a brief sampling of Tertullian zingers:

1. Title of chapter 1: "It is Not to the Philosophers that We Resort for Information About the Soul But to God"
2. From chapter 2: "Of course we shall not deny that philosophers have sometimes thought the same things as ourselves. The testimony of truth is the issue thereof. It sometimes happens even in a storm, when the boundaries of sky and sea are lost in confusion, that some harbour is stumbled on (by the labouring ship) by some happy chance"
3. From chapter 3: "Whatever noxious vapours, accordingly, exhaled from philosophy, obscure the clear and wholesome atmosphere of truth, it will be for Christians to clear away"
4. From chapter 4: "After settling the origin of the soul, its condition or state comes up next. For when we acknowledge that the soul originates in the breath of God, it follows that we attribute a beginning to it. This Plato, indeed, refuses to assign to it, for he will have the soul to be unborn and unmade."

Or, if brevity is your sort of thing, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" from Chapter 7 of Tertullian's "De praescriptione haereticorum".

So this was not a man entranced the "noxious vapours" of philosophy over scripture, and I stand corrected in my earlier misunderstanding that that was the case.

As for the simplicity of the soul, the focus of his chapter 10 in ATOTS ("It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple...") seems to be a refutation of the otherwise commonly-held philosophical position that the soul was divided into two parts: soul and spirit. And in this case his nod to Plato was to say "at least in this regard Plato happened to align with the biblical position". In fact, after the first sentence Plato isn't mentioned at all for the remainder of the entire chapter.

Respectfully,
Brother-Mike

PS. @Dale I certainly do appreciate Tertullian the more I've explored him in this response - much thanks for quoting him!

 

[Jonaitis]

“It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple; in other words uniform and uncompounded; simply that is to say in respect of its substance.”

This is from Tertullian’s A Treatise on the Soul.

It is the first sentence of Chapter 10:The Simple Nature of the Soul is Asserted with Plato, The Identity of Spirit and Soul

If the "soul" is simple, which it is, then it cannot be created, not being a composite of anything, but its essence being identical with its existence.

 

[Dale]

There is nothing about us that is immortal ... only God is immortal. We receive the gift of immortality when Jesus returns (not before) ... just as Adam & Eve ate from the tree of life (before it became guarded and not accessible) .... once again we will eat from the tree of life in heaven and will do so for eternity.

1 Timothy 6:16

King James Bible
Who (God) only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen.

John 1:18

No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father's side, has made Him known.

Maybe you could explain what Paul means by saying that only God has immortality. I would take it to mean that God is the source of all immortality. Otherwise, I can’t make any sense out of it.

Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the
soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Matthew 10:28 NIV

If humans don’t have immortal souls, why does Jesus warn us that God can destroy the soul?

Jesus makes it clear that those who are condemned at the Final Judgment are cast into an eternal hell. If there is no immortal soul, how is there an eternal hell?

For that matter, Satan and the dark angels haven’t died of old age, so it looks like they are immortal.

 

[The Liturgist]

Why are you interested in what Plato has to say about the soul? A lot of these greek philosophers were not christians at all, but Gnostics instead. Do you really want to take seriously the teachings of the Gnostics? These are dangerous things to be messing around with!

Plato was not a Gnostic. He was heavily used by the early church in order to refute the claims of their chief rival, the sect known as the Neo-Platonists, and also because the early church around the time of Tertullian became concerned that Aristotle was facilitating Gnosticism.

Platonic philosophy specifically integrates well with Christianity because of its idea of God being the First Cause of creation (Plato was basically monotheistic), and also because Plato in his theology anticipated the idea of a Logos, a Word of God, who would mediate between the world and a transcendent figure reminiscent of the Father. Additionally the concept of Platonic love, which is to say being able to love someone without lusting for them helped prepare

However the early church was very careful when using Platonic philosophy to avoid both Neo-Platonism and Hellenic paganism.

Using this technique, it was possible to bootstrap a Patristic Christian philosophy, which we see in the Fount of Knowledge of St. John of Damascus.

Aristotle was later rehabilitated, both by the great Eastern Orthodox theologian St. Gregory Palamas and the leading Roman Catholic Scholastic theologian St. Thomas Aquinas. Aquinas however relied on translations of Aristotle into Latin from Arabic, which in turn were translated into Arabic from Syriac by the Syriac Orthodox and Assyrian monks at a few different monasteries, two of the former still operating today: the Syrian Monastery in Egypt (which is now populated mainly by Coptic Orthodox monks) and the Monastery of St. Matthew (Dayro d’Mor Mattai) overlooking Mosul, which somehow survived without being raided by ISIS; it has 18 or so Syriac Orthodox monks. I believe St. Gregory Palamas on the other hand had access to the original Greek texts.

However, given the enormous impact the work of St. Thomas Aquinas had in the West, it would not be inaccurate to say that thanks to him and other scholars of the High Middle Ages being able to access Latin translations of Aristotle, Plato, Galen (a physician from antiquity), and other ancient authors, as well as Christian philosophy and Patristic literature other than St. Augustine, who dominated Western monasteries by the tenth century, and contemporary Islamic philosophers who also worked as scientists and physicians, such as Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Kwarizmi, and also the great Yemenese Jewish philosopher Maimonides, this has the effect of restarting intellectual discussion in Western Europe, brining it back to a level of parity with Eastern Europe and the Islamic world (for the Dark Ages never happened to the in the East, being purely the result of the collapse of the Western Roman Empire). But Avicenna, Averroes, Al-Kwarizmi, and Maimonides would not have been able to do the work that they did without access to the Greek and Latin philosophers, translations of whose works were preserved in Syriac in the monastic libraries of places like Dayro d’Mor Mattai and were translated into Arabic by the Syriac Orthodox Christian and Assyrian Christian monks I mentioned above (because a principle of Christian monasticism, whether Benedictine, Byzantine, Coptic or Syriac is to treat all visitors as if they are an angel or Jesus Christ, and the Muslim and Jewish philosophers seeking access to the Greek philosophers were welcomed and accommodated under that premise).

Thus, we can say that Syriac Christians effectively jumpstarted the Renaissance.

 

[The Liturgist]

It's a beautiful Saturday here so I figured "hey, what better time than to relax and cozy up to some Tertullian and dive a little deeper!". So I've been using the following copy of "A Treatise on the Soul" (I'll henceforth abbreviate as ATOTS):

CHURCH FATHERS: A Treatise on the Soul (Tertullian)

(perhaps there are better translations out there - if so much obliged if anyone wishes to share).

First off, to me at least this is a case of context-makes-all-the-difference. As @ralliann pointed out earlier, Paul himself quotes from Epimenides and Aratus in Acts 17:28, but the context here is that he was addressing Athenians at the Areopagus. So this was an exercise in finding common ground with his audience rather than necessarily an endorsement of the teachings of Epimenides or Aratus.

Similarly, once I started hacking through ATOTS, it's clear to me that Tertullian's first sentence of Chapter 10 ("It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple...") is a rare and generous nod to Plato, given that the first nine chapters of the work are seemingly dedicated to the destruction of philosophy's navel-gazing into the nature of the soul

For example, here's a brief sampling of Tertullian zingers:

1. Title of chapter 1: "It is Not to the Philosophers that We Resort for Information About the Soul But to God"
2. From chapter 2: "Of course we shall not deny that philosophers have sometimes thought the same things as ourselves. The testimony of truth is the issue thereof. It sometimes happens even in a storm, when the boundaries of sky and sea are lost in confusion, that some harbour is stumbled on (by the labouring ship) by some happy chance"
3. From chapter 3: "Whatever noxious vapours, accordingly, exhaled from philosophy, obscure the clear and wholesome atmosphere of truth, it will be for Christians to clear away"
4. From chapter 4: "After settling the origin of the soul, its condition or state comes up next. For when we acknowledge that the soul originates in the breath of God, it follows that we attribute a beginning to it. This Plato, indeed, refuses to assign to it, for he will have the soul to be unborn and unmade."

Or, if brevity is your sort of thing, "What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?" from Chapter 7 of Tertullian's "De praescriptione haereticorum".

So this was not a man entranced the "noxious vapours" of philosophy over scripture, and I stand corrected in my earlier misunderstanding that that was the case.

As for the simplicity of the soul, the focus of his chapter 10 in ATOTS ("It is essential to a firm faith to declare with Plato that the soul is simple...") seems to be a refutation of the otherwise commonly-held philosophical position that the soul was divided into two parts: soul and spirit. And in this case his nod to Plato was to say "at least in this regard Plato happened to align with the biblical position". In fact, after the first sentence Plato isn't mentioned at all for the remainder of the entire chapter.

Respectfully,
Brother-Mike

PS. @Dale I certainly do appreciate Tertullian the more I've explored him in this response - much thanks for quoting him!

Indeed, even when the early church begrudgingly used Plato, it tended to criticize him. This is in contrast to St. Thomas Aquinas, who had pure admiration for Aristotle: in the Summa Theologica, he refers to him simply as The Philosopher, and to Averroes as The Commentator (for the commentaries he wrote on the works of Aristotle).

 

[The Liturgist]

I’m interested in what Septimus Tertullian had to say about the soul. Two of the longest pieces written by Tertullian are Against Marcion and Against the Valentinians. Marcion taught a simple form of Gnosticism and Valentinus taught a complex form of Gnosticism. Tertullian opposed them both, labeling both as heresies. Tertullian certainly knew a Gnostic when he saw one and steered clear of them.

Marcionism wasn’t really Gnosticism per se, it rather originated the idea that was quickly adopted by most subsequent Gnostic sects that the God of the Old Testament was an incompetent demiurge. However, Marcionism lacked the core element of Gnosticism: salvation by secret knowledge; it also lacked other common features such as emanationism, and it used modified versions of authentic scriptures rather than psuedepigrapha.

 

[The Liturgist]

Fast forward to Augustine (354-430 a.d.) who also believed like Plato, that death meant the destruction of the body without the soul. He endorsed Plato’s philosophy of immortality in his book “City of God”. And consequently, Augustine’s theology became the standard for the Roman Catholic Church ……and the lie continues today.

The immorality of the soul is standard Christian theology, embraced by Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox and Assyrian theologians who predeceased St. Augustine, or never read St. Augustine, for his work is insignificant in Eastern Christianity, and furthermore was relatively unimportant in the West until the time of Charlemagne.