Tertullian Misses the Gospel
Tertullian was the first Latin theologian and one of the most creative minds of the second and early third centuries. In particular, his writings contributed greatly to later articulations of the Trinity. This essay focuses on the negative, but not because I think Tertullian was worthless or because I think all good Protestants should bash the Fathers to prove their orthodoxy. On the contrary, we Protestants could probably use quite a bit more familiarity with, and appreciation for, the first five centuries of Christianity. It is precisely because of how much I enjoy Tertullian that his sub-biblical gospel stings me so sharply. I’m writing this because I think we Christians could benefit from understanding how this powerful theologian and apologist came to his misunderstanding of the gospel.
Tertullian believes that there are several unforgivable sins—“murder, idolatry, fraud, apostasy, blasphemy; (and), of course, too, adultery and fornication; and if there be any other ‘violation of the temple of God’ ” (On Modesty, 19). To Protestants, this alone appears unnecessarily harsh, but Tertullian goes farther still. It is not that the Church (or at least the New Prophets, i.e., Montanists) lacks the power to forgive these sins, in Tertullian’s view; it does have the power, but it ought not forgive such sins (On Modesty, 21). Disregarding Tertullian’s scriptural arguments, which are intriguing, his practical argument is that such leniency will simply encourage more sin in the Church, which is clearly unacceptable. There are a few hints that perhaps God in His mercy will forgive the repentant, but in any case, they cannot be returned to the fellowship of the Church.
What a twisted view of the gospel! Yet, it is more profitable to explain the context of this error than simply to decry it. We must start with Tertullian’s view of the Church. He is a perfectionist, or very nearly so. The Church is the bride of Christ, so no spot or blemish should be allowed in it. Anyone who could be condemned by the outside world on moral grounds should have already been cast out of the assembly (Apology, 44). Tertullian’s apologetic strategy both presupposes and necessitates this perfectionist tendency. Tertullian’s main argument for Christianity is the moral blamelessness of Christians. According to Tertullian, Christians simply don’t engage in bad behavior, at least nothing too bad. Although he does grant that Christians may need one (and only one) dose of post-baptismal forgiveness for some non-mortal sin (On Repentance, 7), Tertullian does not paint a picture of Christians struggling against sin, except in an unending stream of victories.
Tertullian’s view of the Christian life is intertwined with his beliefs concerning baptism and repentance. A sinner should not approach baptism carelessly, but with faith and firm repentance in hand (On Repentance, 6). As Eric Osborn summarizes, “We are not baptized so that we may stop sinning, but because we have stopped sinning” (Tertullian, 171). For Tertullian, baptism washes away sin and original sin. Osborne explains that Tertullian believes that the human soul, as created, was originally good and that that good part remains in man. Original sin forms a second nature, both different and lower (On the Soul, 16, 41), that veils or blocks out the higher nature so that it is rarely seen. Baptism, then, removes the veil and enables the repentant sinner to make good on his commitment to the new life (Tertullian, 166-7).
Using a similar picture, I think of Tertullian’s doctrine of salvation in terms of two window washers. One day, both washers look at their windows and notice how dirty and ugly they are, covered with filth and almost entirely opaque. Acknowledging the sordid condition of their windows and resolving to do better, they turn to their manager, who has more powerful cleaning tools than they possess. The manager comes out and cleans their windows for them until they are spotless, transparent. He shows them how to use the tools and charges them to keep their windows clean. If a few specks of dirt happen to get on the window, they can clean it, but if the window should ever again resemble its filthy state, that washer may as well leave his tools and go home.
Under this arrangement, the first washer cheerfully begins to keep his window clean. As he goes along, though, he keeps noticing spots that he missed, or that seem to be reappearing whenever he moves on to another part. He begins scrubbing faster, but in his carelessness he seems to miss more and more spots. The dirty looks from the other washer only unravel him more. In desperation, he appeals to his friend, “Your window looks so clean! Can’t you help me with mine?” The other washer barks out a derisive laugh. “Ha! Help you? We’ve been given the same opportunity, and look how well I’m doing. If you were really trying, surely you’d be doing better than that. I could help you, but if I helped every window washer who asked me, I’d only be encouraging laziness. As for you, I’d rather you just give up and go home. We’ll find someone else who can live up to being a window washer.” So the frustrated washer does go home, wondering how he could have been doing so poorly when that other washer did so well. Unbeknown to him, the successful washer had only kept his window so clean by ignoring the bottom two inches, which had become so crusted with grime that the casual observer wouldn’t even realize that portion was supposed to be part of the window.
Tertullian in his perfectionism fails to understand the extent of the law—lust is as adultery, hatred as murder—and the purpose of the law—to lead men to cast themselves on Christ. To Tertullian, his repentance is the moral resolve of an unregenerate man, and his regeneration through baptism effects only a second chance with better equipment. His attitude toward repentant sinners is that of a haughty “older brother” who thinks he always keeps the Father’s commands. Although I am deeply thankful for his work on the Trinity and Christ, and for his refutation of heretics, I must conclude that Tertullian misses the gospel.
Charlie Johnson is a member of Downtown Presbyterian Church in Greenville, SC. He and his wife, Hannah, are graduates from Bob Jones University. He holds an MA in Theology from Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary and works teaching and tutoring while preparing for doctoral studies. He writes book reviews and reflections on Scripture at his blog, Sacra Pagina.
- 707 views
Joseph, that was somewhat helpful. Larry’s asked, “How has the gospel changed?”
My “better put” was an attempt to be generous. I think it worked. Knowing that the “gospel” is good news, “news” has two aspects: information and communication. Could we agree that the “good information” has not changed ever? Meaning that salvation has always been bought by Jesus in his death and resurrection and provided to mankind by grace through faith, etc.
The consequence (which I think you’re trying to point out) would be that people like Abraham and Tertullian may not have been given the grace to have all of the gospel-information communicated to them. But they may still be said to have heard and understood the good news as it was revealed to them.
I think that breaks down when people assert things that contradict the gospel. Tertullian might be said to do that in some ways.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Regarding church history “non-accidental” and “essential” do not ensure correctness - or even saving grace (not that I’m saying Tert wasn’t a believer).
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Charlie, yes, I know Tertullian may not have been a professional lawyer. But still, I thought he used legal language at least to an extent that suggests legal knowledge and maybe a bent in disposition, no?
As for the last paragraph, more later, I guess. It was confusing.
It has been a long time ago but one of the statements by Dr. Warren Vanhetloo in theology class was that if a person cannot explain something clearly they may not understand the subject. And if they cannot express it concisely they may not have a disciplined mind. He allowed plenty of time for discussion and all tests were essays in which he demanded clear and concise answers.
This helped me at Fuller with all the philosophical mushiness and wild conjectures, even by some professors. Since I majored in historical theology, I soon became aware of the difficulties in understanding some of what the early fathers wrote. It is also difficult to see their orthodoxy because we often see it through the telescope of 2000 years of doctrinal discussion and increased clarity.
An example are the views on the atonement. I have seen many Calvinists (especially young ones) criticize Finney as a heretic because of his governmental view of the atonement. Yet this was the view of many in history prior to Anselm. Did they have the true gospel? Yes! Because the governmental view had the essential truth of a vicarious atonement involving our sin. Many in the church early centuries did not speak with the clarity and conciseness that we expect today. This also was somewhat true of some later such as Calvin, Luther, and especially of the wordy English Puritans.
[Bob T.]Bob T., are you sure about that? The governmental theory is usually traced to Hugo Grotius in the 17th century, and was popularized by various Arminian groups after then. Many Church Fathers held to the ransom theory or some form of Christus Victor, but both of those have some room for Christ as satisfaction toward God or payment for man’s sin. The governmental theory, though, doesn’t just under-emphasize or even ignore satisfaction and penal substitution. It explicitly denies them. Finney was indeed a heretic.
An example are the views on the atonement. I have seen many Calvinists (especially young ones) criticize Finney as a heretic because of his governmental view of the atonement. Yet this was the view of many in history prior to Anselm.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
Hugo Grotius is concentrated on as originator by Calvinists because of the time of his writing. He is indeed the father of the theory but not necessarily the originator. Perhaps we could say he is the final organizer. So you are right. The concepts of God as ruler of a government who set out a law that must be met was seen in some earlier writings.. Also.the theory does have that the demands of God’s law in his government were met in that the soul that sinneth shall die but the law was honored and sinners were pardoned as God accepted the death of Christ as a payment.
Some Calvinists have often sought to portray this as heresy indicating one could not be saved and believe this. They possibly did this so they could call some more Arminians heretics. :bigsmile: Those who prefer grass roots revivalism have been more generous with Finney than many Calvinists would like. I will be more generous with both. Finney may be saved, and perhaps even Calvin, since salvation is by grace alone through faith alone alone in Christ alone. It is faith in the person of Christ that saves not having the detials all right on the atonement. Finney did have an effective soul winning ministry where lives were changed.. The abolitionist movement started with many Finney converts.
Keep it up, Ed.
Jeff Brown
SI is definitely not the place to discuss some things. That this subject is one of those I seriously doubt, but that’s another subject. I’ve seen you retreat into “this isn’t the place” before after you brought up something. I’d like to strongly suggest that if you do not believe this is the place to discuss x or y, you should not bring it up. If you do bring it up, you should expect that others will expect you to explain and defend your views.
You’ve also used the “you have to read ten bajillion books to even know how to ask that question” dodge way too many times. We can’t have much of a conversation with a guy who teases us with a topic then basically says we’re all too pedestrian to really interact with him about it. It’s a bit like saying “I’d love to have a chat with you all about diesel mechanics, but alas, you know nothing about it so that won’t be possible. Pity.” Why bring it up at all?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I’m afraid that don’t know what you are talking about, quite literally. You say “this subject” as if that is clear. If you mean specifically Larry’s question that I refused to answer, then I think you are patently and profoundly wrong about such a question being profitably engaged on a blog, but I wouldn’t try to argue you out of such a position. By I don’t know what you mean, so I can’t disagree with you much less argue.
When I offer an evaluation of a subject with respect to the conditions under which it can be profitably engaged, I am either right or wrong. So, you suggesting I’m wrong. That’s fine; I think I’m right. I also think I’m justified because 1) I know something about the subject and 2) that knowledge has led me to appreciate the subject as having a certain depth, complexity, etc. that makes engaging it in certain ways difficult it not impossible. Online engagement with people in a non-educational context with no background knowledge required or assumable seems a patently inapt forum in which to undertake certain activities, like those that assume an educational context andsubstantial background knowledge, for example.
Finally, since I don’t know what “this subject” is, I can’t take responsibility for having brought it up. I can respond to the general structure of your comment, though, even if I’m unsure (as I am) about the context.
There is a distinction —one among many— that can and should be made between a topic and the aspects under which it is studied or discussed. One can bring up the issue of anachronism, for example, which is a relatively straightforward thing, and is something about which anyone who studies much less writes history should be aware. Anachronism may raise other issues, like the identity of a subject through developments in time. This topic could be used to illustrate a difficulty that relates to history, writing about history, etc. Someone might then want to shift the discussion to a conversation about a highly complex subject, say the Gospel, and how we make sense of that subject maintaing identity through historical development. Well, that’s a very interesting turn in the conversation, but not one that I think is viable or profitable to pursue because it assumes extensive background knowledge and a kind of depth of treatment that this context does not provide.
That conversations evolve to new and relate dand more complex topics seems natural; I’m an advocate for knowing when that is happening and preventing it from going beyond what is profitable. That what I take myself to have done on this thread and others. It should be obvious that I don’t think the preceding activity and series of events can be truly or fairly described as “Joseph bring up a topic only to say we can’t talk about it.”
Just quick response, numbered for clarity (greatly abbreviated from the response I wrote previously and abandoned):
1. I understand what you are saying, perhaps better than you would like for me to. I am simply asking you to defend your statements. There are questions about your orthodoxy in some areas, at least with respect to the historic Christian faith (as opposed to theological tradition of all sorts). These questions come from a lot of people, both registered users and unregistered readers. They are based on your posts, which are sometimes so vague as to be confusing. So I am inviting you to clarify for us.
2. You said that you agree that the gospel has changed “if and only if” certain things are understood. I am asking what those things are that need to be understood. As you well know, that is not a monograph length treatment. It can be, but it does not need to be. I didn’t “ignore” the “if and only if” as you suggested. My question was based on that statement. What are the conditions to which you refer?
3. The appeal to grammar as a basis for confusion is not legitimate. The grammar is fine and clear. I wonder if perhaps you mean pragmatics, but even at that, it still isn’t that confusing unless one is trying to obfuscate in order to avoid being clear. I can’t imagine why half your effort would be spent on understanding the question. I am not trying to minimalize it here because I realize full well that ECF can be confusing. In fact, as many have pointed out, it is possible to prove virtually anything from ECF. But it is a relatively clear and simple proposition to say “Tertullian believed the Gospel was X; now we believe the Gospel is other than X.” Again, your reading of hundreds of books that has informed you on this topic could serve as a helpful tool for you to bullet 3-5 points of difference along with a paragraph of explanation. Give us an abstract to this monograph.
4. The use of “change” with respect to Charlie as a person and the gospel as a proposition seems an illegitimate comparison since a person and a proposition are two completely different entities. I doubt you would approve of that kind of comparison in a student’s academic paper, and for good reason. You would quickly point out that they are not comparable for analytic purposes.
5. If you are thinking about how to communicate to students, surely you realize that not even in a general liberal arts degree is reading hundreds of books and writing a monograph a legitimate pursuit of a student except at a Master’s level or Doctoral level. I think it would be helpful for all of us here to see how you work these things out. Give us a simple introduction to this topic about Tertullian and “the gospel then vs. the gospel now.” Part of the genius of teaching is making things understandable according to the level of the student. Most here are entry level students of ECF. I think a helpful bullet point answer to the questions is entirely appropriate and possible.
6. With respect to the questions asked, you earlier hinted that the Reformation played a role in it. That seems, in your thinking, to be some information that Tertullian did not have access to. Why not enlarge on that? Further, it seemed in your earlier point that if a person could not have known, they are therefore not responsible for it, in a sense. Dan has suggested that perhaps the difference is information vs. communication. I don’t think anyone objects to doctrinal development in terms of explanation or correlation. They shouldn’t. It is clear from history that doctrine did develop in terms of its explanation. That is a far cry however from saying that something changed.
So again, I think the questions are pretty clear and pretty easy, at least to give us a basic introduction of some of the thoughts you have on this.
Given that I’m a student with papers to write and finals to take, I imagine you can understand that, as I indicated, my own time is also a concern here. So, I’ll think about some of your points, maybe send you a message, etc. and figure what I can profitably spend me time on and what I can say in that time. So, I’ll get back to you with respect to your request for some kind of summary/introduction.
I do think, however, you are unrealistic. Take an a single introductory lecture for a class - if you typed it out in manuscript (which I do anytime I speak in such a context), you’re looking at something between 15-30 double spaced pages for a single, intro. lecture to a topic - that goes well beyond even a “long” post on a forum. That’s the length of a term paper. If people want an introduction, I suggest, among others things, reading Newman’s Apologia Pro Vita Sua and then his Essay on the Development of Doctrine. There also a lot of short intros to Newman and this topic, including books (quite short, if I recall) by Peter Toon, Jaroslav Pelikan, Nicholas Lash (thers latter two assume some familiarity with the issue) and a general intro. to Newman by Avery Dulles, in the Great Christian Thinkers series. The Dulles book would be my top recommendation for a single, short book on Newman.
An excellent essay that also gets at related but strictly philosophical issues is by Frederick Beiser, called “Historicism” in The Oxford Handbook of Continental Philosophy, ed. Brian Leiter (Oxford UP: 2007). One’s library should have this or be able to get it.
As to my orthodoxy, if “lots of people” question that their not questioning that so much as my integrity, which I don’t appreciate. Such people can send me a message, which is I think the biblical response - not, apparently, to talk about their suspicions with other people when they have not bothered to contact me- if they think I am lying in my committment to SI’s doctrinal statement, since that is an implication of suspicions about my orthdoxy, viz. that I’m dishonest with respect to the posting standards of SI.
I’m also not sure about some of the things you’re asking me (e.g. I don’t get the grammar thing you mentioned). I’ll send you some more information via a pm to clarify this.
But I’ll narrow it down anyway. Maybe it would be the subject you were referring to in your first post when you wrote…
The whole notion of “missing the Gospel” is historically untenable.And it might be the same subject you were referring to by the word “this” in your second post…
SI isn’t the forum for an in-depth exchange about thisAnd in your third…
I’ve indicated that SI isn’t the right context for a thorough discussion of this,And we were pretty much on the same subject when you responded to Larry…
I don’t know what you think you mean by those questions, but to me the are questions of the scale on which you need to read hundreds of books to understand in any profound way what is at issue and in response to which a monograph study, in terms of depth and coverage, is the only appropriate answer.It’s pretty clear that this is an evasive response to a few simple questions. He does not think means something by the questions. He simply means what he means.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion