A Reasonable Redemption

My paper for this semester's worth of Torrey about the argument that people can become Christians by following reason. Read and comment if you are interested. :)

A Reasonable Redemption:
Christianity and the Logos in The First and Second Apologies of Justin Martyr

The role of the logos in Justin Martyr’s First and Second Apologies creates a radical conflict that is still affecting the Church today. According to Justin Martyr, if men and women live by reason they are essentially living with the logos and therefore must be called Christians, a label suggesting they are therefore saved by reason. However, he also says that salvation comes through the redemption of Christ’s crucifixion. When examined closely, salvation by reason presents many logical and theological problems that are irreconcilable to Justin’s own theology, leaving salvation by redemption as the only logical possibility. This leaves one to question, why the contradiction? When the context of the Apologies is considered, it appears that Justin’s purpose for writing was to make Christianity more acceptable to the Roman Empire. By allowing for men like Socrates and Heraclitus to be considered Christians by virtue of their reason, Justin does just this. Additionally, he uses salvation by reason to solve the problem of the unreached. Yet, salvation by reason creates more problems than it solves and is still proven to be a logically unsound theory. Thus, Justin Martyr’s claim in his Apologies that before the Incarnation one could become a Christian is disproved by his own views of the logos and the logical necessity of redemption in Christianity.

1. What is the Logos?

According to Justin Martyr, the logos is Christ, who he calls reason combined with the will and power of the Father. He inseparably links reason and logos when he reveals that logos is the reason by which heavenly things are shown. Then, he equates the logos with Christ by saying “the [Father’s] Son, who is alone properly called Son, the logos who is with God and is begotten before the creation.” He reiterates this point stating that, “[the philosophers] did not know all that concerns the logos, who is Christ.” In these passages, Justin unmistakably defines the logos as the Son and unifies the logos, reason, and Christ.

The key word to understanding the relation of the logos to reason is “whole”, since “the whole rational principle became Christ.” Human understanding is encompassed in, but not separate from, the logos. For Justin, there is but one divine reason within which human reason is encompassed. This totality of reason is “greater than all human teaching” and is beyond anything that a human could possibly comprehend. Even the greatest of all secular philosophers had only a share in the logos for “each person spoke well, according to the part present in him of the divine logos.” The fact that a part of the divine logos was present in each person shows that human understanding is not a thing altogether separate from the divine reason, but is a small portion of the logos in its entirety.

In addition to the entirety of reason, Justin also defines the logos as the will and power of the Father. The will of the Father is solely enacted through the logos. Since God “[ordered] all things through Him” there can be nothing done by the will of the Father that is not done through the logos. “The power of the ineffable Father” is what set Christ apart from other great philosophers for Christ was not a “mere vessel of human reason.” This power gave Christ the understanding of the Father as well as the ability to accomplish the will of the Father, setting him high above any mere human.

With the Incarnation, the logos assumed our nature by becoming human and taking on flesh so the truths of religion could be “revealed by logos personally, when He had taken shape, and become man, and was called Jesus Christ.” Never had God been so personally revealed as when the logos took on flesh. The incarnation was clearly the greatest act of the logos, however flesh did not define Him. He existed in his entirety before the Incarnation. This aspect of the pre-Incarnate logos is essential to an understanding of Justin’s claim that men could become Christians before the Incarnation.

Before entering into an argument about Christianity, Justin’s meaning of the word Christian must be defined. First, in order to be a Christian, he says one must follow after Christ. People accomplish this by seeking “to dwell with God” and “to live according to His teachings” . In the introduction to his second apology, Justin says that, “those who lived as Christ will dwell with God in an existence free from suffering [we say those who have become Christians]”. This passage shows that those who seek to follow God are worthy to bear the name “Christian.” In Justin’s explanation of the Christian sacraments, he lists belief, right living, prayer, and fasting for remission of sins as essential to becoming a Christian. Becoming a Christian is a combination of belief that is gained through reason and faith, living correctly according to the will of the Father, and the forgiveness of sins committed through the power of God. All three aspects of the logos - reason, will and power - are contained in his definition of Christianity. This three-fold definition will prove invaluable in understanding Justin’s claims about salvation and Christianity.

2. Logos: Reason or Redeemer?

In the middle of his first apology, Justin makes a radical statement about salvation and Christianity. He claims that since people lived with reason before the incarnation, they were living with the logos and should be considered Christians. If the logos is reason, he continues, then men could live with the logos before the Incarnation since the logos was already existent in the world. Additionally, since the logos had planted the seeds of reason in humanity, all had access to reason before the Incarnation. Accordingly, men like Socrates and Heraclitus, who lived with the utmost of reason, were then Christians. Thus, becoming a Christian through reason before the Incarnation seems entirely plausible.

This logic necessarily leads to a salvation by deliberation that does away with the need for forgiveness. In fact, when Justin explains the purpose of the crucifixion and resurrection, forgiveness does not even enter into the discussion. Logos is considered as the teacher of the way to Christianity, since He directs people to think and act well. In this view of Christianity, the Christian is one who by reasonable thinking follows Christ.

In the Apologies, Justin also states that in order for a person to become a Christian, sin needs to be forgiven and the person redeemed. When Justin quotes Scripture concerning Jesus’ life and death, he mentions the necessity of redemption. He quotes Luke’s gospel saying, “for He will save His people from their sins” and Isaiah 54 saying, “and if your sins be as scarlet, I will make them white as wool, and if they be as crimson, I will make them white as snow.” These passages point to the need for redemption and forgiveness of sins for salvation. In addition to the inclusion of these prophecies, Justin also includes prayer and fasting for the forgiveness of sins in his list of things necessary to be called a follower of God.

This redemption cannot come from just any place, but needs to come through the death and resurrection of the logos. Justin explains how the crucifixion brought the reign of the logos and salvation of man saying, “sing to the Lord, all the earth, and proclaim His salvation day by day…the Lord has reigned from the tree.” This signifies that from the tree, which is the cross, Jesus brought redemption and salvation for humanity and now reigns because of that sacrifice. No longer is the logos just a teacher of the way to Christianity, but He is the way to Christianity. Through the propitiation of the cross, Jesus has redeemed humanity from its sin. Following this line of reason, the Christian is one who by the redemption of Jesus’ sacrifice follows Christ.

Justin apparently has two vastly different views of salvation: salvation by reason and salvation by redemption. In the first, salvation is open to all men and women who simply live within reason. In the second, salvation is open only to those who choose forgiveness through the sacrifice of Christ. These two clearly contrary views raise the question about which one is correct and why Justin contradicts himself at all.

3. The Problems of Salvation by Reason

When the claims of salvation by reason are followed out logically, this view of salvation is found to rest on unstable ground. Salvation by reason just does not seem to make logical or theological sense when one realizes the changing requirements for Christianity, the equating of ignorance with sin, and the diminishing of the role of the logos in salvation that this type of salvation implies.

Salvation by reason necessarily preaches a gospel of works, thus altering the requirements to become a Christian. Reason places the emphasis on the ability of the one doing the thinking and not on the grace and sacrifice of Christ. People are made Christians by deliberation and reasonable thinking; in short, righteousness comes from right thinking, not faith in God. Since Justin makes clear in his views on Christianity that one must be forgiven by God’s grace to be a Christian, salvation by reason simply does not seem to line up with the rest of Justin’s theology.

Yet, the purpose of presenting salvation by reason was to attempt to explain the accountability that was still required of all men before the Incarnation. Justin says that men and women were held accountable for their sin and somehow it needed to be forgiven. So he puts forth the idea that reasonable living will forgive this sin. His idea would work, perhaps, if ignorance was equated with sin. Ignorance could be considered the root of all sin, since a person who knows what is right should choose to do so. Then, by ridding a person of ignorance, he or she could be rid of sin. This view of redemption, however, presents many problems.
First, reason does not redeem a person of past sins, but only of sins in the future. Reasonable people who had lived intemperate and sinful lives could keep from sinning in the future, but they would still be held accountable for past actions. Second, when Justin mentions sin in his Apologies, he regards immorality and not ignorance to be the root. He does state that those who presently persecute the Christians are punished for their “present wickedness and ignorance of the good” . However, this ignorance seems to be only a part of the greater sin and immorality that Justin conveys through his examples of immoral behavior without any reference to ignorance as the root of the problem. The fact that a person has to have his or her sins forgiven before becoming a Christian has already been established. Therefore, since reason cannot redeem past sin nor, in fact, any sin at all, reason is not a valid means of salvation.

Another problem with salvation by reason is salvation after the Incarnation. People should still be able to access salvation though reasonable living since the logos is still reason. If this was the case, then Christ’s sacrifice would be unnecessary and the Incarnation would have been pointless. The only conceivable reason for the Incarnation would have been making salvation easier and more widely available to those who could not access it before, such as the uneducated. This reasoning essentially destroys the need for the Incarnate Christ and redemption since humanity could save itself by education. Since Justin clearly believes in the necessity of a savior and the importance of the Incarnation, salvation by reason does not make logical sense.

Still supposing that men could be saved by reason, then the only plausible reason for the Incarnation would be for Christ to come as the embodiment of Divine Reason. If this view is accepted, then the logos came as the entirety of reason within human form to bridge the gap between human reason and God’s reason, redeeming humanity through the impartation of the Divine Reason that is Christ. Though this theory may solve some problems of salvation by reason, it still leaves a dilemma for salvation before the Incarnation. Divine Reason would not have been available to humanity before the Incarnation, so people living before Christ would still not have had access to this redemption.

Finally, reason is only one part of the logos. The logos, as stated earlier, is the entirety of reason combined with the will and power of the Father. According to this definition, living by reason is not actually living with the logos. To fully live with the logos, one needs to be living with reason as well as the power and will of the Father. Those who choose to live by reason do follow after the logos, however they are not following after the whole logos. Thus, those who live by reason alone cannot be Christians.

According to these arguments, salvation by reason cannot be accepted as a valid means to salvation. Redemption, then, is the only option left to those desiring to become Christians. This view logically follows Justin’s requirements for salvation. Salvation by redemption allows for God’s grace to be enacted through forgiveness and does not place the responsibility of salvation on human works. This type of salvation also allows for Justin’s definition of sin as immorality. The saving work of the logos is not diminished in this view, since only Christ’s sacrifice was able to redeem men and women from their sins. Finally, salvation by redemption encompasses all three aspects of the logos. This occurs by men and women reasonably choosing to accept the redemption of Christ that was the will of the Father and then, by the power of the Father, receiving forgiveness. Since Justin obviously believes in the truth of salvation by redemption and it logically lines up with his beliefs, why then did he choose to write about salvation by reason? His purpose was twofold. First, salvation by reason would appease the Roman Empire and second, it would answer the question about salvation for those who have never heard the name of Christ.

4. The Reason for the Contradiction

Justin makes his claim of salvation by reason with the intention of making Christianity acceptable to the Roman Empire that was ruthlessly persecuting the church. If Justin could prove that Christianity was not a new upstart religion but founded on Greek and Roman thought, then their religion might become acceptable. The idea of salvation by reason can be traced back to Plato’s arguments made hundreds of years ago. Additionally, by providing a way for men like Socrates and Heraclitus to be saved, Justin links the heroes of Greek logic to Christianity. Thus, by making Christianity similar to Greek and Roman intellectual tradition, Justin could appease the raging Romans. Though this is a worthy goal, Justin’s solution was logically flawed and fought against the very traditions with which he was attempting to reconcile Christianity.

In addition to Roman appeasement, Justin uses salvation by reason to tackle the problem of salvation for those who have never heard the name of Jesus Christ. How can these people access the redemption they need to be saved if they had never heard about it? Would not reason be enough for these people who have lived and died without once hearing the name of Jesus? Surely God, in His mercy, would allow salvation by reason to apply to them.

This idea, though appealing, still presents problems. First, reason can lead to misconceptions. Justin makes clear that even the seeds of the logos can lead to contradictions and misunderstandings of the truth that is God. Even the best of human reason can still lead to error, so this same reason cannot possibly lead to a God who is truth. Second, reason cannot, as stated before, act as a redeemer. The only possibility for redemption by reason is if people are not held accountable for their sin until they are told about it. This theory creates more problems than it solves. If people are not accountable for their sin until they know about it, better to never tell them and be assured of their salvation, instead of giving them the chance to reject the Gospel. This creates a serious problem since it makes the Great Commission null and void and Christ’s sacrifice utterly worthless. As already proven, Christ’s sacrifice was necessary and redemption is vital to salvation, so logically there can be no salvation without redemption.

5. Conclusion

Through a proper understanding of the logos and the implications of a salvation by reason, one can conclude that salvation only comes through redemption by the logos as the Incarnate Christ. Since Justin portrays the logos as the entirety of reason with the will and power of the Father, living by reason is not even living with the whole logos. Salvation by reason does not even make sense within Justin’s own context. Additionally, the implication that salvation by reason could still be possible today is unreasonable given the understanding of sin and redemption that Justin explains. Since salvation by reason is not an option for even the unreached we must approach evangelism with a much greater gravity. Men and women are dying every day without any understanding of the redemption that is available to them. Christ has given his Church a command to go and bring his redemption to all nations, for reason alone cannot save a single soul.


Works Cited

Justin Martyr. St. Justin Martyr The First and Second Apologies. Translated by Leslie
William Barnard. New York: Paulist Press, 1997.