The Creation Wiki is made available by the NW Creation Network
Watch monthly live webcast - Like us on Facebook - Subscribe on YouTube


From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to: navigation, search

Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus (c. 160- c. 225) was born in Carthage to pagan parents, but became a Christian at some point before AD 197. According to Jerome[1] and Eusebius[2] he was the son of a centurion and trained as a lawyer in Rome. Following his conversion he became a presbyter in the church at Carthage, but dissociated himself from the Church after the bishop of Rome rejected the ‘New Prophecy’ of the Montanist movement. However, “...neither Eusebius nor Jerome is in this matter a reliable witness, and what can be known about Tertullian’s life must be gathered from his own writings; unfortunately, their highly rhetorical character makes inference insecure.[3] Very different conclusions may be reached from the fragmentary evidence available to us.[4]

Was Tertullian a Heretic?

Throughout church history Tertullian has received condemnation for two main reasons: his association with the Montanist movement[5] and because of his supposed anti-intellectualism. However, the vast majority of scholars now agree that the Montanists were doctrinally orthodox,[6] and so there are no grounds for rejecting Tertullian’s contribution to theology on the grounds of his association with them. Roger Forster & Paul Marston, for example, refer to Minucius Felix (late 2nd/3rd century), as Tertullian’s “more orthodox” contemporary.[7] However, it should be noted that in Minucius Felix’s work Octavius Christianity is treated from the standpoint of philosophy, Scripture is not cited, nor are major biblical teachings much discussed.[8] It is therefore difficult to accept Forster & Marston’s view on the basis of arguments from silence. There has been a long history of debate whether Tertullian used Octavius as a source for his Apology or vice versa. Current opinion favours the priority of the Apology.[9] This is not the first time that Tertullian’s orthodoxy has been attacked in order to undermine his credibility as a witness to the beliefs and practises of the church of his day. William Wall used the same ploy in the 1840’s to support his case for infant baptism. Wall wrote that Tertullian “...fell into the heresy of the Montanists, who blasphemously held that one Montanus was that Paraclete or Comforter which our Saviour promised to send: and that better and fuller discoveries of God’s will were made to him than to the Apostles, who prophesied only in part.”[10] To which Paul K. Jewett responds: “But the noble African’s reputation as a Christian and theologian scarcely needs defence against such beggarly invective.”[11]

Tertullian is the church father who more than any other has been taken to epitomise the anti-intellectualism of the early Church. Tertullian wrote:

For philosophy is the material of the world’s wisdom, the rash interpreter of the nature and dispensation of God. Indeed heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy… What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What has the Academy to do with the Church? What have heretics to do with Christians? Our instruction comes from the porch of Solomon, who had himself taught that the Lord should be sought in simplicity of heart. Away with all attempts to produce a Stoic, Platonic, and dialectic Christianity! We want no curious disputation after possessing Christ Jesus, no inquisition after receiving the gospel! When we believe, we desire no further belief. For this is our first article of faith, that there is nothing which we ought to believe besides.[12]


Three facts that lie behind Tertullian’s rhetoric that are seldom considered:

  1. Greek philosophy was “an amalgam of rival world-views, based on premises that are very different from the biblical revelation.”[13] Their failure to establish any means of accountability to allow the resolution of disputes was already appreciated by Diodorus (c.90-21 BC), Galen (c.130-200 AD) and Claudius Ptolemy (2nd cent. AD) (and other leading thinkers of the 2nd century.[14]
  2. Tertullian believed that “heresies are themselves instigated by philosophy,”[15] Plato and Aristotle being responsible for Valentinian Gnosticism.[16] David Lindberg argues that “what he therefore opposed was not philosophy generally, but heresy or the philosophy that gave rise to it.”[17]
  3. Tertullian himself made use of philosophical (particularly Stoic) ideas in his writings.[18] He agreed with Plato on the matter of the immortality of the soul.[19] He even claimed (as Philo and Justin Martyr had before him) that the philosophers borrowed from the Jewish Scriptures.[20] Like all writers, he assumed that he was able to write theology without incorporating his own presuppositions.[21]

The statement cited above must be viewed in the context of his other works:

Elsewhere Tertullian does not always speak in such robust terms of an unbridgeable chasm separating Athens and Jerusalem. He was as well educated as anyone of his time: a competent lawyer, able to publish his writings in both Latin and Greek with equal facility, acquainted with the current arguments of the Platonic, Stoic and Aristotelian schools and also possessing some knowledge of medicine.[22]

Finally, Tertullian’s argument “I believe it because it is absurd”[23] has been shown to be a misquotation, but more importantly it is an example of a standard Aristotelian argumentative form. Put simply what Tertullian is actually saying is that

...the more improbable an event, the less likely is anyone to believe, without compelling evidence, that it has occurred; therefore, the very improbability of an alleged event, such as Christ’s resurrection, is evidence in its favour. Thus far from seeking the abolition of reason, Tertullian must be seen as appropriating Aristotelian rational techniques and putting them to apologetic use.[24]

Indeed, in his Apology he demonstrated his familiarity with at least thirty literary authorities, which he probably had read first hand, rather than by referring to a handbook of quotations.[25]

Tertullian's Hermeneutic

Tertullian’s method of exegesis varied depending on the purpose of each of his works. When writing against the Gnostic Marcion (who rejected the Old Testament and all use of allegory) Tertullian defended its use, noting how even Paul had used allegory in his letters.[26] While he admitted that the use of allegory was sometimes legitimate he made it clear that he himself preferred the literal sense.[27] His principle for identifying the presence of allegory was that it was present if the literal sense resulted in nonsense; it is not present when the literal meaning makes sense.[28] In this he did not differ significantly from Origen’s principle.[29] In his other works Tertullian’s use of allegory is restrained.[30] Following other writers (such as Justin and Irenaeus) Tertullian used typology extensively to demonstrate the unity of the Testaments,[31] but the figures that he found in the Old Testament were based upon historical persons, places and events, and were used consistently.[32] As O’Malley points out: “He clearly does not feel able to allegorise generally, simply because Paul uses the words in Gal. 4:24.”[33]

Creation ex nihilo

Tertullian accepted the doctrine of creation out of nothing[34] and defended it against a converted philosopher named Hermogenes.[35] Tertullian faced the criticism raised by Hermogenes that the Scripture nowhere explicitly states that creation was ex nihilo - it is an argument from silence. Robert E. Roberts summarises Tertullian’s somewhat convoluted reply as follows:

...The same form of proof might be used on the other side, because Scripture does not say that God made the world out of nothing. But there is a difference in the substance of the arguments, because the implication that if no pre-existent material is mentioned it did not exist is forceful, whereas the implication that if the creation is not definitely stated to be out of nothing it must be out of pre-existent matter carries no conviction.[36]

Hermogenes insisted that God must have created from pre-existing matter[37] - matterthat was inherently evil.[38] Tertullian countered that Hermogenes, by attributing to matter uncreatedness and eternal existence, makes it equal to God, different in name only.[39] If this is true then God is not Almighty “since He is not powerful enough for this, to produce all things out of nothing.”[40] Genesis 1 is a very general account of the Creation, supplemented by specific references elsewhere in Scripture, e.g. “I formed the light, and I created darkness” (Isaiah 14:7) and “He that strengtheneth the thunder, and createth the wind, and declared His Christ unto men.” (Amos 4:13, cf. NIV).[41] On the basis of scriptures that describe the destruction of the present world (Psalm 97:5; 102:5-6; Isa. 2:19; 34:4; 42:15; Matt. 24:29, 35; 2 Peter 3:10; Rev. 6:13, 14; 11:1; 21:1; 22:11) he reasoned that “all things have come from nothing will return at last to nothing. For God would not have made any perishable thing out of that which is eternal, that is to say, out of Matter...”[42]

Adam and Eve

In several instances Tertullian bases his argument on the literal statement that Eve was formed from one of Adam’s ribs.[43] He also maintained that Adam was created naked, driven from the Garden because of sin,[44] and assigned a vegetarian diet (Gen. 1:29).[45] For Tertullian the principle of fasting is first found in the Garden of Eden, where Adam

himself at that time, reverting to the condition of a Psychic[46] after the spiritual ecstasy[47] in which he had prophetically interpreted that “great sacrament”[48] with reference to Christ and the Church, and no longer being “capable of the things which were the Spirit’s,”[49] yielded more readily to his belly than to God, heeded the meat rather than the mandate, and sold salvation for his gullet![50]

Tertullian insisted that women should wear modest clothing as a sign of their mourning and repentance for the sin of Eve. order that by every garb of penitence she might the more fully expiate that which she derives from Eve, - the ignominy, I mean, of the first sin, and the odium (attaching to her a the cause) of human perdition. “In pains and in anxieties dost thou bear (children) woman; and toward thine husband (is) thy inclination, and he lords it over thee.”[51] And do you not know that you are each an Eve? The sentence of God on this sex of yours lives in this age: the guilt must of necessity live too. You are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealed of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert - that is, death - even the Son of God had to die. And do you think about adorning yourself over and above your tunics of skins.[52]

However, as Susanne Heine has pointed out, such statements in Tertullian’s writing should not be taken as representing his view of women.[53] He defended marriage as a divine institution against the heretic Marcion, who regarding it as legalised adultery.[54]

The Flood

Tertullian’s works contain few references to Noah’s Flood, but we do know that he believed that it was a world-wide event, covering even the tops of the mountains. He pointed to the presence of fossils on ths peaks of mountains as proof of this:

There was a time when her [the earth’s] whole orb, withal underwent mutation, overrun by all waters. To this day marine conchs and tritons’ horns sojourn as foreigners on the mountains, eager to prove to Plato that even the heights have inundated. But withal, by ebbing out, her orb again underwent a formal mutation; another, but the same. Even now her shape undergoes mutations...[55]


  1. Jerome, Lives, III, 53.
  2. Eusebius, History, 2.2.4 (Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, Vol. 1, 106).
  3. Robert D. Sider, “Tertullian,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity. New York: Garland, 1990. p.883.
  4. T.D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.
  5. Sider, 883: “It is because of their opposition to the Montanists that neither Eusebius of Caesarea nor Jerome are regarded as reliable witnesses concerning Tertullian.” Schaff comments that Jerome “...admired Tertullian for his powerful genius and vigorous style, though he could not forgive him his Montanism...” Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 3. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989 reprint. p.969.
  6. Barnes, Tertullian, 42: “Historical interpretations of the rise of Montanism inevitably differ, according to the prejudices and preoccupations of the exegete. But the theological issue is clear. The orthodox dubbed the Montanists ‘Cataphygians’ or ‘the Phrygian Heresy’. Yet they had to confess that they were orthodox in all matters of Christian doctrine. Only in the fourth century could polemical writers accuse the Montanists of purely theological error, and then the accusation patently relied upon a perverse and anachronistic interpretation of an utterance of Montanus himself.”
  7. Roger Forster, & Paul Marston, Reason & Faith. Eastbourne: Monarch Publications, 1989, p.260.
  8. Michael P. McHugh, “Minucius Felix,” Encyclopedia of Early Christianity, 600; “Minucius Felix,” Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd edn. Oxford: OUP, 1997. p.1091.
  9. J. Stevenson, revised by W.H.C. Frend, A New Eusebius, new edn. London: SPCK, 1987. p.177.
  10. William Wall, The History of Infant Baptism. London: Griffith, Farran, Okeden & Walsh, n.d., p.41.
  11. Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism & The Covenant of Grace. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. p.21.
  12. Tertullian, Heretics, 7 (Stevenson, op.cit., 166-167).
  13. Colin Brown, Christianity & Western Thought, Vol. 1. Leicester: Apollos, 1990. p.91.
  14. Christopher B. Kaiser, Creation & The History of Science. London: Marshall Pickering, 1991. p.4. Kaiser continues: “The long-range welfare of natural science depended on the development of an ecumenical community of scholars dedicated to the pursuit of truth. This ideal was appreciated by the leading thinkers of antiquity, but the needed substructure was not available… the ecumenical foundation of modern science was to be provided by the monastic movement of the Middle Ages, a movement based on the very discipline that was advocated by Irenaeus and Tertullian. Such are the ironies of history.” See further pp.34-51.
  15. Tertullian, Heretics, 7 (Ante-Nicene Fathers series, Vol. 3, 246).
  16. Brown, op.cit., 91.
  17. David C. Lindberg, “Science and the Early Church,” David C. Lindberg & Ronald L. Numbers, eds. God & Nature: Historical Essays on the Encounter Between Christianity and Science. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1986. p.26.
  18. Brown, op.cit., p.91.
  19. Tertullian, Resurrection 3.2 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, 547); Richard A. Norris, God and World in Early Christian Theology: A Study in Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen. London: Adam & Charles Black, 1966. p.86.
  20. Tertullian, Apology 47.1; Flesh 9.2 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, 51-52, 531-532). Norris, op.cit., 86.
  21. Stuart G. Hall, Doctrine and Practice in the Early Church. London, SPCK, 1991. p.69. For a full discussion of Tertullian’s use of Stoic arguments see: Jean Daniélou, The Origins Of Latin Christianity. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1980. pp.209-223.
  22. Henry Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1966. p.2.
  23. Tertullian, Flesh, 5 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, p.525). The same idea recurs several times in his writings.
  24. Lindberg, op.cit., p.26.
  25. T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971. pp.196-199. The full list of authorities used in Tertullian’s Apology is: “Pliny the Younger, Herodotus, Ctesias, Diodorus and Thallus, Cassius Severus and Cornelius Nepos, Pythagoras and Plato, Pindar, the Cynics Diogenes and Varro, Cornelius Tacitus, Aristeas, Manetho the Egyptian, Berossus the Chaldean, Hiram of Tyre, Ptolemy of Mende, Menander of Ephesus, Demetrius of Phalerum, King Juba of Mauretania, Apion and his adversary Josephus, the stoics Zeno and Cleanthes, Plato again and again, Epicurus, Hostilius, Laberius and Lentulus (three writers of mimes), Cicero and Seneca, Pyrrhon and Callincus.”
  26. T.P. O’Malley, Tertullian and the Bible: Language - Imagery - Exegesis. Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva. Utrecht: Dekker & Van De Vegt N.V. Nijmegen, 1967. p.149.
  27. R.P.C. Hanson, “Notes on Tertullian’s Interpretation of Scripture,” Journal of Theological Studies, n.s., 12 (1961): 274.
  28. O’Malley, op.cit., 128, 157-158.
  29. Robert E. Roberts, The Theology of Tertullian. London: Epworth Press, 1924. p.19: “Tertullian made use of the allegorical method of interpretation, but he does not emphasize the difference between the plain and the figurative sense of Scripture, and certainly is no supporter of the idea that there are different meanings of Scripture for different classes of people after the manner of the Gnostic and Alexandrian theologians. Whatever is plain narrative is such for all men, and where a figurative meaning is to be discovered it is open to all.”.
  30. Hanson, op.cit., p.274: “But though Tertullian is ready to acknowledge as legitimate the practice of allegorizing Scripture in the Church of his day, and will occasionally have recourse to it himself, he often rejects the practice and his writings leave a general impression that he was suspicious of allegory.”
  31. O’Malley, op.cit., p.163.
  32. Ibid., 172.
  33. Ibid., 177.
  34. Tertullian, Apology, 48 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.52-54)..
  35. Who maintained that creation was not ex nihilo. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 1-2 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.477-478).
  36. Roberts, op.cit., p.141. Roberts lists Tertullian’s five arguments for creation ex nihilo (141-142).
  37. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 2 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.477-478).
  38. JTertullian, Against Hermogenes, 9-14 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.478-485).
  39. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 4-7 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.479-481).
  40. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 8 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.481-482).
  41. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 32 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.495-496).
  42. Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, 34 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.496-497).
  43. Tertullian, To His Wife, 1.2; An Exhortation to Chastity, 5; On the Veiling of Virgins, 7 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, pp.39, 53, 31-32).
  44. Tertullian, On the Pallium, 3 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, pp.7-8).
  45. Tertullian, On Fasting, 4 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p.104).
  46. Tertullian deliberately used the insulting Gnostic term ‘Psychic’ or psychikoi to refer to his opponents in the Orthodox church whom he considered morally lax and who rejected the ascetic teachings of Montanism which he espoused. In Tertullian’s terminology the world was divided into a spiritual elite (the pneumatikoi), ordinary Christians (the psychikoi), and the earthbound pagans (hylikoi). See further Tertullian, Treatise Against the Psychics (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.477-478); W.H.C. Frend, The Rise of Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1984. pp.199, 350.
  47. The state in which the Montanists expected prophecy to occur.
  48. Gen. 2: 23-24, cf. Eph. 5:32.
  49. Cf. 1 Cor. 2:14.
  50. Tertullian, On Fasting 3 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p.103).
  51. Cf. Gen. 3:16.
  52. Tertullian, On the Apparel of Women, 1.1 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 14)..
  53. Susanne Heine, Women and Early Christianity: Are The Feminist Scholars Right? London: SCM Press Ltd., 1987. pp.27-32. Tertullian, writing of Christian marriage says: “What kind of yoke is that of twt believers, (partakers) of one hope, one desire, one discipline, one and the same service? Both are brethrem, both feloow servants, no difference of spirit or of flesh; nay, (they are) truly ‘two in one flesh.’ Where the flesh s one, is the spirit too. Together they pray, together proatrate themselves, together perform their fasts; mutually teaching, mutually exhorting, mutually sustaining. Equally (are they) both (found) in the Church of God; equally at the banquet of God; equally in straits,in persecutions, refreshments. To His Wife, 2.8 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p.48)
  54. Tertullian, Against Marcion, 1.29 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, pp.293-295).
  55. Tertullian, On the Pallium, 2 (Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, 6)

External Links

  • Tertullian of Carthage By
  • Early Church Fathers In this electronic edition of the Early Church Fathers series, the volumes have been carefully proofed and converted to ThML by CCEL staff and volunteers.
  • The Tertullian Project A collection of material ancient and modern about the ancient Christian Latin writer Tertullian and his writings.