HEATHEN INFLUENCES IN THE CHURCH

Very early in their history the Christian churches that were founded by the apostles came under heathen influence. These churches were, outside of Judea, planted in the midst of the heathen, and were largely composed of converts from heathenism. To the heathen they looked for their accessions. The apostles had to warn the flock continually against the subtle influence of the heathen philosophy. To the Colossians Paul wrote:—SOOCC 35.3

“Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the traditions of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.” Colossians 2:8.SOOCC 36.1

To Timothy he gave this warning:—SOOCC 36.2

“O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” 1 Timothy 6:20, 21.SOOCC 36.3

These two texts describe in terms as accurate as they are brief the philosophy of the heathen world. It was this philosophy, so flattering to human pride, that was responsible for the gross abominations of idolatry, as the principle on which it was based was responsible for idolatry itself. The apostle Paul describes it and its results in the following words:—SOOCC 36.4

“Because that, when they knew God, they glorified Him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations and their foolish heart was darkened Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and to fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves; who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed forever.” Romans 1:21-25.SOOCC 36.5

It is not necessary here to give a detailed account of the pagan philosophy. The text just quoted sufficiently indicates that it was wholly of man—the product of the unregenerate human heart. While those who taught the people took the title of “philosophers”—lovers of wisdom—they had not, nor did they profess to have, any sort of an idea as to what wisdom is. Nor did they think that it is possible for man to find out. Their philosophy, therefore, was simply vain and idle speculation as to the cause of things. As the inspired history says of the Athenians: They “spent their time in nothing else, but either to tell, or to hear some new thing.” Acts 17:21.SOOCC 37.1

It is evident that it is impossible that there should have been any system or consistency in philosophy which was simply the product of fervent and unfettered imagination; for while one philosopher’s fancy might lead him in one direction, another’s would lead him in another channel. Nay, as with so many modern professors of “science falsely so called,” the views advanced by any philosopher to-day might be rejected to-morrow for others directly contrary; and these, in turn, might be regarded next week as but the slough-skin of thought. However, from the time of Plato, there were certain views which were quite generally held, which may be briefly stated as follows:—SOOCC 37.2

The Platonists believed that all men are not simply the offspring of Deity, but that they are a part of Him—that every man is essentially divine. It follows from this that they believed in the pre-existence of souls. Further, since divinity is always the same, the divine essence in man must have had as great wisdom before it entered into the human body as it ever could have. Therefore, they held that all knowledge is inherent in man, but latent until it is developed by circumstances. The man, therefore, who would know wisdom, according to this philosophy, must simply look within. Self-contemplation, or, at least, the following of the leadings of one’s own mind, would show him wisdom, although never so surely that he might positively affirm, “This is truth.” This is the secret of the contemptuous question which the haughty Roman governor put to Jesus,—“What is truth?” He had never been taught in philosophy that such a thing actually exists.SOOCC 38.1

Still further, from the idea that men are essentially divine, the conclusion was inevitable that whatever they may do is right, and that one’s own impulses and desires are the only standard of right and wrong. To see how such a philosophy as this would lead to all the gross immoralities indicated in the latter part of the first chapter of Romans, one has only to have some knowledge of human nature. If his knowledge of himself is not sufficient to show him its corruption, Mark 7:21-23, Jeremiah 17:9, Romans 8:7, and Galatians 5:19-21, will enlighten him.SOOCC 38.2

The fact that the apostle Paul warned the brethren against this subtle evil shows that the church was in danger from it. Indeed, the evil was already working in the church, for the apostle said, “The mystery of iniquity doth already work.” 2 Thessalonians 2:7. And if the evil was working in the church in spite of the personal labors of the apostles, what might we not expect when the church was deprived of their labors? Let us take a glance at the church for the first three centuries, and we shall see how soon and how greatly the fine gold became dim, and the wine mixed with water.SOOCC 39.1

The learned Mosheim, writing of the first century, says that “it is not to be denied, that even in this century the perverse Jewish custom of obscuring the plain language of Scripture by forced and frigid allegories, and of diverting words from their natural and proper meanings, in order to extort from them some recondite sense, found admirers and imitators among Christians.”—Ecclesiastical History, century 1, part 2, chapter 3, section 2. Thus early were men beginning to depart from the simplicity of the word.SOOCC 39.2

But it was not till in the second-century, after all the apostles had passed away, that we find very marked evidences of degeneracy. In this century quite a number of philosophers and learned men came over to the Christians, and Mosheim expresses himself as unable to decide whether the church received more benefit than injury from these men. It seems to us that it is easy to see that the church received more injury than benefit from them. “For the noble simplicity and the majestic dignity of the Christian religion were lost, or at least impaired, when these philosophers presumed to associate their dogmas with it; and to bring faith and piety under the dominion of human reason.”—Mosheim’s Ecclesiastical History, century 2, part 1, chapter 1, section 12.SOOCC 39.3

One of the most noted of these philosophers who came over to Christianity was Justin Martyr, who lived from about 110 A. D. to 165. Bishop A. C. Coxe, in his laudatory preface to the writings of Justin, says that “after trying all other systems, his elevated tastes and refined perceptions made him a disciple of Socrates and Plato. So he climbed toward Christ.” As well talk of climbing toward the stars by burrowing in the ground. But this shows that Justin’s Christianity, when he at last joined the church, was simply a matter of philosophical taste. Bishop Coxe himself says as much in the same preface, remarking that “he wore his philosopher’s gown after his conversion, as a token that he had attained the only true philosophy.”SOOCC 40.1

Dr. Philip Schaff, in his “History of the Christian Church” (volume 1, section 122, Scribner, Armstrong & Co., 1872) says that Justin is “the first of the church Fathers to bring classical scholarship and Platonic philosophy in contact with the Christian theology.... With him Christ was the absolute reason, and Christianity the only true philosophy.” That means that he interpreted Christianity by the means of Platonic philosophy. Dr. Killen says that after his conversion he “still wore the philosopher’s cloak, and continued to cherish an undue regard for the wisdom of the pagan sages. His mind was never completely emancipated from the influence of a false system of metaphysics.” Farrar says that he depreciates the law, allegorizes, and expounds Scripture in an arbitrary, untenable manner, owing to his theory of inspiration, which was “derived from heathen philosophers.” Later he writes (“History of Interpretation,” p. 173) that, “following in the footsteps of the rabbis, he denies the plainest historical facts.” Mosheim refers to him as an example of those who persisted in recommending the study of philosophy, and initiating youth therein. And Neander styles him “the precursor of the Alexandrian church teachers,” the first in whom we observe Christianity in contact with the Platonic philosophy.SOOCC 40.2

We need not dwell longer on Justin Martyr. We simply wish to call attention to the fact that the first so-called Father of any note was essentially pagan in his conception of Christianity. We might demonstrate this by quotations from his own works, but it is not necessary, as we use him only to introduce the Alexandrian philosophy, of which he was the precursor. It was especially by this that the church was paganized. It was from Alexandria that the church imbibed the most of its errors. The darkness that overspread the face of Egypt in the time of the plagues was not so dense nor so disastrous as the spiritual darkness which floated from Egypt over the face of the Christian church. To Alexandria and the renowned Fathers who taught there we now give special attention.SOOCC 41.1