Belief Systems and Christian Counseling
Thesis:
Even a cursory survey of belief systems may enhance the Christian counselor's effectiveness by enabling him to ascertain underlying beliefs that are influencing the counselee.
Introduction
What does a minor war between Persia and Greece centuries before Christ have to do with today's evangelical Christian counselor? Simply this: it ushered in the Golden Age of Athens and subsequently ushered in new ideas about humans that persist even to this day.
Most of us engaged in advanced seminary studies have had at least some introduction to world history, world religions, philosophy, and the development of Western thought. Possibly most of us took those courses only because they were required. They seemed irrelevant to teaching or preaching the Gospel. What we have studied relevant to the development of Christianity has generally been limited to the spread of Christianity. Few of us have studied the development of Christian thought and doctrine. How many of us have even given thought to whether Christ actually came in the flesh or whether he came only in the form of flesh? Yet, this was a raging issue in the early Church. And the conclusions reached by the scholars of that day influence how we view the issue today.
Most who would consult a Christian counselor adhere at least verbally, although usually very loosely, to some form of formal religious belief. However, in this paper, the term, "belief system," is not used to refer to formal beliefs. Rather, it is used to refer to patterns of thought so common to our society that we seldom, if ever, give them any consideration. Someone once said that an awareness of the past can help us plan for the future and avoid errors in the present. It is hoped that this thesis will help make the Christian counselor to become more aware of the past and its impact of the present. From this perspective, he may be able to more quickly ascertain underlying beliefs that may be influencing his counselee's thinking.
In this thesis we will begin by examining six belief systems so firmly and finely woven into our own culture that we are only rarely aware of them, much less aware of the influence they exert on our thoughts and thus on our actions. The belief systems we will examine are:
(1) Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things."
(2) Aristotle's "is" of identity.
(3) Aristotle's "either/or" logic.
(4) Augustine's doctrine of original sin.
(5) "God has a purpose for this."
(6) "A person can do anything if he really wants to."
Each thought pattern first will be presented in its original historical setting. Where applicable, it will be traced briefly to its contemporary setting. Second, various arguments, including Scriptures when used, will be discussed. It is not this writer's intent in this paper to either affirm or refute any argument herein presented. Our primarily purpose is to make the reader aware of the existence of these belief systems and to make him aware of both those arguments used by those who subscribe to and those arguments used by those who refute these systems. This is not intended to be an exhaustive study. Numerous renowned theologians have already presented their arguments in texts that are readily available to the reader who desires to study the subject further. Third, the possible impact on counselees of the thought pattern under discussion will be considered. This will include contemporary expressions that may indicate the thought pattern under consideration and possible counseling considerations unique to the situation. This discussion will include pertinent Scriptures.
A discussion of how one acquires his own particular beliefs and how those beliefs motivate his speech and behavior will follow identification and discussion of these belief systems. A brief discussion of counseling in general will follow acquisition of beliefs. Before making our final conclusion, we will examine in depth a current form of the New Age Movement that is a modern version of the ancient Eastern religions. This belief system is currently making inroads into our society in the form of building self-esteem programs. That there are any religious overtones is sometimes very skillfully hidden. Other times those religious overtones are apparent, but go unrecognized. Some of these programs are being lauded even by Christians who teach and counsel in the public school systems. And, without awareness of it, these teachers and counselors bring into the church that which they have learned in the secular setting.
Finally, we will draw a conclusion as to whether an awareness of historical belief systems is important to twentieth-century Christian counselors. Historical, sociological, and cultural factors, linguistics, and religious ideas all influence how we think. And these, in turn, influence how we act, "Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree corrupt, and its fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by its fruit. Ye offspring of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. The good man out of his good treasure bringeth forth good things: and the evil man out of his evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. And I say unto you, that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned" (Matthew 12:33-37). [ 1 ] And how we think and act influences our future and the future of those who follow us. You do not see the threads in a beautifully woven tapestry, but nevertheless, those threads are there. Without them you would have no tapestry.
But the tapestry will not be complete until our Lord returns. Now it is our turn to do the weaving. And we need to pick up the threads of the past and continue weaving so that we can make the tapestry even more beautiful. We cannot, and even if we could, we should not, change the threads of the past. Our past has determined our present. But we may want to weave in different threads, different perspectives. And for the Christian counselor, this means truly biblical perspectives.
Some of the reference materials used in this thesis will be unfamiliar to most readers. Though most materials are fairly easily obtained through the library and university inter-net programs, some may be difficult to obtain. For these reasons additional information will sometimes be given either in the endnotes or bibliography.
Though the writer has attempted to avoid undue "sexist" language, this is a theological thesis. The Bible clearly recognizes and uses gender terminology. Also, some terminology quoted by other writers may be obsolete or obscure to today's reader. However, these terms are generally found in a good unabridged dictionary.
Even very busy counselors spend many hours consulting various textbooks. Most subscribe to current periodicals to keep abreast of modern techniques in diagnosis and therapy. I suggest that there is one avenue seldom explored: the underlying belief systems into which those in Western society are born. Even a cursory survey of these belief systems may enhance the Christian counselor's effectiveness by enabling him to ascertain underlying beliefs that may be influencing the counselee. The purpose of this thesis is to help make the Christian counselor aware of some of these beliefs that the counselee will, often unknowingly, bring forth even in his casual conversation. A thoughtful and listening Christian counselor may often detect his counselee's underlying thought patterns without going through seemingly endless hours of analysis that focus on the symptoms of problems rather than solutions. The multitude of cold "remedies" of the market may lessen the symptoms of a cold, but they do not cure it.
Chapter One: Protagoras' "Man is the measure of all things"
Though we may speak of Greece being the cradle of Western civilization, we in the United States usually think of the saying in terms of it being the cradle of Democracy. Few of us realize the extent to which we have been and are still being influenced by Greek thought. While Christian education owes an incalculable debt to Hebrew education and to Old Testament theology, [ 2 ] it is Greek epistemology that has shaped the thinking of Western civilization. Few of us ever realize the extent to which it has influenced the interpretation of the New Testament.
The Grolier Encyclopedia defines Epistemology as: "the branch of philosophy that studies the nature and limits of knowledge; it examines the structure, origin, and criteria of knowledge. Epistemology also deals with a number of related problems: sense perception, and the relation between the knower and the object known, the possible kinds of knowledge and the degrees of certainty for each kind of knowledge, the nature of truth, and the nature of and justification for inferences. The word epistemology comes from the Greek words episteme ("knowledge") and logos ("theory"). A common definition of epistemology is the theory of knowledge." [ 3 ] Epistemology originated in Greece with the Sophists, somewhat the equivalent of our university professors, who challenged the possibility of knowing.
To understand another's ideas, we must attempt as much as we are able to place ourselves back in time and try to make ourselves aware of the historical events, and the cultural, sociological, and religious currents then prevalent. Then we must attempt to understand the language within which those ideas are expressed. In other words, we must somehow make ourselves see, experience, understand, and express another person's ideas as he expressed them from HIS then current perspective rather than from our present perspective of hindsight.
In the course of history, Persia had conquered Greece. However under its last five rulers Persia weakened internally. Revolting against Persian imposed taxes, an alliance formed among the independent-minded Greek city-states defeated in 479 BC a Persian invasion against them designed to collect those taxes. Following that victory, the Athenian Alliance freed other Greek cities held captive by the Persians. [ 4 ] Considered symbolically as the victory of civilization over barbarism, the defeat had far-reaching implications. [ 5 ] The fifth century before Christ became a strange, new time of peace, of rebuilding, and of re-thinking old ideas. This time, later to be remembered as the classical period of the Athenian democracy, the middle of which became known as the Age of Perciles, marked the beginning of the Greek culture capable both of becoming a vehicle of thought and of being exported to other peoples. Pericles, the leading political figure, encouraged the arts and education. [ 6 ]
Greek thinkers became conscious of a human being as human. Homeric literature had portrayed individuals as victims of fate and facing death. The gods whom we refer to as only mythological, were perceived by the Greeks as controlling the destiny of man. In classical thought human beings overcame fate. [ 7 ] It is within this framework that Protagoras made his statement: "The measure of all things is man." [ 8 ]
Protagoras (c. 490 BC - c. 420 BC) was an epistemological subjectivist who explained that since all knowledge is dependent on an individual's experience, for which that individual alone is judge, knowledge is thus relative to each individual. [ 9 ] Protagoras, who called himself a Sophist, a teacher of wisdom, was a man of high character and highly respected. [ 10 ] Among his many distinctions was the founding of European grammar and philology. [ 11 ] Highly educated and also highly paid, he taught rhetoric and law. He introduced into legal training the "adversary system," in which a student argues both sides of a case, thus enabling him to see it from different perspectives. [ 12 ] According to Durant, Protagoras was conservative in temper and professed to educate and to develop the ethical tendencies of the good citizen. This education included the teaching of prudence in private and public matters, the orderly management of home and family, the art of persuasive speaking, and the ability to understand and to direct the affairs of state. [ 13 ]
There are controversial thoughts about whether the term, "man," used in Protagoras' statement refers to individuals or to the human species as being the criterion of truth. There is also controversy over whether "things" refers only to objects of sense-perception or whether it extends to cover the field of values as well. [ 14 ] Copleston accepts the view that it should be interpreted in the individualistic sense in regard to sense-perception. [ 15 ] According to Durant, Protagoras accepted sensation as the only means of knowledge, refusing to admit any transcendental-supra sensual reality. [ 16 ] "No absolute truth can be found," said Protagoras, "but only such truths as hold for given men under given conditions; contradictory assertions can be equally true for different persons or at different times." [ 17 ]
According to Durant, Protagoras himself applied his subjectivity to theology in a famous statement that frightened the Athenian Assembly "With regard to the gods I know not whether they exist or not, or what they are like. Many things prevent our knowing: the subject is obscure, and brief is the span of our mortal life." [ 18 ] However, in this writer's view, Protagoras' statement regarding the gods does not appear to be a subjective statement but rather a questioning of the then currently held view of the gods. Remember, the gods under discussion were subject to human frailties and human capriciousness.
With Protagoras began the subjective standpoint in philosophy, which, though often held in restraints by church or state, survives until this day. Though the Bible teaches that there is an absolute truth, "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life: no one cometh unto the Father, but by me" (John 14:6), subjectivity, too, has it place. The Scriptures affirm this, "To the pure all things are pure: but to them that are defiled and unbelieving nothing is pure; but both their mind and their conscience are defiled" (Titus 1:15). And the area of sense-perception would seem to be almost completely subjective. To one person a room seems warm; another might come in and immediately turn up the thermostat. Subjectivity, in its proper place, is appropriate. Certainly, one who has NO personal opinion on ANY subject is in need of serious counseling.
However, the subjective attitude that underlies many counseling problems is the subject of this portion of our thesis. This attitude may be expressed in many ways: "In my opinion," Well, I think," "As I see it," "To each his own," "That's your opinion," "That's your interpretation," "We are all headed in the same direction (meaning Heaven)". Most of these expressions may be appropriate at given times, but when they occur on a regular basis in casual conversion, the counselor should give heed and begin trying to determine if the counselee has any absolute foundation from which his beliefs and actions are motivated. Careful listening may reveal the needed information. Or the counselor may ask the counselee directly on what basis he is expressing a specific opinion. Usually he will not be able to give a specific answer.
Possibly most personal and interpersonal problems originate from a subjective, unfounded basis. The counselee with an underlying subjective attitude will have problem after problem. If a counselee can be taught the principle that there is an absolute truth, and that truth is to be found in the Scriptures and was manifested in the life of Christ, he will be well along the way to solving many of his existing problems and to preventing future problems. Protagoras was more correct than we might realize. The universe as we know it was made for man, "And God made the beasts of the earth after their kind, and the cattle after their kind, and everything that creepeth upon the ground after its kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. And God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them" (Genesis 1:25-27). It will disappear when man is taken from it, "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall be dissolved with fervent heat, and the earth and the works that are therein shall be burned up" (2 Peter 3:10). To man was given the naming of the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). To man was given the instructions to replenish and to subdue and to have dominion over ever living thing, "And God blessed them: and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the heavens, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for food: and to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the heavens, and to everything that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for food: and it was so. And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day" (Genesis 1:28-31). Protagoras perhaps caught a glimpse of truth: Man is the measure of all things: and that Man is Jesus Christ, "He that descended is the same also that ascended far above all the heavens, that he might fill all things. And he gave some to be apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of the body of Christ: till we all attain unto the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a full-grown man, unto the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ" (Ephesians 4:10-13).
Chapter Two: Aristotle's "is" of identity
In order to properly understand either Aristotle or Augustine, one must know somewhat of the thoughts of those who preceded them. In raising questions that became central to the Hellenistic philosophical schools, the Sophists brought about the conscious intellectualism that provided the background to Socrates and Plato. [ 19 ] Reacting against the questioning carried on by the Sophists and against the old naiveté about willful, amoral deities, Socrates (469 BC - 399 BC) made human beings, rather than some principle, central. Questions raised needed to be answered, but on the other hand, something true and secure in place of the relativism that was beginning to prevail was also needed. [ 20 ] Through his method of questioning and making individuals think for themselves, Socrates was responsible for philosophy becoming concerned with the conscience and personal religion. His method of inquiry involved examining several particular aspects of the subject in question and looking for what is common to each: the method later referred to as induction. [ 21 ] Among those greatly influenced by Socrates was Plato, who was to become one of the most important and creative thinkers of the ancient world. [ 22 ]
Plato's epistemological objectivism held that the object of knowledge is independent of the knowing subject. [ 23 ] In his Theaetetus, Plato examines several definitions of knowledge. Rejecting the view that knowledge is perception, Plato argued that the sensation involved in a perception seems to be subjective insofar as it depends for its existence and nature on the state of the perceiver, whereas the object perceived is not so dependent. [ 24 ] Though Plato's ideas are pertinent to this thesis only in so much as their influence on Aristotle and Augustine, this particular point will be dealt with at an appropriate place in the thesis.
On the assumption that knowledge must be unchanging and have reality as its object, Plato developed the theory of Forms. The constantly changing world of sense experience cannot be the object of knowledge--and hence cannot be real. [ 25 ] Therefore, there must be another unchanging realm that is the object of knowledge. [ 26 ] Knowledge, according to Plato, was having true belief that could be justified by appealing to the Forms. [ 27 ]
Plato summarizes his philosophy of ideas in his "The Myth of the Cave" in the Republic 7 (514A-19A). [ 28 ] According to the myth, human beings live in a cave. From birth they are chained facing the inside wall of the cave. Their chains prevent them from looking at each other. A fire is burning outside the mouth of the cave. Between the fire and the entrance to the cave other beings pass by and cast their shadows on the inside wall. Like those chained facing that wall, we never see anything but the shadows, hence we mistake that for reality. We know only shadows of reality and shadows of ourselves. To "know thyself" is to get out of the cave. Some break their chains, but light from outside the cave is so dazzling that they prefer to remain in the cave. A few overcome the initial dazzlement and exit out of the cave. These climb a steep hill and finally reach the top where they can see the sun. After an experience of ecstasy they return to the cave out of duty to their fellow prisoners. As they return, they stumble in the darkness of the cave. Those who remained in the cave laugh at them and in their impatience may even put them to death. [ 29 ]
Thus, the philosopher who has seen the world of ideas can explain the realities better than those who know only the shadowy world of sense. Some, however, cannot stand the light of truth. Those who know only darkness treat harshly those who have come from the world of light. Their prejudices and appetites are the chains that bind people. The real truth is represented by the sun, not by the man-made fire. "The highest life is a combination of contemplation (the mountain top) and action (returning to instruct others), of theory and practice." [ 30 ] Plato's myth leaves unanswered the question of what breaks one's chains. [ 31 ]
Aristotle is considered the most famous of Plato's students, but before we discuss his thoughts we should look briefly at the pre-Socratic philosophy of Heraclitus that Reality is One. According to him it was "essential to the being and the existence of the One that it should be one and many at the same time; that it should be Identity in Difference." [ 32 ] Regarding the nature of the world, Parmenides' first great assertion is that "It is." "It," i.e. Reality, Being, of whatever nature it may be, is, exists, and cannot not be. It is and it is impossible for it not to be." [ 33 ] He indicates that Being is spatially finite, for It must be definite, determinate, complete. [ 34 ] According to Copleston, "Parmenides does assert the distinction between Reason and Sense, but he does so not to establish an idealist system, but to establish a system of Monistic Materialism, in which change and movement are dismissed as illusory. Only Reason can apprehend Reality, but the Reality which Reason apprehends is material" [ 35 ] Parmenides' disciple, Melissus, held that Being, the One, but he would not accept that Being, the One, is spatially finite. [ 36 ] It is against this background that Aristotle introduces his "Is" of identify.
Aristotle (384 BC - 322 BC) was the son of a physician with close connections to the Macedonian court. [ 37 ] At seventeen he went to study at Plato's Academy. At this point, Plato was interested in logic and the criticism of the theory of ideas. [ 38 ] Plato had gathered around him outstanding men specializing in various fields ranging from medicine and biology to mathematics and astronomy. Aristotle became one of those teachers. Though sharing no common doctrines, these teachers were united by the systematic effort to organize human knowledge on a firm theoretical basis and expand it in all directions: the same effort that was to characterize Aristotle's work. [ 39 ]
Aristotle remained at the Academy until Plato's death. Though he had begun to have different views from those of Plato, he initially saw himself as a true successor of Plato. [ 40 ] While away from Athens after Plato's death, Aristotle was commissioned to teach the then thirteen year old youth who was to become Alexander the Great. [ 41 ]
Upon his return to Athens, Aristotle opened his own school of rhetoric and philosophy which he called the Lyceum. However, he set his pupils to gathering and coordinating knowledge in every field: the history of science and philosophy; the chronology of victors of the Pythian games and the Athenian Dionysia; the customs of barbarians and the constitutions of the Greek cities; and the character and distribution of plants and the organs and habits of animals. The material provided by these researches provided him a treasury of data upon which to draw for his varied and innumerable treatises. [ 42 ]
We begin our introduction to Aristotle's "is" of identity by presenting an opposing view held by a modern (AD 1948) semantics scholar, Alfred Korzybski who has been instrumental in establishing an International Non-Aristotelian Library:
The elimination of the 'is' of identity appears as a serious task, because the A-
system [Korzybski uses "A" as an abbreviated reference to Aristotle] and
'logic' by which we regulate our lives, and the influence of which has been
eliminated only partially from science, represent only a very scholarly
formulation of the restricted primitive identification. Thus, we usually
assume, following A disciplines, that the 'is' of identity is fundamental for the
'laws of thought', which have been formulated as follows:
(1) The Law of Identity: whatever is, is.
(2) The Law of Contradiction: nothing can both be and not be.
(3) The Law of Excluded Middle: everything must either be or not be. [ 43 ]
According to this formula, a is a; a cannot be both a and not be a; it must either be a or not be, it cannot be anything else. However, this is not as simple as it may sound. Let us put it in different terms. Man is man. Man can not both be man and not be man. Man must either be man or not be. As we will see later, Aristotle saw man as substance, but as substance having certain qualities. He also saw substance, including man, as being in a constant state of movement, or change. Because of the changes in his very substance, man a is different from man A (note that in this example we are speaking of just one man), but man is still man and cannot be otherwise.
Korzybski's objections seem to lie primarily in the semantic and linguistic errors having resulted from Aristotelian thought. Calling it a pathologically reversed order, Korzybski says that from childhood up we are inculcated with words and language first and the facts they represent next. He says that Aristotle's two-valued system cannot deal adequately with electro-colloidal sub-microscopic levels of the functioning of our nervous system upon which our sanity depends. He stresses that though we are not entirely ignorant about ourselves, we may have only false knowledge or half-truths which breeds maladjustment. When we orient ourselves by verbal structures that do not fit facts, we react and act as if our false knowledge is the total of all that is to be known. Mistakes due to our mis-evaluations cause us to become bewildered, confused, obsessed with fears, etc.
Pointing out that he is not anti-Aristotelian, Korzybski says that a new non-Aristotelian system of evaluation must be established by which the Aristotelian system can be revised evaluated properly. He explains:
As a matter of fact we live in a world in which non-identity is as entirely
general as gravitation, and so every identification is bound to be in some
degree a mis-evaluation. In a four-dimensional world where 'every
geometrical point has a date', even an 'electron' at different dates is not
identical with itself because the sub-microscopic processes actually going on in
this world cannot empirically be stopped but only transformed. We can,
however, through extensional and four-dimensional methods translate the
dynamic into the static and the static into the dynamic, and so establish a
similarity of structure between language and facts, which was impossible by
Aristotelian methods. Unfortunately even some modern physicists are unable
to understand these simple facts. [ 44 ]
In refutation of the doctrines that Being is One held by Heraclitus, Parmenides, and Melissus, Aristotle raises the question, "In what sense is it asserted that all things are one?" He goes on to state that 'is' is used in many senses. [ 45 ] Further on he writes, "Even the more recent of the ancient thinkers were in a pother lest the same thing should turn out in their hands both one and many. So some, like Lycophron, were led to omit 'is', others to change the mode of expression and say 'the man has been whitened' instead of 'is white,' and 'walks' instead of 'is walking', for fear that if they added the word 'is' they should be making the one to be many--as if 'one' and 'being' were always used in one and the same sense." [ 46 ]
Aristotle divided things two ways: as substance and as motion. Substance is what we see in nature in a moment. Motion is when we see it as a world of change. [ 47 ] Everything in nature is a particular substance; substance being what something is in itself. [ 48 ]
In his Categories, Aristotle defines substance as that which is neither predicable of a subject nor present in a subject. [ 49 ] He has already stated: "Expressions which are in no way composite signify substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, state, action, or affection." [ 50 ] He then illustrates his definition through application to man.
After a lengthy discussion pertaining to primary and secondary substances as they pertain to the biological aspects of man, Aristotle discusses the expressions which signify substance. The reader is asked to pay particular attention to the following paragraphs. In discussing qualities, Aristotle states, "But one and the selfsame substance, while retaining its identity, is yet capable of admitting contrary qualities." Substances themselves change to admit contrary qualities. That which is white, by the process of change, may become black, or some other color. That which is good, by the process of change, may become bad. The following statements are of extreme importance. "Thus, in respect of the manner in which the thing takes place, it is the peculiar mark of substance that it should be capable of admitting contrary qualities; for it is by itself changing that it does so."
"If, then, a man should make this exception and contend that statements and opinions are capable of admitting contrary qualities, his contention is unsound. For statements and opinions are said to have this capacity, not because they themselves undergo modification, but because this modification occurs in the case of something else. The truth or falsity of a statement depends on facts, and not on any power of the part of the statement itself of admitting contrary qualities." To sum up, it is a distinctive mark of substance, that, which remaining numerically one and the same, it is capable of admitting contrary qualities, the modification taking place through a change in the substance itself. [ 51 ] Quality, in respect to man, will be discussed further in the thesis.
Among Quantities, Aristotle gives instances of discrete quantities such number and speech and instances of continuous quantities such as lines, surfaces, and solids, and time and place. Speech is considered a discrete quantity because its parts (syllables) have no common boundary and therefore are not continuous. Time, on the other hand, is a continuous quantity because past, present, and future form a continuous whole. Space, occupied by the parts of the solid having common boundaries that form the whole, is a continuous quantity. "Quantities consist either of parts which bear a relative position each to each, or of parts which do not." The parts of time and speech do not bear a relative position to each other. Their parts have no abiding existence and therefore are better spoken of as having relative order. The category of quantity does not admit of variation of degree. One period of time is not said to be more truly time than another. The most distinctive mark of quantity is that equality and inequality are predicted of it. That which is not a quantity can by no means be termed equal or unequal to anything else, but are rather compared in terms of similarity. [ 52 ]
Those things which, being either said to be of something else or related to something else, are called relative. The significance of habit, disposition, perception, knowledge, and attitude is explained by a reference to something else, and in no other way. "Those terms, then, are called relative, the nature of which is explained by reference to something else." All relatives, if properly defined, have correlatives, but the terms of that correlation differ according to that which is being examined. [ 53 ]
Quality is a term that may be used in many difference senses. In reference to man, Aristotle says, "By 'quality' I mean that in virtue of which people are said to be such and such." Habit and disposition may be called qualities, the difference being that habit is more lasting and more firmly established. [This was the perspective from which Aristotle distinguished between habit and disposition. Modern vernacular thought usually makes the distinction from the opposite perspective]. Various kinds of knowledge and virtues are called habits because they are more abiding in character and difficult to displace, unless some great mental upheaval takes place, through disease or any such cause. Disposition, on the other hand, is easily replaced by its opposite; that is unless disposition through lapse of time becomes difficult to replace and thus becomes habit. Affective qualities and affections comprise a third class within this category. Aristotle does not use the term "affective quality" as indicating that those things which admit these qualities are affected in any way. What he means is that these said qualities are capable of producing an "affection" in the way of perception. Sweetness has the power of affecting the sense of taste; heat, that of touch. There are also affections of the soul that are called qualities. "That temper with which a man is born and which has its origin in certain deep-seated affections is called a quality." By this, he refers to such conditions as insanity and irascibility, and to those abnormal psychic states which arise from the concomitance of certain other elements and are difficult to remove. Notice that they are only DIFFICULT TO REMOVE, NOT IMPOSSIBLE TO REMOVE. However, those which are easily rendered ineffective are called affections, rather than qualities. Qualities also admit of varying degrees. In discussing the category of quality, Aristotle included in it many relative terms, and that if anything should happen to fall within both the category of quality and that of relation, there would be nothing amiss in classing it under both these heads. [ 54 ]
" Action and affection both admit of contraries and also of variation of degree." The category of position was spoken of when dealing with that of relation. The categories of time, place, and state are easily intelligible. [ 55 ]
As we can see, Aristotle's "is" of identity took a multitude of factors into consideration. But that is not how it has been handed down to us. From birth, perhaps even before, labels of identity are hung on us. And we all too often try to live up to those labels. Some survive the labels and go on to achieve greatness. Thomas Edison was labeled as "too stupid to learn anything." Albert Einstein was labeled as "mentally slow, unsociable, and adrift forever in his foolish dreams." The sculptor Rodin was labeled "an idiot" by his father and "uneducatable" by his uncle. [ 56 ]
While my mentor was attending Northwestern University many years ago, a young honor student failed one class. He labeled himself a failure and committed suicide. [ 57 ] In a poem about me, my mentor wrote, "Not only was she told so oft she was a worthless brat, She had almost been led to think her life was just like that." [ 58 ] The label of worthlessness very nearly led me to commit suicide. One of my roommates in the nursing home had muscular dystrophy that did cause her gait to appear to be that of a drunken person. As she would walk down the street, she would overhear, "Look at that old drunk woman." She finally gave up, slashed her wrists, and attempted to drown herself in the bathtub. Fortunately someone found her in time. Hanging labels on people can be devastating. [ 59 ]
In the "jail" experiment conducted by Stanford psychologist Philip Zimbardo and his students in the summer of 1971, it was found that people tended to take on the roles expected of them. Volunteers were screened for physical and mental health problems, and twenty-one men were selected who seemed the most healthy, mature, and "normal." They were told fully of the experiment and then selected at random to play the role of either jailer or inmate. The experiment was to last only two weeks. Within a few days, both jailers and inmates had begun to take on the roles with which they had been labeled. All of the eleven guards behaved toward the prisoners in abusive and dehumanizing ways. The prisoners displayed "learned helplessness," doing less and less, initiating fewer conversations, and becoming more surly and depressed. Five of the prisoners, unable to cope with their own reactions, asked to leave. Zimbardo called off the experiment after only six days. [ 60 ]
Loren, thirty-eight years old and a Christian, was the owner of a successful small business. Loren, who had not had a drink for eight years, told a group of high school students "I'm a drunk." [ 61 ] The Alcoholics Anonymous creed begins, "I am an alcoholic." This writer recognizes that there may be a genetic predisposition to alcoholism. Also, some babies are born addicted to drugs or alcohol. But there is NO evidence that all who have a genetic predisposition to alcoholism become alcoholics, nor is there any evidence that a baby, once detoxicated, will develop into an addict. Many complications may develop as a result of infant addiction, but future addiction cannot be predicted. Sometime back I read an article, perhaps in Reader's Digest, of a minister who has successfully mastered whatever problems he may have had and had not had a drink in over thirty years. Yet he begins his lectures with the statement, "I am an alcoholic."
Has God not cleansed him of his past sins? Does not the blood of Christ keep cleansing him from sin? Dare he, as did Peter when the sheet descended from heaven containing all manner of four-footed beasts, wild beasts, creeping things, and fowls of the air, label what God has cleansed as "unclean"? "And a voice came unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, make not thou common" (Acts 10:15). Very often a Christian labels himself, "I am a sinner." Why then does he not repent and be cleansed from his sin? "And this is the message which we have heard from him and announce unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him and walk in the darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us" (1 John 1:5-10). "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is begotten of God. In this the children of God are manifest, and the children of the devil: whosoever doeth not righteousness is not of God, neither he that loveth not his brother" (1 John 3:9-10). If we label ourselves as sinners after God has cleansed us of our sins do we not make God a liar? Throughout the epistles, believers are addressed or referred to as saints, not as sinners. Have we sinned in the past? Of course. Do we sin now? Yes. But do we continue in the practice of sin? Absolutely not. If a Christian counselee continues to believe in his heart that he is sinner, out of the abundance of that belief will continually come sinful actions (Cf. Matthew 12:34). If, however, he believes in his heart that he has been cleansed from his sins and that he can live a life pleasing to our Lord, then he will grow and abound in the fruits of the spirit, "Seeing that his divine power hath granted unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that called us by his own glory and virtue; whereby he hath granted unto us his precious and exceeding great promises; that through these ye may become partakers of the divine nature, having escaped from the corruption that is in that world by lust. Yea, and for this very cause adding on your part all diligence, in your faith supply virtue; and in your virtue knowledge; and in your knowledge self-control; and in your self-control patience; and in your patience godliness; and in your godliness brotherly kindness; and in your brotherly kindness love. For if these things are yours and abound, they make you to be not idle nor unfruitful unto the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ" (2 Peter 1:3-8). Contrary to popular interpretation, the term "virtue" used in this passage and in other Scriptures does not mean "purity." Rather, it is interpreted from the Greek arete, which means "force" or "strength" of either mind or body. Even the English term is derived from a term that has reference to force rather than to purity, as "a virile, or strong, man."
This writer was raised and lived for many years on the West Coast, which is heavily Catholic. Possibly because they go to confession, get "absolution" of their sins, and do their penance, Catholics do not appear to have as much difficulty with labeling themselves or others as do Protestants. But New England was settled by the Puritans holding hyper-Calvinistic beliefs. [ 62 ] Mankind, including infants, was considered born in total depravity. Since "only supernatural grace could overcome total depravity," the ability to love and keep God's law indicated that a person was a child of God. Having the virtues that led to prosperity were also indications that one was in God's favor. However, because it was by God's grace and not one's own merit, it was considered sinful to say anything good about oneself. Subsequently, failure in any area was frowned upon by oneself and by others. Even though original beliefs may have been long forgotten or even denied, frowning on failure to this day remains an underlying current in our society. And to acknowledge one's well-earned achievements is considered as boasting.
The counselor should begin to take careful heed to the counselee who, in general conversation, hangs labels upon himself or upon others: "I guess I'm just a failure," "I'm not much account," "I keep messing up," or "I just can't seem to do so and so," "He is so and so." Possibly in most cases these statements will indicate an unwillingness to take responsibility for one's own life. The last statement given may indicate self-irresponsibility, a tendency to blame others for one's own failures, or a comparison with others so that one's own failures do not appear as failures. Sometimes a counselee may belittle himself for any number of reasons.
However in some cases they may indicate that the counselee lacks understanding of who he is as a human being beloved by God and that he lacks understanding of the power of God to change his life. The sincere Christian counselee needs to have Hebrews 6:1-2 strongly impressed upon him, "Wherefore leaving the doctrine of the first principles of Christ, let us press on unto perfection; not laying again a foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the teaching of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." Then he needs to become firmly established in Philippians 3:12-16, "Not that I have already obtained, or am already made perfect: but I press on, if so be that I may lay hold on that for which also I was laid hold on by Christ Jesus. Brethren, I could not myself yet to have laid hold: but one thing I do, forgetting the things which are behind, and stretching forward to the things which are before. I press on toward the goal unto the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. Let us therefore, as many as are perfect, be thus minded: and if in anything ye are otherwise minded, this also shall God reveal unto you: only, whereunto we have attained, by that same rule let us walk." Certainly no Christian should be boastful in a sinful manner. But certainly no Christian should ever belittle himself in any way, "But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, meekness, self-control; against such there is no law. And they that are of Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with the passions and the lusts thereof. If we live by the Spirit, by the Spirit let us also walk" (Galatians 5:22-25). Even Aristotle recognized that great mental upheaval could bring about a change of the most ingrained qualities. How much more so the power of God.
Chapter Three: Aristotle's "either/or" logic
Korzybski, in rejecting what he refer to as Aristotle's either-or logic: everything must either be or not be, says that it gives the two-valued character to Aristotelian logic, "establishing as a general principle, what represents only a limiting case and so, as a general principle, must be unsatisfactory." [ 63 ] Durant, in describing Aristotle's logic, says, "He lays down resolutely, as the axiom of all logic, the principle of contradiction: 'It is impossible for the same attribute at once to belong and not to belong to the same thing in the same relation." [ 64 ]
The passage containing Aristotle's own statement under consideration in this thesis is quite long, but for clarity perhaps it is best to quote all of it that it might be seen its own context.
Evidently then it belongs to the philosopher, i.e. to him who is studying the
nature of all substance, to inquire also into the principles of syllogism. But he
who knows best about each genus must be able to state the most certain
principles of his subject, so that he whose subject is existing things qua [This
is an obscure word to most of us. It means, " by virtue of being."] existing
must be able to state the most certain principles of all things. This is the
philosopher, and the most certain principle of all is that, regarding which it is
impossible to be mistaken; for such a principle must be both the best known
(for all men may be mistaken about things which they do not know), and non-
hypothetical. For a principle which every one must have who understands
anything that is, is not a hypothesis; and that which every one must know who
knows anything, he must already have when he comes to a special study.
Evidently then such a principle is the most certain of all; which principle this
is, let us proceed to say. It is, that the same attribute cannot at the same time
belong and not belong to the same subject and in the same respect; [italics
and emphases mine] we must presuppose, to guard against dialectical
objections, any further qualifications which might be added. This, then, is the
most certain of all principles, since it answers to the definition given above.
For it is impossible for any one to believe the same thing to be and not to be,
as some think Heraclitus says. For what a man says, he does not necessarily
believe; and if it is impossible that contrary attributes should belong at the
same time to the same subject ( the usual qualifications must be
presupposed in this premise too) [emphases mine], and if an opinion which
contradicts another is contrary to it, obviously it is impossible for the same
man at the same time to believe the same thing to be and not to be; for if a
man were mistaken on this point he would have contrary opinions at the same
time. It is for this reason that all who are carrying out a demonstration reduce
it to this as an ultimate belief; for this is naturally the starting point even for all
the other axioms. [ 65 ]
Aristotle does not seem to be imposing a two-valued limitation on man as Korzybski indicates. As we noted earlier, he took into consideration the categories of substance, quantity, quality, relation, place, time, position, possession, activity, and passivity. [ 66 ] A man might possess many different attributes. Or he might possess the same attributes in different respects. Health and illness are contrary attributes. Yet a man might possess both these attributes, but in different respects of time and in differing degrees. In other words, he might be well and then gradually become sick.
In introducing his Metaphysics, Aristotle says, "All men by nature desire to know. An indication of this is the delight we take in our senses; for even apart from their usefulness they are loved for themselves; and above all others the sense of sight. For not only with a view to action, but even when we are not going to do anything, we prefer seeing (one might say) to everything else. The reason is that this, most of all the senses, makes us know and brings to light many differences between things." [ 67 ]
Somehow we fail to take into consideration the many different attributes and situations that are common to man. We seem to see man in only one of two aspects. He is "either/or" something. He is a success or he is a failure. He is either well or he is sick. He is either a good citizen or he is a bad citizen. We consider that he is a good citizen in that he fulfills his civic responsibilities of voting, of serving on a jury, or of holding public office. Yet we do not consider that perhaps at the very time he is going to fulfill those responsibilities, he is a bad citizen during that brief time span when he makes only a rolling stop at the stop sign. These are contrary attributes, but they are held in different respects.
In a chart comparing what he refers to as the old Aristotelian orientations (circa 350 BC), with his new general semantic non-Aristotelian orientations (AD 1941), Korzybski compares Aristotle's "Two-valued, 'either-or', inflexible, dogmatic orientations" with his own "Infinite-valued flexibility, degree, orientations." [ 68 ] Korzybski does acknowledge the excellence of Aristotle's work considering the very few scientific facts known 2,300 years ago, but insists that the orientations of that day were by necessity two-valued and "objective" [ 69 ] Durant, while acknowledging Aristotle's many errors, says that it was characteristic of his methodical approach that he arranged into ten "categories" the basic aspects under which anything may be considered. [ 70 ] "Universals," says Aristotle, "are generalized ideas, not innate but formed from many perceptions of like objects; they are conceptions, not things." [ 71 ] Aristotle, says Durant, was weakest in mathematics and physics and in those areas confined himself to the study of first principles and sought to establish clear definitions of the terms used: matter, motion, space, time, continuity, infinite, change, and end. Though he did nothing to solve the problems, he did have some conception of inertia, gravity, motion, velocity, the law of the lever, and the parallelogram of forces. [ 72 ]
Daily we hear such "either/or" expressions as "He has to be either for or against" what ever may be the topic of conversation under consideration. "He is for the proposed new recreation area," or "He is against the new recreation area." "He is for school prayer," or "He is against school prayer." "He is a good child," or "He is a bothersome child." Whatever comes up in general conversation, most persons seem to think they have to take a stand on one side or on the other side. And, generally, it is woe to the person who tries to insert some reason into the conversation.
Weldon Payne, a retired newspaper journalist whom this writer personally knows to have deep insight into human behavior, writes: "For none is so dangerous as he who claims unique possession of absolute rightness." "Such delusions," Payne says, "can grow out of grudges but more often find their origin in fear." "Afraid and alone, a person feels himself alienated from mankind and seeks an enemy, perhaps even one of his own making, upon whom to dump all wrongness. In doing so, he takes unto himself absolute rightness. So he can destroy all else and feel justified in doing it". [ 73 ] This was written following the recent tragedy in Oklahoma City.
Those with strongly held ideas, though usually recognized by a counselor as needing counsel, do not seek counseling. In their own eyes, they are right, there is no other viewpoint. If a court orders counseling, secular counseling will generally be recommended. However, on some rare occasions, if a Christian counselor recognizes that a problem exists in someone with whom he comes in contact, he may be able to reach the person through some other means, such as establishing friendship or participating with the person in non-controversial interests. If the person likes fishing, the counselor may be able to open the door by inviting the person to go fishing--or, as my mentor did once--even ask the person to teach him how to fish. [ 74 ]
Those with strongly held ideas can divide a country, divide a community, or divide a church. But perhaps the most tragic consequences are seen in individual lives. Seeing life from an "either/or" perspective may limit one's mental, emotional, or spiritual growth. To entertain a new idea means to that individual that his old idea was wrong. To become acquainted with a person holding a different religious view and to see that, though his religious view is non-Christian, the person is still a nice person and a good citizen puts the individual in the position of either changing his old viewpoint or denying what he now knows to be true. If he denies what he knows to be true, then he limits his mental growth. To become aware that there are better ways to handle one's emotions puts that individual in the position of either changing the ways that he handled his emotions or denying what he now knows to be true. Again, if he denies what he knows to be true, then he limits his emotional growth. Likewise in the spiritual realm. Learning new spiritual truths puts the individual in the position of either accepting or denying what he now knows to be true. If he denies what he now knows to be true, he limits his spiritual growth.
Because of the torment one suffers when torn between changing his views or denying what he now knows to be true, this individual is likely to seek counseling. The presenting problem causing one to seek counseling may be any number of things. The person himself probably is quite unaware of what is happening to him. However, a counselor who listens with his heart may often apprehend the problem rather quickly upon hearing a number of "either/or" expressions that the counselee unawares will use in his general conversation.
When writing what is supposed to be a scholarly thesis, this writer has reservations about bringing in personal experiences. Yet when using other resources, one often uses the personal experiences of others to illustrate his point. And what can one be more knowledgeable about than that he has himself experienced? My husband served in the ministry over twenty years. During that time we came into close contact with many beliefs. Some we accepted for a time. Neither of us had even a high school education. But as we would study the Scriptures to the best of our knowledge, we would find some beliefs to be false and discard them. I had seen him discard some beliefs that his grandfather, a Separate Baptist preacher, had held. So, after he died, I had no difficulty in discarding what I found to be unscriptural. But for us, this had been an "either/or" perspective. A belief was either true or it was false.
Shortly after my husband's death, I met T. Pierce Brown, who was later to become my counselor and mentor. My husband and I were strong believers in baptism by immersion, though many of our associates over the years had tried to tell us it was unnecessary. During the course of conversation, Brother Brown perceived that I did not understand that the purpose of baptism was for the remission of sins, "And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). We spent several hours studying the Scriptures. At that point I could not agree with him and was determined to show him that he was wrong. But I was seeking the truth. After he left, I took Young's Concordance, and with prayer and fasting, studied the Scriptures on my own, taking into consideration those he had left with me, those my husband had used, and those I found on my own. After three days and two nights of almost continual study, I found that somehow my husband and I had misread 1 Peter 3:21, "Which also after a true likeness doth now save you, even baptism, not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the interrogation of a good conscience toward God, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ" to read "baptism doth not now save you, but the answer of a good conscience toward God." Brother Brown was right. The very Scriptures that I thought would prove him wrong, proved me to be wrong. Probably, in my husband's early ministry, we had heard someone misquote the passage, and, having confidence in the person at that time, simply had not taken time to check the Scriptures for ourselves.
But this put me in a serious quandary. If I obeyed the gospel and was re-baptized, this time for the remission of sins, would not this set at naught everything that my husband and I had tried to do in the service of our Lord? Yet if I did not, I knew I would be in disobedience to the Scriptures. I perceived of it only as an "either/or" situation. Many of those whom I now call my brethren still view things from an "either/or" perspective. Most would have given up at that point and issued an ultimatum. Brother Brown, however, perceived change as part of one's growth, "That ye be not sluggish, but imitators of them who through faith and patience inherit the promises. For when God made promise to Abraham, since he could swear by none greater, he sware by himself, saying, Surely blessing I will bless thee, and multiplying I will multiply thee" (Hebrews 6:12-14). He pointed out that my husband and I had walked faithfully and had grown spiritually in all the light we had. To be re-baptized was not a denial of our faith (Hebrews 6:1-2), but another step in my spiritual growth; a step my husband also would have taken had he known to do so.
This writer read Korzybski in 1987 and reviewed portions for this thesis. After reading all of Aristotle's Categories, and considerable portions of Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Physics, and Metaphysics, this writer does not find the "is" of identity or the "either/or" logic as attributed to him by Korzybski. NEVERTHELESS, THOSE ARE THE IDEAS THAT HAVE BEEN HANDED DOWN TO US AND WHICH HAVE BECOME PART OF THE FABRIC OF OUR LIVES.
Chapter Four: Augustine's doctrine of original sin
Before discussing Augustine's doctrine of original sin, we need to examine the beliefs held by earlier Christians that are relative to our subject. The great commission given in the Scriptures reads, "And Jesus came to them and spake unto them, saying, All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and on earth. Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world" (Matthew 28:18-20). These new disciples came from the diverse worlds of Judaism, Greco-Roman culture, and from a multitude of various forms of paganism. They brought with them into the church those beliefs which they held. Christian doctrine, as do other doctrines and beliefs, developes as questions arise within the Christian community.
As these questions arose, many were addressed in the writings of the church fathers, now known as Patristic literature. Patristic literature, written between the latter part of the first century AD and the middle of the eighth century, is to be distinguished from the New Testament theology at one end and from the medieval scholasticism and Byzantine systematization at the other. Reflecting the philosophical and religious thought of the Hellenistic and Roman world from which it derived the bulk of its concepts and vocabulary, the theological reflection of the Fathers focused for the most part on questions of Christology and the Trinity. [ 75 ]
Perceptible shades of difference can be found in the theologies of the writers of the East and those of the West. Eastern theology tended to be scientific, and was marked by a blend of biblical theology and Platonic idealism (especially in Alexandria) or Aristotelian realism (especially in Antioch). Western writers depended on the Greek theological tradition, but clarified definitions or interpreted in juridical categories until the emergence in the late fourth century of a sophisticated Latin theology. [ 76 ]
Falling into three main periods, the anti-Nicene period (before AD 325) includes the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, the apologetic and anti heretical literature, and the beginnings of speculative Greek theology. Clement of Alexandria, Cyprian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian were the major figures of this period. Between the councils of Nicaea (AD 325) and Chalcedon (AD 451), what is referred to by some as the golden age of the Nicene fathers included Eusebius of Caesarea, (the first major church historian), the Alexandrians (most notable Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria), the Cappadocians (Basil, the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa), and the Antiochenes (John Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia. Included in this period also were the great Latin fathers: Hilary of Poitiers, Ambrose, Jerome, and above all, Augustine. Patristic literature ends with Gregory I (the Great) in the West and in the East, John Damascene. [ 77 ]
Since the doctrine of original sin falls under the category of Christology, we will begin by examining patristic literature pertinent to our subject. In view of today's theology, these writers held some views that were unscriptural. However, it is to be remembered that some of the earliest writers wrote about the same time the Scriptures were still being compiled. Also, it is to be remembered that it was some years before there was what we refer to as the canon of Scripture. The Scriptures had been completed by Augustine's time, however. And in this writer's understanding of the Scriptures, Augustine, to whom is formally credited the doctrine of original sin, also held to formal Catholic views that to Protestants and other non-Catholic believers are unscriptural.
The works of the Apostolic Fathers, though non biblical church writings, are important because their writers are presumed to have known either the Apostles or their associates. Their writings, expressing pastoral concern, are similar in style to the New Testament. Before the official canon was decided, some were venerated as Scripture. These writers included Clement 1 (d. AD 101), Hermas (2nd.-century), Ignatius of Antioch (d. c. AD 101), Polycarp (c. AD 69 - c. AD 155), and the author of the Epistle of Barnabas. Papias of Hierapolis (f1. 130)and the authors of the Epistle to Diognetus and of the Didache were later considered Apostolic Fathers. [ 78 ] One of the beliefs held by most non-Jewish converts was that man's destiny was controlled by their pagan gods or by cosmic design. For this reason, much of the patristic literature focused on man's free will and responsibility for his own actions.
Clement of Rome (d. AD 101) was the bishop of Rome from c. AD 92 to AD 101, and was, according to Irenaeus, the third successor of Saint Peter. Until the fourth century, Clement's epistle written to the Corinthians appealing for restoration of peace, harmony, and order, was accepted by some as Scripture. While giving a valuable picture of early church organization, belief, and practice, the document also demonstrates Clement's familiarity with Greek Stoic philosophy and mythology. [ 79 ]
In rebuking the Corinthians for their envy, Clement quotes the following passage from the Septuagint: "And it came to pass after certain days, that Cain brought of the fruits of the earth a sacrifice unto God; and Abel also brought of the firstlings of his sheep, and of the fat thereof. And God had respect to Abel and to his offerings, but Cain and his sacrifices He did not regard. And Cain was deeply grieved, and his countenance fell. And God said to Cain, Why art thou grieved, and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou offerest rightly, but dost not divide rightly, hast thou not sinned? Be at peace: thine offering returns to thyself, and thou shalt again possess it.." [ 80 ] This passage is extremely important, regardless of from what version it is translated, because it clearly shows that man, even after being removed from the garden and placed under the sentence of death by being cut off from the tree of life, still had a will that was free to serve God in an acceptable manner.
Justin Martyr (c. AD 100 - c. AD 165), in his dialogue with Trypho, of the Jews who were hoping for salvation because they were the sons of Abraham, quotes Isaiah 1:9, "And unless the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we would have been like Sodom and Gomorrah." Further on he quotes Ezekiel 18:20, "But neither shall the father perish for the son, nor the son for the father; but every one for his own sin, and each shall be saved for his own righteousness." He concludes that chapter by stating that what he has said in his previous chapters had proved "that those who were fore known to be unrighteous, whether men or angels, are not made wicked by God's fault, but each man by his own fault is what he will appear to be." [ 81 ]
Anticipating that those whom he was addressing would have a pretext to say that Christ must have been crucified by their nation and the matter could not have been otherwise, Martyr says "God, wishing men and angels to follow His will, resolved to create them free to follow His will, resolved to create them free to do righteousness; possessing reason, that they may know by whom they are created, and through whom they, not existing formerly, do now exist; and with a law that they should be judged by Him, if they do anything contrary to right reason: and of ourselves we, men and angels, shall be convicted of having acted sinfully, unless we repent beforehand." Because God fore knew that some angels and men would be unchangeably wicked, the word of God foretells that some angels and men shall be certainly punished. But God did not thus create them. If they repent, all who wish for it can obtain mercy from God. Scriptures teach that the one who repented of his sins is blessed by receiving remission of them, "Blessed is the man to whom the Lord imputeth not sin" (Psalms 32:2). [ 82 ]
Irenaeus (AD 120 - AD 202), in writing against heresies, says that those who claim that Christ did not assume actual flesh reject the analogy between Him and Adam. If the one springing from the earth had formation and substance from both the hand and the workmanship of God, and the other not from the hand and workmanship of God, "then He who was made after the image and likeness of the former did not, in that case preserve the analogy of man, and He must seem an inconsistent piece of work, not having wherewith He may show His wisdom. For if Christ appeared only putatively as man while taking nothing from man, then He was neither made man or the Son of man. If He did not receive the substance of flesh from a human being, He did no great thing when He suffered and endured. Since we are composed of a body taken from the earth and a soul receiving spirit from God, 'Therefore the Word of God was made, recapitulating in Himself His own handiwork; and on this account does He confess Himself the Son of man' and blesses 'the meek because they shall inherit the earth'" (Matthew 5:5). [ 83 ]
Citing the Pauline epistles, Irenaeus says that the Scriptures declare plainly, "God sent His Son, made of a woman" (Galatians 4:4). Using Romans 1:3-4, he declares, "Concerning His Son, who was made of the seed of David according to the flesh, who was predestinated as the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord." [ 84 ]
Irenaeus then raises the question of why Christ descended from heaven into the body of Mary if He took nothing from her. Pointing out those things that are tokens of the flesh which Christ took upon Himself through Mary, Irenaeus says that He availed Himself of foods that are "derived from the earth by which that body taken from the earth is nourished." He points out that unless His body was craving earthly nourishment, He would not have hungered after fasting forty days, as did Moses and Elias. Citing John 4:6, he points out that Christ was wearied from the journey and sat to rest. Also, David proclaimed of Him beforehand, "They have added to the grief of my wounds" (Psalms 69:27). Irenaeus points out that He wept over Lazarus. He sweated great drops of blood. And He declared, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful" (Matthew 26:38). And when His side was pierced, blood and water came forth. "For all these are tokens of the flesh which had been derived from the earth, which He had recapitulated in Himself, bearing salvation to His own handiwork" [ 85 ]
The following paragraph is lengthy, but I quote it in full that the reader may grasp its full context.
Wherefore Luke points out that the pedigree which traces the generation of
our Lord back to Adam contains seventy-two generation, connecting the end
with the beginning, and implying that it is He who has summed up in Himself
all nations dispersed from Adam downwards, and all languages and
generations of men, together with Adam himself. Hence also was Adam
himself termed by Paul 'the figure of Him that was to come' [Romans 5:14],
because the Word, the Maker of all things, had formed beforehand for
Himself the future dispensation of the human race, connected with the Son of
God; God having predestined that the first man should be of an animal nature
with this view, that he might be saved by the spiritual One. For inasmuch as
He had a pre-existence as a saving Being, it was necessary that what might be
saved should also be called into existence, in order that the Being who saves
should not exist in vain." [ 86 ].
Using the parable of the strong man, Irenaeus, points out that in sinning, Adam became a captive of Satan, thereby entailing death upon himself. But when the stronger man freed the captive, He also freed all those begotten unto him while in captivity. Irenaeus points out that God pronounced no curse against Adam personally, but against the ground. As punishment, man received, the toilsome task of tilling the earth, and to eat bread in the sweat of his face, and to return to the dust from whence he was taken. As punishment, the woman received toil and labor and groans and the pangs of parturition, and a state of subjection to her husband, "so that they should neither perish altogether when cursed by God, nor, by remaining unreprimanded, should be led to despise God." Citing Genesis 3:14, Irenaeus says that the curse in all its fullness fell upon the serpent. He backs this up with Matthew 25:14, "Depart from me, ye cursed into everlasting fire, which my Father hath prepared for the devil and his angels." This, says Irenaeus, indicates that eternal fire was not originally prepared for man, but for him who beguiled man, thus causing him to offend. [ 87 ] Man, says Irenaeus, was driven out of Paradise and away from the tree of life because God pitied man and did not desire "that he should continue a sinner for ever, nor that the sin which surrounded him should be immortal, and evil interminable and irremediable." By imposing death, He set a bound to his state of sin, so that man, "ceasing at length to live to sin and dying to it, might begin to live for God." [ 88 ]
Citing Proverbs 1:7; 9:10, "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom," Irenaeus points out that man, after having transgressed, hid himself from God. Adam's sense of sin led him to repentance as shown through means of the fig-leaves with which he covered himself while there were many other leaves that would have irritated his body to a lesser degree. [ 89 ]
Irenaeus, in another thesis against heresy, says that men are possessed of free will, and endowed with the faculty of making a choice and therefore it not true that some are by nature good, and others bad. [ 90 ] Matthew 23:37, "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldest not," Irenaeus says, sets forth the ancient law of human liberty. From the beginning God made man a free agent, possessing his own power, even as he does his own soul, to obey the behests [This is an obscure word meaning "commands."] of God voluntarily and not by compulsion of God. In man, as well as in angels, "God has placed the power of choice so that those who yield obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves. There is no coercion with God, but a good will is continually present with Him and therefor He gives good counsel to all. Those who "have not obeyed shall, with justice, be not found in possession of the good, and shall receive condign [obsolete word meaning "worthy."] punishment: for God did kindly bestow on them what was God; but they themselves did not diligently keep it, nor deem it something precious, but poured contempt upon His super-eminent Goodness." Irenaeus then cites Paul as his proof text, "But dost thou despise the riches of His goodness, and patience, and long-suffering being ignorant that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance? But according to thy hardness and impenitent heart, thou treasurest to thyself wrath against the day of wrath, and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God." "But glory and honor," he says, "to everyone that doeth good." (Romans 2:4, 5, 7). God has given that which is good, and they who work it shall receive glory and honor, because they have in their power not to do it. But because they did not work good when they had it in their power so to do, those who do not shall receive the just judgment of God.
If some had been made bad by nature bad, they would not be reprehensible, for thus they were originally made. On the other hand, if some had been made good by nature, they would not be deserving of praise for being good, for such were they created by nature. All men are of the same nature, able both to hold fast and to do what is good; and, on the other hand, having also the power to cast it off from them and not do it. Because it is in our power to do justly or to not do justly, God exhorted men through the prophets to what was good, to act justly and to work righteousness, because by excessive negligence we might become forgetful, and thus stand in need of that good counsel which the good God had given us to know by means of the prophets. [ 91 ]
As additional proof, Irenaeus cites Matthew 5:16, "Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good deeds, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." Luke 21:34 says, "Take heed to yourselves, lest perchance your hearts be overcharged with surfeiting, and drunkenness, and worldly cares." And Luke 12:35-36, 47 reads, "Let your loins be girded about, and your lamps burning, and ye like unto men that wait for their Lord, and when He returns from the wedding, that when He cometh and knocketh, they may open to Him. Blessed is that servant whom his Lord, when He cometh, shall find so doing." "The servant who knows his Lord's will, and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes." Luke 6:46 says, "Why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" These passages demonstrate the independent will of man. These passages also demonstrate the counsel that God conveys to man by which He exhorts us to submit ourselves to Him and seeks to turn us away from the sin of unbelief against Him. However, as these passages also demonstrate, God in no way coerces us. [ 92 ]
One who is unwilling to follow the Gospel itself has it within his power to reject it, but it is not expedient. But to do so brings injury and mischief. According to Irenaeus, when Paul says, "All things are lawful to me, but all things are not expedient" (1 Corinthians 6:12), he refers to the liberty of man, in which respect "all things are lawful," because God exercises no compulsion in regard to him. The expression "not expedient" points out that we "should not use our liberty as a cloak of maliciousness" (1 Peter 2:16) for this is not expedient. Using Ephesians 4:25, 29; and 1 Corinthians 6:11, Irenaeus poses the question, "If then it were not in our power to do or not to do these things, what reason had the apostle, and much more the Lord Himself, to give us counsel to do some things and to abstain from others?" He then answers that advice is always given to man to keep fast the good because man, created in the likeness of God, has from the beginning been possessed of free will. [ 93 ]
Citing Matthew 8:13; 9:29; and Mark 9:23, Irenaeus says that these expressions demonstrate that man also is in his own power with respect to faith. It is for this reason "He that believeth in Him has eternal life; while he who believeth not the Son hath not eternal life, but the wrath of God shall remain upon Him" (John 3:36). In the same manner Matthew 23: 37-38 shows God's own goodness and indicates that man is in his own free will and his own power, "How often have I wished to gather thy children together as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Wherefore your house shall be left unto you desolate." [ 94 ]
Clement of Alexandria (c. AD 150 - c. AD 215),originally a pagan philosopher whose date of birth is unknown, upon embracing Christianity and being instructed of its most eminent teachers in Greece, Italy, Egypt, Palestine, and other regions of the East, became the illustrious head of the Catechetical School at Alexandria at the close of the second century. [ 95 ] In his "Stromata," Clement writes, "Now the devil, being possessed of free-will, was able both to repent and to steal; and it was he who was the author of the theft, not the Lord, who did not prevent him. But neither was the gift hurtful, so as to require that prevention should intervene." [ 96 ] He explains that neither praises nor censures, neither rewards nor punishments, are right, when the soul has not the power of inclination and disinclination, but evil is involuntary, "Whence he who prevents is a cause; while he who prevents not judges justly the soul's choice." [ 97 ] "Sinning arises from being unable to determine what ought to be done, or being unable to do it," wrote Clement. "But application of ourselves and subjection to the commandments is in our own power; with which if we will have nothing to do by abandoning ourselves wholly to lust, we shall sin, nay rather, wrong our own soul." Clement is addressing Christians, but he goes on to illustrate his point by referring to the Euripides' Greek tragedy, Medea. [ 98 ] After quoting Paul, "For there is no unrighteousness with God" (Romans 9:14), Clement quotes Deuteronomy 10:12, "And now, Israel, what doth the Lord God require of thee, but to fear the Lord thy God, and to walk in all His ways, and love Him, and serve Him alone? Clearly, this is asked of those who have the power of choosing salvation." [ 99 ] Clement says Plato writes of man as a creature subject to change. [ 100 ] Since Augustine embraced neo-Platonism, this is an important point to remember and will be considered in more detail further in the thesis. Clement says the Lord has, in proportion to the adaptation possessed by each, "dispensed His beneficence both to Greeks and Barbarians, even to those of them that were predestinated, and in due time called the faithful and elect." [ 101 ] From the first it was the law that virtue should be the object of voluntary choice. The Commandments, according to the Law, and before the Law ordained that one should receive eternal life and the blessed prize, who chose them. [ 102 ] "Everything, then, which did not hinder a man's choice from being free, He made and rendered auxiliary to virtue, in order that there might be revealed somehow or other, even to those capable of seeing but dimly, the one only almighty, good God--from eternity to eternity saving by His Son." [ 103 ] "Now everything that is virtuous changes for the better; having as the proper cause of change the free choice of knowledge, which the soul has in its own power." [ 104 ] Clearly, Clement viewed all mankind as having the power to choose between good and evil, a view later to be denied by the doctrine of original sin.
Tertullian (c. AD 155 - AD 220) is considered one of the greatest Western theologians and writers of Christian antiquity, his writings greatly influencing the development of Western thought and the creation of Christian ecclesiastical Latin. A man of fiery temperament, great talent, and unrelenting purpose, Tertullian was an extremist by nature who wrote with brilliant rhetoric and biting satire. His passion for truth led him into polemics with his enemies; whether pagans, Jews, heretics, or Catholics. [ 105 ]
In his Treatise on the Soul, Tertullian describes the soul as being rational as its natural condition, having its rationality impressed upon it from its very first creation by its Author. God, who is Himself essentially rational, expressly sent forth by His own breath into man. According to Tertullian, "The irrational element, however, we must understand to have accrued later, as having proceeded from the instigation of the serpent--the very achievement of (the first) transgression--which thenceforward became inherent in the soul, and grew with its growth, assuming the manner by this time of a natural development, happening as it did immediately at the beginning of nature." [ 106 ]
Tertullian ascribes a triad of qualities operating in Christ and also in man. His rational quality was that by which He taught, by which he discoursed, and by which He prepared the way of salvation. His quality of indignation was that by which He inveighed against the scribes and the Pharisees. And His quality of desire is seen in his desire so earnestly to eat the Passover with His disciples. God, with perfect reason, will be angry with those who deserve His wrath. We, likewise, are permitted to feel indignation, as did Paul, "I would that they were even cut off which trouble you" (Galatians 5:12). His desire to maintain discipline and order were in perfect agreement with reason, as was his wrath against those causing disorder. God will desire whatever objects and claims are worthy of Himself, showing indignation against the evil man and for the good man desiring salvation. We, likewise, are permitted to desire, "If any man desireth the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work" (1 Timothy 3:1). This desire is in perfect agreement with reason. Sin, however, is irrational, proceeding from the devil, and being extraneous to God; the irrational being an alien principle to Him. The incentive to sin likewise proceeds from the devil. "In our own cases," says Tertullian, "accordingly, the irascible and the concupiscible elements of our soul must not invariably be put to the account of the irrational (nature), since we are sure that in our Lord these elements operated in entire accordance with reason." [ 107 ] (Concupisicible is an obscure word usually referring to sexual lust, but may be used to refer to any very strong desire, as indicated by the presence of this element in our Lord operatine in entire accordance with reason.)
Pursuing his treatise that the soul has within it two natures, the rational and the irrational, Tertullian say that notwithstanding the depravity of man's soul by original sin, there is yet left a basis whereon divine grace can work for its recovery by spiritual regeneration. That which is derived from God may be obscured but it cannot be extinguished because it comes from God. "Just as no soul is without sin, so neither is any soul without seeds of good." [ 108 ]
In refuting Marcion's idea that man's fall showed failure in God, Tertullian says that God, in His subsequent laws, also sets before man good and evil, life and death, and that this is on no other ground than that man is free, with a will either for obedience or resistance. It is proper that one created in the image and likeness of God should be formed with a free will and a mastery of himself. "For this purpose such an essence was adapted to man as suited this character, even the afflatus [Afflatus is an obscure word meaning "the communication of supernatural knowledge, as in a state of exaltation." An obsolete meaning, which may have been the meaning used here is "a breathing." Remember, man became a living soul when God breathed into him His own breath.] of the Deity, Himself free and uncontrolled." [ 109 ] He goes on to say that God would not have made all things subject to man if he had been too weak for that dominion. Nor would have put the burden of law upon him, if he had been incapable of sustaining so great a weight. Nor would He have threatened with the penalty of death a creature whom He knew to be guiltless on the score of his helplessness. "And thus it comes to pass, that even now also, the same human being, the same substance of his soul, the same condition as Adam's, is made conqueror over the same devil by the selfsame liberty and power of his will, when it moves in obedience to the laws of God." [ 110 ]
In his Exhortation to Chastity, Tertullian says that the one power that rests with man is the power of volition. If we contend that nothing is done by us without the will of God, then would every sin be excused. There are some things that God not only forbids but denounces with eternal punishment. On the other hand, there are some things that He does will and enjoins with promises of the reward of eternity. When we have learned from His precepts what He does not will and what He does will, we still have volition, and an arbitrating power of electing the one, "Behold, I have set before thee good and evil: for thou hast tasted of the tree of knowledge." It is a volition of our own when we will that which is in antagonism to God's will. Our volition has its source in ourselves, even as did Adam, the seed from whom we sprung, have volition within himself. The devil did not impose upon Adam the volition to sin, but subministered material to the volition. The will of God, on the other hand, had come to a question of obedience. In like manner, if one fails to obey God who has trained him by setting before him the precept of free action, will, through the liberty of his will, willingly turn into the downward course of doing what God nills [This is an archaic term meaning "to be unwilling," i.ed. doing what God is unwilling for man to do.]. Albeit the devil does will that one should will something that God nills, still he does not make you will it, inasmuch as he did not reduce those our protoplasts to the volition of sin; nor against their will, or in ignorance as to what God nilled. God nilled a thing to be done when He made death the destined consequence of it commission. The work of the devil is to make trial whether we do will that which it rests with us to will. When we have willed, it follows that the devil subjects us to himself; not by having wrought volition in us, but by having found a favorable opportunity in our volition. "Therefore, since the only thing which is in our power is volition--and it is herein that our mind toward God is put to proof, whether we will the things which coincide with His will -- deeply and anxiously must the will of God be pondered again and again, I say, (to see) what even in secret He may will." [ 111 ]
Origen (AD 185 - AD 254) says that the holy apostles "delivered themselves with the utmost clearness on certain points which they believed to be necessary to everyone . . .." [ 112 ] After discussing God the creator, Origen then takes up the subject of Jesus Christ, saying that He was truly born and did truly suffer, "and did not endure this death common (to man) in appearance only, but did truly die; that He did truly rise from the dead; and after His resurrection He conversed with His disciples, and was taken up (into heaven)." Following a brief discussion of the Holy Spirit, Origen takes up the subject of the soul, saying that it has a substance and life of its own and after its departure from the world, will be rewarded according to its deserts, "being destined to obtain either an inheritance of eternal life and blessedness, if its actions shall have procured this for it, or to be delivered up to eternal fire and punishments, if the guilt of its crimes shall have brought it down to this." He goes on to say that the teaching of the Church clearly defines that every rational soul is possessed of free-will and volition. He says that it a struggle to maintain with the devil and his angels and opposing influences because they strive to burden the soul with sins. However, "if we live rightly and wisely, we should endeavor to shake ourselves free from a burden of that kind." It therefore follows that we also understand that we are not subject so as to be compelled by all means, even against our will, to do either good or evil. Though some influences may impel to sin or others help us towards salvation, we are our own masters and are not forced by any necessity either to act rightly or wrongly. [ 113 ]
In a later passage, Origen says, "That the working of the Father and the Son operates both in saints and in sinners is manifest from this, that all who are rational beings are partakers of the word, i.e., of reason, and by this means bear certain seeds implanted within them, of wisdom and justice, which is Christ." [ 114 ] As his proof text, he gives Romans 10:6-8, "Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (i.e., to bring Christ down from above;) or who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) But what saith the Scripture? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth and in thy heart." Origen says that Paul means that Christ is in the heart of all in respect of His being the word or reason by participating in which they are rational beings. He backs this up with John 25:22, "If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin." He says this passage renders it manifest that man is liable for sin "from the time they are made capable of understanding and knowledge, when the reason implanted within has suggested to them the difference between good and evil; and after they have already begun to know what evil is, if they are made liable to sin, if they commit it." That all men are in communion with God is taught by Christ in Luke 17:20-21, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation; neither shall they say, Lo here. or, or Lo there. but the kingdom of God is within you." Origen then suggests that this bears the same meaning as Genesis 2:7, "And He breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul." "If this is to be understood as applying generally to all men, then all men have a share in God." Referring to Genesis 6:3 and Psalms 104:29-30, Origen then explains that the Spirit of God is taken away from all who are unworthy. [ 115 ]
Returning to the order in which he began his discussion, Origen summarizes, "God the Father bestows upon all, existence; and participation in Christ, in respect of His being the word of reason, renders them rational beings. From which it follows that they are deserving either of praise or blame, because capable of virtue and vice. On this account, therefore, is the grace of the Holy Ghost present, that those beings which are not holy in their essence may be rendered holy by participating in it. Seeing, then that firstly, they derive their existence from God the Father; secondly, their rational nature from the Word; thirdly, their holiness from the Holy Spirit,--those who have been previously sanctified by the Holy Spirit are again made capable of receiving Christ, in respect that He is the righteousness of God; and those who have earned advancement to this grade by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit will nevertheless obtain the gift of wisdom according to the power and workings oft he Spirit of God." [ 116 ]
After lengthy discussion, Origen say that there is no rational creature that is not capable both of good and evil. "But it does not follow, that because we say there is no nature which may not admit evil, we therefore maintain that every nature has admitted evil, i.e., has become evil." He illustrates his point by saying that it is possible for every man to learn grammar or medicine, but that does not prove that every man is either a physician or a grammarian, "so, if we say that there is no nature which may not admit evil, it is not necessarily indicated that it has done so. For, in our view, not even the devil himself, was incapable of good; but although capable of admitting good, he did not therefore also desire it, or make any effort after virtue." [ 117 ]
Cyprian (c. AD 200), who would himself be martyred in AD. 258, in his epistle to the people of Thibaris exhorting those who might be facing martyrdom, says, "Let us, beloved brethren, imitate righteous Abel, who initiated martyrdoms, he first being slain for righteousness' sake." [ 118 ] In addressing Fidus on the baptism of infants, Cyprian speaks of the infants slain at Christ's nativity, saying that those not yet fitted for the battle appeared fit for the crown. "That it might be manifest that they who are slain for Christ's sake are innocent, innocent infancy was put to death for His name's sake." [ 119 ] To those who thought that an infant could not be baptized in its first days after birth because it was still impure, Cyprian answers, "For with respect to what you say, that the aspect of an infant in the first days after it birth is not pure, so that any one us would still shudder at kissing it, we do not think that this ought to be alleged as any impediment to heavenly grace. For it is written, 'To the pure all things are pure.' Nor ought any of us to shudder at that which God hath condescended to make. For although the infant is still fresh from its birth, yet it is not such that any one should shudder a kissing it in giving grace and in making peace; since in the kiss of an infant every one of us ought, for his very religion's sake to consider the still recent hands of God themselves which in some sort we are kissing in the man lately formed and freshly born, when we are embracing that which God has made." Further on he describes an infant being lately born as not having sinned, "except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death." These passages do not seem to imply inherited Adamic guilt but only the contagion of death. After stating that infants and newly-born persons deserve more from our help and from divine mercy, Cyprian says that in their lamenting and weeping, they do nothing else but entreat. [ 120 ] This refutes the belief held by some that an infant's crying indicates its inherent selfishness and thus its inherent sinful state.
Having examined one of the Apostolic Fathers, Clement of Rome; and the major writers of the anti-Nicene, period, including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, Origen, and Cyprian, let us now examine at least briefly some of the writings Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers. Different ages have necessarily focused on different aspects of Christianity. The focuses of the post-apostolic age were primarily ethical, with the Gospel being the new law, and the promise of eternal life being founded on true knowledge of God, and accepted by faith. [ 121 ]
Athanasius (c. AD 296 - AD 373), from a wealthy and influential family, received a liberal education that acquainted him with Greek philosophies and with the Greek of the Septuagint and that of the New Testament. His theological training was in the school of Alexandria. A man of commanding personality, Athanasius advanced quickly in decisive making power with Church and with secular rulers. But the glory of God and the welfare of the Church absorbed him fully at all times. [ 122 ]
The Incarnation of the Son of God and His death on the cross was the center of Athanasius' faith and theology. The conception of "salvation" raises the questions from what is man saved and to what destiny is he saved? [ 123 ] "In the beginning," writes Athanasius, "wickedness did not exist. Nor indeed does it exist even now in those who are holy, nor does it in any way belong to their nature." God fashioned man after His own image and constituted him able to see and know realities by means of assimilation to Himself. God also gave him a conception and knowledge even of His own eternity that man might preserve his nature intact, not departing either from his idea of God, not recoil from the communion of the holy ones. Having the grace of Him that gave it, and having also God's own power from the Word of the Father, man might rejoice and have fellowship with the Deity, living the life of immortality unharmed and truly blessed. Through contemplation of that Providence which through the Word extends to the universe, man by the power of his mind, might be raised above the things of sense and bodily appearance and cleave to the divine and thought-perceived things in the heavens. [ 124 ]
Man, however, by the counsel of the serpent, departed from the consideration of God and began to regard himself. And regarding themselves, they fell to bodily lust, but knew that they were naked and knowing, were ashamed. "But," according to Athanasius, "they knew that they were naked, not so much of clothing as that they were become stripped of the contemplation of divine things, and had transferred their understanding to the contraries. For having departed from the consideration of the one and the true, namely God, and from desire of Him, they had thence-forward embarked in divers lusts and in those of the severally bodily senses." Thus, through abuse of his power of choice, man gradually became more and more absorbed in the material things, and becoming absorbed in them, became so habituated to them that they were even afraid to leave them. The soul became subject to thoughts of mortality, for not being willing to leave her lusts, she fears death and separation from the body. [ 125 ]
That the soul of man is rational is seen in that man alone is capable of things external to himself and reasons about things not actually present. He exercises reflection and chooses by his judgment the better of alternative reasonings. The intelligence of mankind is distinct from the bodily senses in that, perceiving with his senses, man judges by thought and recollection that which he perceives. "But for its knowledge and accurate comprehension, there is need of none other save ourselves. Neither, as God Himself is above all, is the road to him afar off or outside ourselves, but it is in us, and it is possible to find it from ourselves in the first instance, as Moses also taught when he said: 'The word' of faith 'is within thy heart'. Which very thing the Saviour declared and confirmed when He said: 'The kingdom of God is within you'" (Deuteronomy 30:14; Luke 17:12). Having, therefore, within ourselves faith and the kingdom of God, we shall be able to see and perceive the King of the Universe, the saving Word of the Father. [ 126 ]
Rectitude of soul consists in its having it spiritual part in its natural state as created. When it swerves and turns away from its natural state, that is called vice of the soul. When the soul has its spiritual faculty in a natural state, virtue has need at our hands of willingness alone, since virtue is in us and is formed from us. In his exhortation, Joshua, the son of Nun, said to the people, "Make straight your heart unto the Lord God of Israel." John admonished, ""make your paths straight" (Joshua 24:23; Matthew 3:3). "Thus the matter is not difficult. If we abide as we have been made, we are in a state of virtue, but if we think of ignoble things we shall be accounted evil. If, therefore, this thing had to be acquired from without, it would be difficult in reality; but if it is in us, let us keep ourselves from foul thoughts. And as we have received the soul as a deposit, let us preserve it for the Lord, that He may recognize His work as being the same as He made it." [ 127 ]
Athanasius points out that even before the coming of Christ in the flesh, "He was wont to come the Saints individually, and to hallow those who rightly received Him." As illustration, Athanasius says that "Jeremiah was hallowed even from the womb, and John, while yet in the womb, lept for joy at the voice of Mary bearer of God" (Jeremiah 1:5). Even though many had been made holy and clean from all sin, nevertheless, "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression" (Romans 5:14). Note that Athanasius is not denying the general prevalence of sin in the world.
Nor is he denying the efficacy of the Cross. In taking on flesh, that is, in being born, Christ "furnishes to others an origin of being, in order that He may transfer our origin into Himself, and we may no longer, as mere earth, return to earth, but as being knit into the Word from heaven, may be carried to heaven by Him. Therefore in like manner not without reason has He transferred to Himself the other affections of the body also; that we, no longer as being men, but as proper to the Word, may have share in eternal life. For no longer according to our former origin in Adam do we die; but hence forward our origin and all infirmity of the flesh being transferred to the Word, we rise from the earth, the curse from sin being removed, because of Him who is in us, and who has become a curse for us. And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened; the flesh being no longer earthly, but being henceforth made Word, by reason of God's Word, who for our sake became flesh." [ 128 ]
Hilary of Poitiers (c. AD 315 - AD 367), the leading theologian of Western Christianity in the fourth century, had a strong sense of the dignity of man and the freedom of man's will. [ 129 ] In discussing John 17:21-22, Hilary notes the difference between glory and will, defining will as an emotion of the mind. Glory is an ornament or embellishment of nature, received from the Father and given by the Son to all who shall believe in Him. "So then it is the glory received from the Father that the Son hath given to all who shall believe in Him, and certainly not will. Had this been given, faith would carry with it no reward, for a necessity of will attached to us would also impose faith upon us." [ 130 ]
Basil the Great (c. AD 329 - AD 379) is known as one of the Cappadocian Fathers, who, along with his brother, Gregory of Nyssa and his friend Gregory of Nazianzus, brought to fulfillment the theological work of Athanasius against Arianism. Basil is one of the eight major Doctors of the Church. In The Hexaemeron. Basil, after describing the natural and innate care that creatures without reason take of their lives, says that virtues exist in us by nature, and that the soul has affinity with them by its own nature. Without having need of lessons, the soul praises temperance, honors justice, admires courage, and aims at prudence in all things and attains these for herself, for these virtues are what is fit and comformable to its nature. [ 131 ]
"The mind," says Basil, "is a wonderful thing, and therein we possess that which is after the image of the Creator." The primary function of our mind, says Basil, is to know one God. However, there are two faculties in the mind: one that draws us towards evil, and one that draws toward the good and brings us to the likeness of God. There are three conditions of life, and three operations of the mind. Our ways and the movements of our minds may be wicked. Or our ways and the movements of our minds may be indifferent, inclining neither to virtue nor towards vice. The mind, however, that "is impregnated with the Godhead of the Spirit is at once capable of viewing great objects; it beholds the divine beauty, though only so far as grace imparts and its nature receives." [ 132 ]
Gregory of Nyssa (c. AD 330 - c. AD 395) says that "the soul issues on the stage of life in the manner which is pleasing to its Creator, and then (but not before), by virtue of its power of willing, is free to choose that which is to its mind, and so, whatever it may wish to be, becomes that very thing." Since the soul derives its constitution from God and there is no vice in him, there is no necessity of being vicious. If God really superintends our life, then evil cannot begin it. If we owe our birth to evil, then we must continue to live in complete uniformity to evil. One who owes its nature to vice cannot possess any deliberate impulse to virtue because it will be completely foreign to its nature. Though the soul enters this world without vice, it may, by it own free will, be attracted to evil by shutting its eyes to the Good or by letting them "be damaged by that insidious foe whom we have taken home to live with us, and so passing through life in the darkness of error." Or we may "persevering undimmed its sight of the Truth" and keep far away from all weaknesses that could darken it. [ 133 ]
John of Damascus (c. AD 675 - AD 749), in his Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, holds that free-will comes on the scene at the same moment as reason. Reason consists of a speculative and a practical part. "The speculative part is the contemplation of the nature of things, and; the practical consists in deliberation and defines the true reason for what is to be done. The speculative side is called mind or wisdom, and the practical side is called reason or prudence. Every one, then, who deliberates does so in the belief that the choice of what is to be done lies in his hands, that he may choose what seems best as the result of his deliberation, and having chosen may act upon it" [emphases mine]. Man, thus endowed with free-will, acts and makes and is the author and master of his own works. While some events are not in our hands, others are. Those within our own hands are done voluntary and all are followed by blame or praise and depend on motive and law. "Strictly all mental and deliberative acts are in our hands." Deliberation poses equal possibilities, the action of each possibility being within our power to perform. Since we are free to do or not to do, all voluntary actions imply virtue or vice in their performance. [ 134 ]
These church writers differed in many areas, including the creation and fall of man. Some took an allegorical interpretation, others a literal. They agreed on the general prevalence of sin. They agreed, though from different perspectives, on the efficacy of the Cross of Christ and that salvation came only through Christ. And, they agree that even after Adam and Eve sinned, man retained his freedom of will.
Augustine (AD 354 - AD 430), one of the foremost philosopher-theologians of early Christianity, had a profound influence on the subsequent d