Tertullian is credited with the phrase: “I believe because it is absurd.” What did this mean? Why did the famous theologian rebel against excessive philosophizing, asserting: “The Son of God has risen: this is certain, for... it is impossible”? And how are heresies connected with philosophy and the denial of philosophy with heresy? Philosophy teacher Viktor Petrovich Lega tells .
Apologist turned heretic
Last time we talked about Clement of Alexandria, who defended philosophy, recognizing its usefulness for theology, but there were also thinkers who defended the opposite point of view. One of the brightest is Tertullian. Tertullian denied philosophy in principle, considered it a harmful teaching and the source of all heresies. Let's figure out why he formed such a negative opinion about philosophy.
We know very little about Tertullian's life. It is only known that he lived in northern Africa, in Carthage. There are different assumptions even about whether he was a priest or not. But one thing is certain: in last years During his life, Tertullian departed from Orthodoxy and fell into the heresy of the Montanists; subsequently he became disillusioned with this heresy and founded his own heretical teaching, which was distinguished by extreme rigorism: the demand for a complete renunciation of meat, family life, from wine and so on.
The Gospel is just an allegory?!
What is the reason that Tertullian vehemently opposes philosophy? One of them - perhaps even the main one - is the emergence of heresies and in particular the Gnostic heresy, which was especially popular at that time. Actually, Gnosticism is not even a heresy, because it is a teaching very far from Christianity, based on various philosophical concepts, primarily on the philosophy of Plato. The Gnostics argued that Christianity is a teaching for the plebeians, for the people, and the true meaning of the Gospel teaching is accessible only to initiates, only to those who know philosophy, who can, through simple Gospel examples and images, see the true meaning of that deep picture of the universe that is hidden in the Pleroma - in the fullness of everything - and is revealed through the eternal levels of being - eons... And somewhere at the lowest levels it is embodied in some specific people- for example, in Christ, in the Mother of God. Well, at the very bottom, of course, we are. According to the Gnostics, gospel story necessarily requires an allegorical interpretation.
This is what Tertullian is indignant against. How is this “allegorical”?! The Gospel is an absolutely truthful, historically impeccable story about the life of God Incarnate, about the life of His disciples, who then went to preach the Truth throughout the world. Tertullian, first of all, insists on the literal understanding of the most difficult passages of the Gospel: the Immaculate Conception, the Resurrection, the Ascension, the miracles that Jesus Christ performed. Because this is exactly what the Gnostics pointed to when they said: “This cannot be! It is obvious that in these miracles there are hidden some signs, some higher levels of being - Pleroma, eons..."
"No! - answered Tertullian. “These miracles may seem absurd to us, they may seem madness to us, but we believe in them because they are absurd.” This phrase is often repeated: “I believe because it is absurd,” but in fact Tertullian did not say exactly that. He has many phrases like this, so in principle this thought does not distort his teaching. So, he said: “The Son of God has risen - this is certain, for it is impossible.” The conjunction “for” or “since” can cause confusion. Suppose one could say this: “The Son of God has risen: this is certain, although it seems impossible”; “I believe, although it seems absurd.” But Tertullian says: “No, I believe, because it is absurd.” How to understand this “for”?
The Atheist Argument
This phrase is very fond of atheists who say: “How amazingly naive you Christians are! You honestly say that you are idiots: “we believe in absurdity”, “we believe in a round square”, “we believe that snow is black and soot is white”, “that man has risen and God has become man”. You yourself admit that your faith is stupid, absurd! And how can I argue with you after this?..”
But this is not what Tertullian meant. The absurd, in his opinion, is what seems absurd from our point of view, in our world. The Son of God, who became man, has risen, that is, man has risen - this is absurd, this cannot be. I know that every person dies. But I believe that a certain person has been resurrected, but I don’t know. Because this can't be true. I believe in something that cannot happen in our world, but is possible if God intervenes in it. Therefore, this phrase would become clearer to modern man, if translated as follows: “I believe, for it is wonderful.”
The miracles performed by Christ and the miracles of which He Himself was the subject: the Incarnation, Transfiguration, Resurrection, Ascension - these are the main places in the Gospel. And it is to them, first of all, according to Tertullian, that you need to pay attention! There is nothing divine in the fact that Christ walked through the field and plucked ears of corn - well, I can also go to the field and pluck ears of corn! This is where His human nature is revealed. But when He was resurrected, it was precisely His Divine nature that was manifested in this, and since from the point of view of the earthly world the resurrection of man is impossible, then you just need to believe in it.
Thus, knowledge about the world is possible, but when God begins to act in the world, events acquire a miraculous character, and it is impossible to understand or explain them from the point of view of human knowledge; one can only believe in the reality of these events. And therefore, according to Tertullian, no philosophical interpretations of the text of the Gospel will help us - they will only hinder us! They will lead us away from the correct, literal understanding of the Gospel. But it’s the literal understanding evangelical events shows us their truth, and the allegory... Well, what kind of allegory can there be?!
Firstly, interpreting New Testament allegorically, we thereby show that we do not believe in the reality of the gospel events. And secondly, we don’t actually believe in God because we don’t believe in God. What, God didn’t know how to reveal the truth through the prophets, through the apostles? The apostles did not know how to express it correctly, in what words? And we, who know Plato, do we, thanks to this knowledge, understand the Gospel better than the apostles?.. This is pride, conceit. Only through a literal reading of the Gospel do we understand its true meaning.
Therefore, Tertullian considered philosophy to be the source of all heresies. In one of his works, he touches on the reasons for the emergence of various heresies, finds the reason in various philosophical teachings and asks the question: why did Christ choose ordinary people- fishermen, publicans, but didn’t take the philosophers, didn’t take the Pharisees? “The foolish things of the world” (1 Cor. 1:27) He chose to shame even philosophy itself. …It is from philosophy that heresies themselves receive incitement. From here, eons, some indefinite forms and the trinity of man in Valentinus: he was a Platonist. Hence Marcion’s god, who is better because of his serenity: this one came from the Stoics. And the Epicureans especially insist on the opinion that the soul perishes. And all philosophers are alike in denying the resurrection of the flesh. And where matter is equated with God, there is the teaching of Zeno; Where we're talking about about the fiery god, Heraclitus speaks there...
Pathetic Aristotle! He composed for them dialectics - the art of building and destroying, feigned in judgments, resourceful in premises, narrow-minded in proofs, active in wrangling, burdensome even for itself, interpreting everything, but never clarifying anything... Keeping us from them, The apostle especially indicates that one must beware of philosophy when he writes to the Colossians: See to it that no one captivates you with philosophy and empty deception, according to human tradition, contrary to the Providence of the Holy Spirit (cf. Col.: 2, 8)” (On prescription against heretics, 7).
In simplicity of heart
Tertullian pronounces famous phrase(words from which the Russian philosopher Lev Shestov even borrowed as the title of his work - “Athens and Jerusalem”): “So, what is Athens to Jerusalem, what is the Academy to the Church, what are heretics to Christians? Our institution is from the portico of Solomon, and he himself conveyed that the Lord must be sought in the simplicity of the heart (Wis. 1, 1).” “In the simplicity of the heart” is very important point for Tertullian. He does not protest against reason - he protests against the abuse, from his point of view, of reason, against excessive intellectuality, excessive learning. God must be sought in the simplicity of the heart, and then God reveals himself to every person, and not just to the philosopher, because the soul is Christian by nature. “Oh, the testimony of the soul, by nature a Christian!” – Tertullian exclaims in one of his works.
True, in another work he writes: “The soul usually becomes a Christian, and is not born one.” But one does not contradict the other, because by nature we are all Christians, that is, it is normal and natural to be a Christian, just as it is normal and natural to think and breathe. However, unfortunately, not everyone becomes real Christians; this requires effort.
But, while verbally abandoning philosophy, Tertullian, without noticing it himself, fell under the influence of the most widespread philosophy at that time - Stoicism. Stoicism was so popular that for many it became not just a philosophy, but a natural worldview. Philosophy, they believed, is the complex syllogisms of Aristotle, these are the ideas of Plato, and Stoicism is not philosophy, but simply a normal, reasonable, everyday view of the world.
I think that for this reason Tertullian accepts other provisions of Stoicism, in particular the doctrine of the complete materiality of everything - even God. And Tertullian finds confirmation of this in the Holy Scriptures. After all, he takes it literally! This means that reading about what God said and the prophet heard, he concludes that the prophet has ears and, accordingly, God has a tongue. Of course, it may not be the same as a person’s. But the fact that everything that exists has a body is obvious to Tertullian.
Our soul is also corporeal - by the way, the Stoics also taught about this: they talked about various types matter - about the gross matter of the body and the subtle matter of the soul. And Tertullian says that the soul is subtly corporeal, and finds confirmation of this in the Gospel - for example, in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, which describes how the soul of the rich man suffers from thirst, and the soul of Lazarus enjoys the coolness. But can some spiritual, ideal Platonic essence enjoy the coolness? Of course, here is a clear indication of the physicality of our soul!..
It is possible that precisely because of the rejection of philosophy, the rejection of the “excessive philosophizing” that existed, as it seemed to Tertullian, in the Church of his day, he retreated to a heresy that was more understandable to him, closer, more strict, closer to the literal understanding of the Holy Scriptures. So, in my opinion, such neglect of philosophy is not in vain. But often an excessive passion for philosophy is not in vain, as the example of Origen shows, which we will discuss in the next conversation.
We see a different approach to this problem in Tertullian, a younger contemporary of Clement of Alexandria. Tertullian came from northern Africa, from Carthage (160-220). Both as a person and in his teaching, Tertullian differs in many ways from Clement. Ardent, inspired, he often expressed his opinions in the form of angry statements. At the end of his life, Tertullian retired from Christian faith and joined the Montanist heresy, and then founded his own heresy and died in apostasy from the Christian Church.
Being an opponent of philosophy, Tertullian avoids philosophical terms in his writings, so it is easy to read him in this regard. Tertullian's general position was that philosophy was absolutely alien to Christianity. Nevertheless, considering many of the Stoic positions obvious, Tertullian brought them into his teaching, in which both Cynic and Socratic provisions are also found. It turns out that he simultaneously condemned the Greek philosophers and used their concepts.
Tertullian's main thesis is that humanity, having invented philosophy, has distorted everything too much. A person should live more simply, without resorting to excessive philosophizing in the form of various philosophical systems. He must turn to the natural state through Christian faith, asceticism and self-knowledge.
Faith in Jesus Christ already contains the whole truth in its entirety; it does not need any proof or any philosophy. Faith, by teaching, convinces, but not by convincing, it teaches. No convincing is needed. Philosophers have no solid basis in their teachings. Such a basis can only be the Gospel, only the Good News. And after preaching the Gospel, Christians do not need any research.
In interpreting Holy Scripture, Tertullian avoided all allegorism, understanding Scripture only literally. Any allegorical interpretation arises when a person believes that he, so to speak, is somewhat smarter than the Author of Holy Scripture. If the Lord wanted to say something, then He said it. Man, in his pride, comes up with all sorts of allegorical interpretations that only lead Christians away from the truth. If something in the Bible is not clear, if something seems counterintuitive or contradicts other provisions of Holy Scripture, then this means that the truth hidden in the Bible exceeds our understanding. This once again proves the inspiration of the truth given to us in Scripture. This is the highest truth that one can only believe in, and not subject it to any doubts or interpretations. And you have to believe it all the more the less trivial it is and the more paradoxical it is.
From here follows the famous Tertullian thesis: “I believe because it is absurd.” This phrase does not belong to Tertullian himself, but he has many expressions in which his commitment to this thesis is visible, for example: “After burial, Christ was resurrected, and this is certain, because it is impossible.” The events of the Gospel do not fit within the framework of any human understanding. How can we deduce the truths set forth in the Gospel? What human mind can imagine that a virgin gives birth to the Son of God, who is both Man and God? He is not known to anyone, He is not a king, as Old Testament Israel wanted. He is persecuted, given up to a shameful death, dies, then resurrects, but His disciples do not recognize Him. Therefore Tertullian declares that he believes, because his faith is absurd. The absurdity of Christianity is the highest measure of its truth, the highest evidence of its Divine origin.
But Tertullian denies not all reason, but the excessive intellectualism that was characteristic of the ancient Greeks. Tertullian calls for seeing the truth in the depths of the soul. To do this, you need to simplify the soul, deprive it of sophistication. In such a soul, where there is nothing superficial, nothing alien, there is no philosophy, and true knowledge of God is found, since the soul is Christian by nature.
On the other hand, in his treatise On the Evidence of the Soul, Tertullian states that the soul was not born a Christian. These phrases seem to contradict each other. However, Tertullian means that every soul has in its depths the ability to know God and become a Christian. But people are not born Christians; it is not given as something ready-made. A person must discover his true nature in the depths of his soul. This is the task of every person. It would be too easy if the soul were both by nature and by birth a Christian.
The path to faith, according to Tertullian, runs not only through Revelation, not only through Holy Scripture, but also through self-knowledge. Tertullian argues that the inventions of philosophers are inferior to the testimony of the soul, since the soul is older than any word. That is why, Tertullian believes, Jesus Christ chose simple fishermen, and not philosophers, as His apostles, i.e. people who do not have unnecessary knowledge, but only a pure soul.
The departure from the purity of the soul to its philosophization gives rise to all heresies, therefore, as Tertullian says, if the wisdom of this world is madness, then madness is wisdom, i.e. true philosophy is the renunciation of all wisdom, of all philosophy. The main cause of all heresies is philosophy. Therefore, trying to preserve the unity of the Church (and at that time the heresies of Gnosticism, Montanism, etc. were already emerging), Tertullian tried to hurt philosophy, believing that it was she who was to blame for the emergence of heresies. The treatise “To the Gentiles” is dedicated to this. He claims that Aristotle gave the heretics a tool, and Socrates is the devil’s tool to lead people to destruction.
"What do Athens and Jerusalem have in common? The Academy and the Church? Philosophy and Christianity?" - Tertullian asks rhetorically. In the 20th century The same phrases will be repeated by the famous Russian philosopher Lev Shestov. He will repeat Tertullian's position about the superiority of faith over philosophy. But Tertullian uses the Socratic method of self-knowledge, the Cynic principle of simplifying life and many Stoic positions.
Tertullian argues that there is a certain unified cognitive ability, feelings and reason are manifestations of this ability. One soul manifests itself in both thoughts and feelings. Both feelings and reason are infallible by nature and give us the truth in its completeness, in its integrity. A person who incorrectly uses the data of feelings and reason makes mistakes in the future.
Then Tertullian joined the heresy of the Montanists - apparently because they, being mystically minded, asserted the priority of their inner world before Revelation. Montanists came to the conclusion that the revelation that was given to Montanus was in some sense superior to the Revelations that were given to the apostles, as the Revelations given to Jesus Christ were superior to the revelations given to Moses.
In his understanding of the soul and, mainly, of God, Tertullian was based on Stoic principles. True, there are also discrepancies. He believed that God is incomprehensible, although His properties are visible from His creations, i.e. from nature. Since nature is one, then God is One; since nature is created, then God is Good. But following the Stoics, Tertullian repeats that God is a kind of material spirit. And in general there is nothing immaterial in the world. Materiality has only different shades, different degrees. The materiality of the soul is different from the materiality of things, and the materiality of God is superior to the materiality of the soul. There is nothing incorporeal. God Himself is the Body (treatise “On the Soul”). The soul is also corporeal, for otherwise it could not govern the body. The soul is the subtlest body, diffused in our material body, throughout the whole person. As evidence, Tertullian cites the fact that at birth a person inherits the material properties of his parents, that a child is similar to his parents not only in appearance, but also in some character traits, i.e. soul.
Tertullian also draws some arguments from the Bible, citing the well-known parable of the rich man and Lazarus, where it is said that the soul of Lazarus enjoys the coolness, and the soul of the rich man suffers from thirst. Those who are not endowed with a bodily nature cannot experience pain and pleasure. However, following the Stoics, Tertullian argues that, on the one hand, the fate of man is completely determined by Divine Providence (God foresaw everything - even the persecution of Christians), but does not deny human freedom, otherwise there would be no need for law. Man is free and can choose between good and evil. Being not entirely good, not having a perfect divine nature, a person often chooses not exactly what he needs. Task human life consists in choosing between good and evil in favor of good. A person must become virtuous, i.e. by what is inherent in the nature of his soul.
Origen
Origen (185-254) also came from North Africa. Born into a Christian family. At one time he studied with Plotinus under Ammonius Saccas. Porfiry spoke extremely highly of him.
Origen's influence on subsequent Christian thought cannot be exaggerated, since he played the role of a pioneer in many issues, including in changing philosophical guidelines. If before Origen Christianity was mainly oriented towards Stoic philosophy, then Origen was the first to emphasize Platonism, which later became, together with Plotinian philosophy, the basis of Christian philosophy in both Western and Eastern philosophy.
He was an extremely educated man in the field of philosophy, but, unlike Plotinus, he believed that faith was higher than philosophy. The human mind can exist in order to clarify the positions of Christianity. Philosophy does not harm the Bible, and the Bible does not harm philosophy, since Christianity has nothing contrary to reason. Scripture has everything, but in order to correctly understand the truth, you need good philosophical education, you need to be able to interpret what is stated in the Bible.
Origen's main philosophical thoughts are set out in his treatise On Principles. In addition, he has a treatise "Against Kels". Origen wrote many works, and many of his treatises do not contain the heretical teachings for which Origenism was condemned. His entire heresy is in his treatise “On Principles,” where he sets out his understanding of God, although in many ways it is close to the Orthodox understanding.
God is One and Only, i.e. He is the Monad and Genada. God is the Mind and the Source of the mind. He is devoid of any materiality. He is above all being, essence and thinking. God is completely incomprehensible. He can be judged by apophatic theology, and positive terms apply only to His creations. God cannot be a body, because the body is temporary, divisible, and consists of parts. God is eternal, simple and unchangeable. Origen interprets God the Son as Wisdom, as Logos, as the Word of God. Origen often describes the birth of God the Son in the same words as Plotinus. The birth of the Son is an eternal process.
Origen was the first Christian theologian, who applied the term “hypostasis” to the Persons of the Holy Trinity and quite consistently pursued the principle of the Unity of God in His Trinity. The main departure from the Christian faith lies in its doctrine of the world, cosmology and doctrine of the soul. Origen claims that the world was created from nothing, otherwise matter would be co-eternal with God, but since God cannot help but create, this creation continues forever, because. if God did not create at some point, then He would not be the Creator, and this is impossible. God cannot be fickle and changeable. Therefore, the world is always happening - that means things are happening different worlds. Unlike the Stoics, Origen believes that these worlds do not repeat one another, but develop. And there is progress in this development. These worlds are limited in space and time.
In the beginning, when God creates the world, He creates souls. However, souls, being free, begin to fall away from God, to grow cold towards Him, therefore, in order to stop this fall, God creates the world. Origen sees the fact that souls fall away from God in the etymology of the word “soul,” which goes back to the word “psuchestai” - “to cool down.” The very nature of the soul is that souls become cold in their love for God. When a soul is created, it is given the task of striving for its Creator, for God. But the connection with God is carried out through enormous tension, and many souls could not stand it, only the soul of Jesus Christ was able to unite with God, while other souls fell away. Having united with God, the soul of Jesus Christ became the hypostasis and Second Person of God. But at the end of our world, all souls will be saved and return to their original state. This theory (the return of souls to their original state, apokatastasis) is one of Origen’s heretical theories. At the end of the world, a resurrection in bodily nature awaits us all, but Origen sees this resurrection as our receiving the essence of the body, as it were, the seed beginning of our body. This is a luminous ether.
Tertullian differed from Clement in many ways. Apparently, he was from Carthage, a city in northern Africa. He spent most of his life there, but converted to Christianity in Rome at about the age of forty. Returning to Carthage, he wrote several treatises in defense of the faith against the pagans and in defense of orthodox Christianity against various heresies. He was a lawyer, or judicial orator, and all his literary work bears the imprint of a legal mentality. In one of the previous chapters we quoted lines in which he protests against Trajan’s “unjust law”, according to which Christians should not be specifically sought out, but when they appear before the authorities, they must be punished. Reading this passage is like listening to a lawyer speak in court. In another of his works - "On the Soul" - Tertullian calls human soul witness in court and, after questioning her, comes to the conclusion that “the soul by nature is Christian” and she persists in rejecting Christianity because of her stubbornness and blindness.
Tertullian's legal spirit was most clearly manifested in the treatise "Refutation of Heretics." In the legal language of that time, the term prescriptio, appeared in the text of the essay, had at least two meanings. It could refer to a legal argument made before a trial begins to show that a trial cannot take place. If, before the hearing, one party could prove that the other party did not have the right to initiate a case, or that the case was improperly initiated, or that the court was incompetent, the trial was canceled. But this term also had another meaning when it came to the “statute of limitations”. If one of the parties had undisputed possession of some property or some right for a certain time, this possession became legal, even if the other party later made a claim to it.
Tertullian uses the term in both senses, as if he were talking about a trial between Christianity and heretics. He not only seeks to show that heretics are mistaken, but also denies them the right to enter into a dispute with the church. In this regard, he declares that Scripture belongs to the church. The Church had used the Bible for several generations, and heretics did not challenge its right to possess the Scriptures. While the church originally did not own all of Scripture, it now owns all of it. Therefore, heretics have no right to the Bible. They came too late and want to use what legally belongs to the church.
To prove that Scripture belongs to the church, it is enough to recall that there are churches whose members have been reading and correctly interpreting Scripture since the time of the apostles. In Rome, for example, a continuous succession of apostles links the present time - the end of the 2nd century - with the apostles Peter and Paul. The same can be said about the church in Antioch and about some other churches. All these apostolic churches demonstrate agreement in the use and interpretation of Scripture. Moreover, by virtue of the very origin of the writings of the apostles, they belong to the apostolic churches.
Since Scripture belongs to the church, heretics have no right to base their argument on it. Here Tertullian uses the term praescriptio in a different sense. Since heretics do not have the right to interpret Scripture, any debate with them on this topic is pointless. The right to interpret Scripture belongs only to the church to which it belongs by law.
Similar arguments against heretics were repeatedly put forward in the subsequent history of the church in relation to various kinds of dissenters. It was this that formed the basis of the accusations brought by Catholics against Protestants in the 16th century. In the case of Tertullian, it should be noted that his arguments were aimed at showing not only formal, but also theological continuity of generations. And since during the Reformation the debates were conducted primarily on theological issues, these arguments did not seem as convincing as in the time of Tertullian.
But Tertullian, as a jurist and lawyer, goes even further. His inherent legal thinking leads him to the conclusion that, having learned the truth of Christianity, a person must abandon further searches for the truth. In Tertullian's eyes, a Christian who continues to seek the truth does not have sufficient faith.
You have to search until you find it, and when you find it, you have to believe. And then you just have to stick to what you believe in. In addition, one must believe that there is nothing else worthy of faith or search. {12} .
This means that the recognition of Christian teaching is quite enough and that any search for truth that goes beyond the doctrine is dangerous. Tertullian, naturally, does not object to a deeper study of Christian teaching. But everything that goes beyond it or comes from other sources must be rejected. This applies especially to pagan philosophy, which is the source of all heresy and contains nothing but empty reasoning.
Pathetic Aristotle, who showed them dialectics! He showed them the art of building and then destroying, the art of ambiguous speeches and rash arguments... which rejects everything and applies to nothing {13} .
In short, Tertullian condemns any speculative constructions. For example, speculating about what acts God can do in His omnipotence is a waste of time and a dangerous endeavor. We need to think not about what God could do, but about what He actually did. This is what the church teaches. This is exactly what we find in Scripture. Everything else is idle and dangerous curiosity.
But this does not mean that Tertullian does not use logic in disputes with opponents. His logic is often impeccable and compelling, as in "Refutation." But the strength of his argument lies not so much in logic as in rhetoric, often filled with sarcasm. In particular, turning to Marcion, he writes that the God of the church created the whole world with all its miracles, while the god Marcion did not create a single plant. He then asks what Marcion's god was doing before his recent revelation? Is it possible that the divine love that Marcion claims was manifested only in last minute? Thus, thanks to his rare combination of caustic irony and impeccable logic in his works, Tertullian became the scourge of heretics and the defender of orthodox Christianity.
But then, around the year 207, this staunch opponent of heresy, this tireless defender of the authority of the church, joined the ranks of the Montanists. The reasons for this step of Tertullian remain one of the many mysteries of church history, for in his own writings and in other documents of that era there are very few direct indications of the motives for this step. There is no clear answer to the question why Tertullian became a Montanist. At the same time, one can pay attention to the closeness of Tertullian’s character and theology to Montanism.
Montanism was named after the founder of the movement, Montana, who was a pagan priest before his conversion to Christianity in 155. He later began to prophesy, declaring that the Holy Spirit had come into him. Following him, two women began to prophesy - Priscilla and Maximilla. This in itself was not something new: at that time, at least in some churches, women were allowed to prophesy. What was new and seriously alarming was that Montand and his followers declared that their movement was the beginning of a new era. The first new age began with Jesus Christ, and now the second begins with the outpouring of the Spirit. The new era makes more stringent moral demands, just as in its time the Sermon on the Mount demanded more than the law of the Old Testament.
The Church opposed the preaching of the Montanists, but not in response to their prophecies, but against the assertion that with them the last era of history begins. According to the New Testament, last days began with the coming and resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost. Over the years, it was forgotten that the last days had already arrived, and in the 20th century many consider this statement strange. But in the 2nd century, the church firmly believed that the last days had already begun with Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Montanists, who preached that the end begins now with the outpouring of the Spirit on Montanus and his followers, belittled the significance of New Testament events and turned the Good News into only an additional stage in the history of salvation. The church could not agree with this way of putting the question by the Montanists.
Tertullian was apparently attracted by the rigorism of the Montanists. Due to his legal mindset, he strived for perfect order, when everything was done as it should. But in the church, despite all its efforts to follow God’s will, there were too many shortcomings that did not fit into Tertullian’s worldview. The only possible explanation for the persistence of sin among Christians was seen in the fact that the church was a transitional stage that would be replaced by a new era of the Spirit. Naturally, such dreams were not destined to come true, and, as some authors of that time write, by the end of his life Tertullian was largely disillusioned with Montanism and created his own group, the members of which these authors call “Tertullianides.”
Even after becoming a Montanist, Tertullian continued to fight against theological errors. His most significant work of this period is perhaps the short treatise Against Praxeus, in which he developed formulations that played an important role in subsequent Christological discussions and debates about the Trinity.
Very little is known about Praxeas, almost nothing. It is argued that there was no such person at all and that Praxeus is none other than Callixtus, the Roman bishop whom Tertullian chose to criticize by giving him a fictitious name. Whoever Praxeus was, it is clear that he occupied an influential position in the Roman church and that the view he preached there on the relationship between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit was considered unacceptable by Tertullian. According to Praxeas, the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are simply three forms in which God appears, that is, God is sometimes the Father, sometimes the Son, and sometimes the Holy Spirit, in any case - this conclusion can be drawn from Tertullian’s treatise. This is what is called “patripassianism” (the doctrine of the suffering of the Father) or “modalism” (the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity are just different “forms” of expression of God).
Since Praxeus also fought against Montanist influence in Rome, Tertullian begins the treatise with his characteristic causticity: “Praxeus serves the devil in Rome in two ways: he expels prophecy and spreads heresy, removes the Spirit and crucifies the Father.” {14} .
Tertullian then explains how the Trinity should be understood. He proposes the formula: “One essence and three persons.” On the other hand, when discussing how Jesus could be both man and God, he speaks of “one person” and two “essences” or “natures,” divine and human. He explains the meaning of the terms “person” and “entity” mainly from a legal point of view. Later theologians would consider these concepts in metaphysical categories. Be that as it may, Tertullian's formulations on matters relating to the Trinity and Christology would ultimately become the standard of orthodoxy.
For all these reasons, Tertullian is considered a unique figure in the history of Christianity. A passionate defender of orthodoxy and an opponent of all heresy, he eventually joined a movement that the church considered heretical. But even then, he continued to develop theological theses that would later have a great influence on the development of orthodox theology. Moreover, he became the first Christian theologian to write in Latin, that is, the language of the western part of the empire, and therefore he can be considered the founder of Western theology.
Quintus Tertullian lived at a time when a new Christian worldview was being born in the ancient world. Tertullian had a sharply negative attitude towards ancient culture, emphasizing in every possible way the insurmountable line separating “Athens” from “Jerusalem”, the “Academy” from the “Church”, philosophers from Christians.
Tertullian on the relationship between faith and reason
A new understanding of truth needed to substantiate other forms of knowledge. On the question of the relationship between faith and reason in the comprehension of God, Tertullian categorically insisted on the priority of faith, so it was not by chance that the aphorism was attributed to him: “I believe because it is absurd.”
Tertullian believed in the earthly life of Christ; that his disciples, the apostles, spread Christianity and founded the church (shortly before the birth of the philosopher). Even in the future there were the most terrible persecutions of Christians in the 3rd century; recognition of Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire at the end of the 4th century; Ecumenical councils, on which the main Christian dogmas will be established.
Apologetics of Tertullian
Tertullian is at the beginning of this path. His main task was the defense (apology) of Christianity (and Christians) in the face of the dominant pagan culture that was alien to it. The main themes of Tertullian's philosophy were: the problem of faith; the place of faith in the life of a person and society; a new understanding of truth, justification of its criteria and ways of knowing; approval of the Christian moral value system; criticism of ancient philosophy and pagan culture in general.
Tertullian was one of the first among Christian philosophers to defend the idea that the world was created by God out of nothing. Tertullian thought of God as creator, eternity, goodness (for he created the world). God is one, just as the nature created by Him is one, he is a spirit, but this spirit is corporeal.
Tertullian on the unity of the divine and human nature of Christ
Tertullian Special attention addressed the question of the unity of two natures in Christ: divine and human. He fought against statements that Christ was never born, did not possess flesh and did not rise in the flesh, since he well understood that the denial of the “human” in Christ leads to the destruction of the Christian religion.
Tertullian understood the truth of Christ as “something united and true”; it must be taken on faith, without any reflection or evidence. Tertullian was convinced that the divine beyond all doubt surpasses the wisdom of this world. “The wisdom of this world is foolishness before God” (Apostle Paul).
Conversely, Tertullian considered it impossible from the point of view of reason and logic to comprehend, for example, the unity of God in three persons, the virgin birth, “miracles,” the divine-human nature of Christ, the death of Christ, and then the resurrection in the flesh. Only faith reveals divine truth: the reality of the incomprehensible, the certainty of the incredible, the certainty of the impossible.
Nothing is impossible for God. The truth must be sought, and, having found it, one must believe, and not philosophize. Tertullian wrote: “We do not need curiosity after Christ, we do not need research after the Gospel,” “Let curiosity give way to faith, let glory give way to salvation,” “Knowing nothing against the Rule of faith means knowing everything.”
Tertullian and criticism of ancient philosophy
Tertullian criticized ancient philosophy, which claimed to have wisdom. Philosophy is the wisdom of this world, not the divine. It comes not from faith, but from reason, so Tertullin believed that, instead of leading a person to God, it directs him along the wrong path and gives rise to heresies, that is, distortions of the truth of Christ.
Each philosopher proceeds from his own idea of truth, numerous directions arise that are opposite to each other; There are endless and fruitless disputes. Philosophers seek the truth, but cannot find it, because it is impossible for the mind to comprehend that which surpasses it.
Tertullian considered the criteria of truth Holy Bible(the Bible), the authority of the church and the testimony of the soul (feelings).
I believe because it is absurd
Tertullian was critical of the allegorical interpretation of Scripture. He preferred a literal understanding of the text, even if it contradicted the most elementary requirements of logic. The more absurd, from our point of view, the statement of Revelation, the deeper the secret it hides and therefore deserves the more faith. Tertullian: I believe because it is absurd.
The church has preemptive right to the truth, because it is the historical successor of its holy founders - the apostles, who received it from Christ, and Christ from God. Over time, Tertullian, convinced of the inconsistency official church his ideal, opposed it for a purely spiritual church, without hierarchy, became close to the Montanist sect, and at the end of his life created his own.
Tertullian saw the truth of the evidence of the soul in the fact that they are given to man by nature, and to nature, in turn, by God himself. Otherwise, how could one explain the fear of death, hope for posthumous reward, trust in God, fear of him. “These testimonies of the soul, the more true, the simpler, the simpler, the more accessible, the more accessible..., the more natural, and the more natural, the more divine.” The soul is older than books and words, and man precedes the philosopher and poet, therefore simple, inexperienced people, not corrupted by pagan culture, are closer to the truth.
Man, as Tertullan believed, is the unity of soul and body, the body is set in motion by the soul. At the same time, the soul is also a body, but only the subtlest, it is, as it were, spread throughout to the human body and gives it shape. The soul, despite its corporeality, is immortal. At the same time, Tertullian was also interested in the question of the immortality of man in general.
Tertullian divided contemporary society into the “camp of the devil” and the “camp of God.” The first, paganism, is associated with the possession of this world, reveres transient values and goes to destruction; the second, Christianity, is associated with the enduring values of the future other world, the ultimate destination of this society is eternal bliss. History is understood eschatologically, that is, it moves towards the end of the world, the Last Judgment.
Tertullian - the significance of his teachings for history and philosophy
Tertullian, thanks to his uncompromisingness, like no one else, was able to feel the spirit of a new worldview, for which many Christians heroically accepted martyrdom.
Tertullian contributed to the development of philosophical thought because he made an attempt to comprehend the life of man and society from the position of faith. When considering certain aspects of human life, this approach can be fruitful.
The first Christians were very different from modern Christians. In the 2nd century, there were basically only sects of one direction or another, some figures generally gravitated towards paganism, and some (of which there were probably the majority) towards ancient philosophy. Yes, the actual influence of ancient philosophy (especially Plato and Aristotle, not to mention Philo of Alexandria) on Christianity is obvious.
Probably one of the most prominent proponents of orthodoxy of his time was Tertullian. He lived back in the 2nd century, when Christianity was not an official cult in the state, but already had many followers.
After Turtullian completed his education (philosophy, rhetoric and law), he moved to Carthage, where he almost immediately converted to Christianity, and then became a presbyter in the local community.
In the future, he will create his own community and will be a great authority among theologians. It was he who first “substantiated” the canonical concept of the so-called. the sacred trinity, when the dogma of the trinity of a single deity appears. He borrowed the idea from Plato (the trinity of the absolute).
This is how orthodoxy began to have “arguments.” Their opponents, of course, quite often denied this dogma. The same Arians believed that Jesus Christ was lower than God, or rather, that he was simply his creation.
And it was, of course, impossible to resolve such a dispute. That is why Christian councils, and just meetings, were accompanied by shouts, beatings, expulsions and even murders. Those who had more supporters at that time won.
The arguments in this case did not work for the reason that there was actually no subject of dispute. How can one “prove” the trinity of God?
It was necessary to somehow justify the crazy creed. Especially in conditions when it was still impossible to rely on state violence. This is why Tertullian wrote apologetic works.
Since it is difficult in reality to justify not only the existence of God, but also the resurrection, the virgin birth, a talking snake, etc., Tertullian creates an interesting movement called fideism.
The essence of fideism is that faith prevails over reason. The human mind, as Tertullian claims, in principle cannot understand the dogmas of faith. And therefore, faith itself brings a person closer to the ideal, but he must consciously abandon logic and common sense; from philosophy and science that interfere with the triumph of faith. As a matter of fact, the first fideists called for abandoning all research in favor of religious obscurantism.
Maximus Tertullian - “I believe because it is absurd.” Well, the arguments:
- And the Son of God died: this is indisputable, because it is absurd. And, buried, he rose again: this is certain, because it is impossible.
- And the Son of God died; this is completely reliable, because it does not correspond to anything. And after burial he rose again; this is certain, because it is impossible.
This idea has become key in theology. It all comes down to the fact that the idea is simple. There is no need to argue with anyone, it is enough to say that faith prevails over reason, and any critic is simply an unbeliever (“there is no God in his heart”).
But, clearly, Tertullian did not limit himself to this. Over time, he simply stopped arguing with the Gnostics, and declared that “heretics” must simply be physically destroyed, because they prevent a person from believing in the “correct teaching.”
It is clear that the “correct teaching” is the teaching of Tertullian, and those who do not believe correctly must die. A place in hell has already been reserved. And it must be said that Tertullian was in fact, perhaps, one of the most erudite Christian apologists of his time. In any case, he understood the absurdity of Christianity, knew ancient philosophy very well, and even on its basis he was able to consolidate dogmas.
That is why, in the end, his direction, later called patristics, won. It was fundamental in Christian theology before scholasticism.