"What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem?"

public hermit

social troglodyte
Supporter
Aug 20, 2019
10,966
12,050
East Coast
✟830,354.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Was Tertullian correct when he posed the rhetorical questions, "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?" (De praescriptione haereticorum VII)

Is philosophy beneficial or detrimental to Christian thought and faith? Why or why not? Tertullian did not seem to think it was beneficial. What are your thoughts?

(Your considerations do not need to be limited to ancient Greek philosophy or even western philosophy.)
 

dzheremi

Coptic Orthodox non-Egyptian
Aug 27, 2014
13,499
13,648
✟426,073.00
Country
United States
Faith
Oriental Orthodox
Marital Status
Private
I would find it odd for a writer who was very influenced by philosophy to reject it outright as having no place in Christianity. How then did he eventually end up leaving Christianity for Montanism? You can read in his post-Montanist works (if you really want to...) his description of the Trinity as sharing of the substance of the father in descending order, such that they are not homoousios as we understand it, but having His divinity apportioned to them in keeping with their closeness to the divinity.

Here's an illustration from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which shows his conception to be quite inconsistent with Christian doctrine (which, again, since he wrote it after his conversion to Montanism, should be neither surprising nor even much of a cause for concern; or at least it wouldn't be if it weren't for the fact that there are still groups out there, like the Mormons, who teach something very similar, considering it to be the 'restoration' of true Christian theology, not realizing that it comes from a man who by that point was a non-Christian, as Montanism had been condemned by the Church as early as the 170s at a synod in Hierapolis, decades before he converted to it...but anyway...):

Tertrin1.png

I'm no philosophy expert, but this looks an awful lot to me like something akin to a kind of 'budding off' of God/s, which is surely a feature of some kind of pagan philosophy (I'm no historian of philosophy, but the source says it comes from Stoicism, so...okay). So I would be interested to know when exactly Tertullian said the quote in the OP. If it was before his conversion to Montanism (c. 207), then it might have a different meaning for us than if it is after that time. I have seen a range of dates on that particular work, some of which would have been after his abandonment of Christianity.

Anyway, as to the general question, like anything else it depends. Many who objected to the Nicene Creed accused HH St. Athanasius the Apostolic of introducing unwisely into Christianity pagan philosophical concepts, but the difference is that he gave them an orthodox Christian definition, such that their adoption protected the faith, rather than deforming it. And he also wrote famous defenses of his use of language, such as his explanation of the Nicene Creed known as De Decretis, giving all who read them a chance to see why his use of these terms were not some kind of victory for paganism. So rather than judging philosophy as a thing, I would rather judge its use. I think philosophy for its own sake is useless and ridiculous, but that could be said about almost anything.

I certainly don't think you need to be a philosopher to be a good theologian or anything like that, but neither does that mean we ought to exalt those who reject learning, as is common in some traditions (those usually called 'low church', or even 'primitive'). Some are more knowledgeable and some are less so, but the same God is the God of everyone.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
Was Tertullian correct when he posed the rhetorical questions, "What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the Academy and the Church?" (De praescriptione haereticorum VII)

Is philosophy beneficial or detrimental to Christian thought and faith? Why or why not? Tertullian did not seem to think it was beneficial. What are your thoughts?

(Your considerations do not need to be limited to ancient Greek philosophy or even western philosophy.)
Greek philosophy is totally incompatible to Christian faith. For a God to be crucified on a Roman cross as a common criminal was total foolishness to the intellectual Greeks. That's why Paul was laughed at when he was in Athens, didn't make many converts and could not plant and church there.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
Greek philosophy is totally incompatible to Christian faith. For a God to be crucified on a Roman cross as a common criminal was total foolishness to the intellectual Greeks. That's why Paul was laughed at when he was in Athens, didn't make many converts and could not plant and church there.
St Paul quoted a Greek Philosopher there.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,979
5,834
Visit site
✟867,956.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Col 2:4 Now this I say lest anyone should deceive you with persuasive words. 5 For though I am absent in the flesh, yet I am with you in spirit, rejoicing to see your good order and the steadfastness of your faith in Christ.


6 As you therefore have received Christ Jesus the Lord, so walk in Him, 7 rooted and built up in Him and established in the faith, as you have been taught, abounding in it with thanksgiving.



8 Beware lest anyone cheat you through philosophy and empty deceit, according to the tradition of men, according to the basic principles of the world, and not according to Christ. 9 For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily; 10 and you are complete in Him, who is the head of all principality and power.

Paul warned against depending on human reasoning rather than Christ.


I do not think that studying philosophy is wrong in itself. But in Christ is the true knowledge we need, and if philosophy takes our focus off of that then it becomes a problem.
 
Upvote 0

Presbyterian Continuist

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Mar 28, 2005
21,810
10,792
76
Christchurch New Zealand
Visit site
✟827,033.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Married
St Paul quoted a Greek Philosopher there.
He realised his mistake so that when he went to Corinth he didn't do that, but determined to know nothing among them except Christ and Him crucified, and was very successful in planting a church there. He said that it is the gospel of Christ that has the power to get those who believe in it, saved.
 
Upvote 0

Not David

I'm back!
Apr 6, 2018
7,356
5,235
25
USA
✟231,310.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Single
He realised his mistake so that when he went to Corinth he didn't do that, but determined to know nothing among them except Christ and Him crucified, and was very successful in planting a church there. He said that it is the gospel of Christ that has the power to get those who believe in it, saved.
Where does it say "Paul realized his mistake" in the Bible?
 
Upvote 0