As a faithful follower of Christ and a devotee to His Church, I am sometimes questioned on my appreciation for the philosophy of Stoicism, and my addition of Stoic practice to my daily pursuit of good character. These questions are generally not reproaches, but genuine curiosity as to the fitness of Stoic wisdom to hold a place among the targets at which I aim (shoot and miss, more often than not!) These questions tend to take one of several forms, not asked in such precise terms, but carrying these ideas:
If you believe in the sufficiency of Scripture, why also put out a hand to lean on the uninspired thoughts of men who lacked divine revelation? This question has a foundation in Timothy 3:16-17. “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This question is one of Biblical purism, founded on the idea that the scripture alone should be our guide. It is a good and worthy question.
What profitable ideas can you find in the Stoic minds that cannot also be found in Holy Scripture? This question rests on a simple idea: That if one might choose to seek wisdom sitting at the feet of Christ and the apostles, and one might also gain wisdom sitting under great pagan thinkers such as Plato, Aristotle, Epictetus, and Seneca, why sometimes choose the latter? There is enough content in the Holy Scriptures to occupy a lifetime. Why divide your attentions thus? This is a question founded on the thought that time is a limited commodity, and in choosing how you spend it, you should prioritize the best thing that you can. A good and worthy question.
What crossover of moral and practical teaching exists between Christian discipleship and Stoic wisdom? This is a question posed by genuinely curious people who have limited knowledge of the Stoics. Not having read them, and knowing only that it is a line of philosophical thought that does not share identity with Christianity or stem from its scriptures, they puzzle that a follower of Christ might find them so very useful.
That Stoicism is not identical to Christianity is a true observation. One of these is true religion, a divinely revealed study in how one’s soul might be redeemed from sin and brought into harmony with the spirit of his Creator, behaving and believing in such a way as to gain eternal rest in the place that has been prepared for redeemed souls. The other is not a religion at all, but rather a collection of wisdom literature set forth by the minds of great thinkers who did not know this Creator. As such, one who is pursuing eternal rest may read only so far as to discover that Seneca appears to have believed in a plurality of Roman gods, and toss the book in the trash at once; rightly divining that this book does not contain the means of redemption. Yet a tree, with its beauty and grace, is insufficient to teach a man how to gain redemption from sin and find eternal rest. But few would argue that the tree does not write a beautiful and profitable message to the soul of man. Many a poet has devoted verses to this message, and wondered at the living picture of resilience against trouble and dependence upon the provision of the Creator. We do not toss the tree away for its inability to articulate the path to salvation.
I think that I shall never see
A poem lovely as a tree.
A tree whose hungry mouth is prest
Against the earth’s sweet flowing breast;
A tree that looks at God all day,
And lifts her leafy arms to pray;
A tree that may in summer wear
A nest of robins in her hair;
Upon whose bosom snow has lain;
Who intimately lives with rain.
Poems are made by fools like me,
But only God can make a tree.
– Joyce Kilmer
How much more is the mind of a brilliant man, when engaged in the improvement of the character, worthy of pause, appreciation, and reflection. To explore these questions, we turn to eight Church Fathers who found in Stoic philosophy a reflection of divine truths, always to be fulfilled by Christ. The appreciation for Stoic philosophy among Christian thinkers is no new thing, and it is certainly not something for which I can claim any unique insight, though I stumbled upon the Stoics rather than being led to them by the Fathers. Just as a seed, though not grown to a tree, holds the potential to stretch forth branches that reach the heavens, so too have many luminaries of the Church found in Stoic thought a well developed embryo, aligning with the Christian pursuit of righteousness, though not yet bloomed into a full arbor by the light and water of the gospel.
Church Fathers on Stoic Philosophy and its Practical Ancestors
Below is a brief summary of Church Fathers and historic theologians who shared my appreciation for the Stoics, each finding in the Stoic writings a natural harmony with the moral law of God, and in Stoic metaphysics the fingerprint of the Logos.
Before diving into the list, I’d like to provide an important caveat. It is historically popular to distinguish the Stoics from their for-runners, Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. At Apostoic, we do not hold this distinction, not because there are no perceptible differences, but because there are as many differences between Seneca and Epictetus (two Stoics) as there are between Seneca and Aristotle, or Epictetus and Plato. Socrates is known as a Skeptic, but rather than standing opposed to Skeptic thought, Stoic philosophy is both Enlighted by it, and inclusive of it. Aristotle’s axioms are a recognizably core element of Epictetus’ practical arguments, his metaphysics inherited, not juxtaposed, and both helping the reader to better understand the other. Apostoic has a nice ring to it; better at least than Apogreekdudes. But we love and study all of these men, and tend to include the early when we refer to the late. Those elements of the Venn diagram with our Christian worldview, the elements that we promote and uphold, baptizing and repurposing in the name of Christ, are present in all.
Justin Martyr - c. 100-165 A.D.: Stoic Logos and Christ’s Revelation
A seeker of truth before his conversion, Justin saw in Stoic philosophers and their forerunners a knowledge of, and adherence to, the divine Logos. He likened the Stoic concept of logos spermatikos (the spark of divine reason in all men) to the eternal Word, Christ Himself. In his First Apology, he declares,
“We have been taught that Christ is the first-born of God, and we have declared above that He is the Word [Logos] of whom every race of men were partakers; and those who lived by reason [meta logou] are Christians, even though they have been thought atheists; as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus, and men like them”
(First Apology 46, trans. Marcus Dods and George Reith, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1, 1885, CCEL.org).
In argumentative context, it is likely that his meaning was “Christians in part,” but we must quote faithfully. We make no claims that the Stoic ancients will be your neighbors in eternity. Rather we hope; admitting that through observation and reason, and the most brutal honesty above all, the Stoic thinkers climbed to an adjacency to the truth later revealed, to an astonishing and miraculous degree. In Greek reason, Justin saw how far the human mind can pursue truth without revelation. All truth is God’s, and those without His word, but honest and diligent enough to discover its traces and follow them, have discovered nothing other than God’s truth, if not its whole.
Clement of Alexandria - c. 150-215 A.D.: Stoicism as Gospel Preparation
This widely known and well-spoken teacher referred to Stoic thought (the basis for Greek civilization in his time) as a necessary seed, planted not by the mind of man, but by God, amongst the Gentiles He would later call. A proponent for Christian asceticism, he wrote Stoic indifference to worldly gain and pursuit of vigilant self control into the nucleus of his famous Stromata, even quoting and paraphrasing Zeno, Cleanthes, Antipar, and later Stoics throughout the work.
“Accordingly, before the advent of the Lord, philosophy was necessary to the Greeks for righteousness.And now it becomes conducive to piety; being a kind of preparatory training to those who attain to faith through demonstration. “For thy foot,” it is said, “will not stumble, if thou refer what is good, whether belonging to the Greeks or to us, to Providence.” For God is the cause of all good things; but of some primarily, as of the Old and the New Testament; and of others by consequence, as philosophy. Perchance, too, philosophy was given to the Greeks directly and primarily, till the Lord should call the Greeks. For this was a schoolmaster to bring “the Hellenic mind,” as the law, the Hebrews, “to Christ.”Philosophy, therefore, was a preparation, paving the way for him who is perfected in Christ.”
He believed that Stoic ethics could guide the soul toward repentance and virtue, preparing it to be grafted into divine truth when illuminated by the Gospel of Christ. In short, that the moral principles, reason, and surrender to the divine found within Stoic thought point the way to Christianity, and eventually must lead the logical Stoic to this fount. It is not a distant leap to give some credit to the Stoic’s groundwork, preparing the intellect of Athens to receive St. Paul’s evangelistic efforts. It was they who knew of the “unknown God” and shaped a culture to be ever in search of him.
Tertullian - c. 155-200 A.D.: Cautious Embrace of Stoic Metaphysics
Tertullian was perhaps the most leery of the fathers here quoted, to give credence to wisdom not scripturally rooted. Famously, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” was an expression of general attitude. Yet even he did not resent the Stoics for the truth they had discovered through reason, and both quoted and paraphrased them. In Chapter 5 of De Anima he explicits “calling on the Stoics to help me” before going on to affirm arguments from Zeno, Chrysippus, and Cleanthes. In Chapter 20 he recruits Seneca to his support, writing:
“And here, therefore, we draw our conclusion, that all the natural properties of the soul are inherent in it as parts of its substance; and that they grow and develope along with it, from the very moment of its own origin at birth. Just as Seneca says, whom we so often find on our side:“There are implanted within us the seeds of all the arts and periods of life. And God, our Master, secretly produces our mental dispositions;” that is, from the germs which are implanted and hidden in us by means of infancy, and these are the intellect: for from these our natural dispositions are evolved.”
(De Anima 20, trans. Peter Holmes, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3, 1885)
Origen - c. 185-253 A.D.: Praise for Stoic Simplicity
Origen, defending the simple style of certain scriptures against the accusation “Plato already said it better” upheld both Plato and Epictetus (our favorite here at Apostoic) as worthy contributors to the betterment of man, but noted that Plato was understandable and useful only for the advanced mind. Epictetus, on the other hand, communicated in a manner that was both understandable and useful to the common man, and to Origen, this was the more admirable. “I have made these remarks in reply to the charges which Celsus and others bring against the simplicity of the language of Scripture, which appears to be thrown into the shade by the splendour of polished discourse. For our prophets, and Jesus Himself, and His apostles, were careful to adopt a style of address which should not merely convey the truth, but which should be fitted to gain over the multitude, until each one, attracted and led onwards, should ascend as far as he could towards the comprehension of those mysteries which are contained in these apparently simple words. For, if I may venture to say so, few have been benefited (if they have indeed been benefited at all) by the beautiful and polished style of Plato, and those who have written like him; while, on the contrary, many have received advantage from those who wrote and taught in a simple and practical manner, and with a view to the wants of the multitude. It is easy, indeed, to observe that Plato is found only in the hands of those who profess to be literary men; while Epictetus is admired by persons of ordinary capacity, who have a desire to be benefited, and who perceive the improvement which may be derived from his writings. Now we make these remarks, not to disparage Plato (for the great world of men has found even him useful), but to point out the aim of those who said: “And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man’s wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that our faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.”
Jerome - c. 347-420 A.D.: Placement of Seneca Among the Saints
St. Jerome, fulfilling a request by Dexter to comprise a list of great contributors to faithful authorship since the ascension of Christ, hesitantly places Seneca amid the pack. Elsewhere referring to him as “our Seneca,” Jerome was perhaps the most likely father on this list to extend the hand of brotherhood far, but barely, enough to include this wonderful Stoic.
“Lucius Annæus Seneca of Cordova, disciple of the Stoic Sotion and uncle of Lucan the Poet, was a man of most continent life, whom I should not place in the category of saints were it not that those Epistles of Paul to Seneca and Senecato Paul, which are read by many, provoke me. In these, written when he was tutor of Nero and the most powerful man of that time, he says that he would like to hold such a place among his countrymen as Paul held among Christians. He was put to death by Nero two years before Peter and Paul were crowned with martyrdom.”
Jerome, De viris illustribus (On Illustrious Men) 12, trans. Ernest Cushing Richardson, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, Vol. 3 (1892).
It is noteworthy that the letters, supposedly from Seneca to Paul and considered wonderful by St. Jerome, tipped Seneca over the brink in his eyes, and landed him among the Christian saints. The authenticity of these letters has since been thrown into doubt by renaissance scholars, and they are now widely held to be a pseudepigraphon, a chosen pen name to disguise identity, by a Christian believer who may have revered Seneca. While questionable, it should not distract from what is not, that St. Jerome had high regard for Seneca’s body composite, and saw with him, at least, a near-christian alliance.
Of Seneca’s verse, discussed by St. Augustine next, there is no doubt of authenticity. This, among other writings, shed light on the rationale for St. Jerome’s high general view of Nero’s pleading detractor.
Augustine of Hippo - c. 354-430 A.D.: Stoic “Fate” Understood as Providence
Now for a stunning and miraculous beauty, an understanding of sin, repentance, and trust in both divine providence and mercy, that Christian believers should find impossible among pagan thinkers, absent revelation. Augustine knew the Stoic fate through his studies of Seneca, and Cicero’s opposition to him. He would have rightly corrected the modern interpretation as impersonal chance, or a cold trail of destiny. Christian readers, cursorily examining the Stoics, may recoil at the many attributions to fate, interpreting in them the blind happenstance for which the word is commonly used in modernity. Augustine was not a cursory reader, and understood better. Please be slow and absorb, as you read Seneca interpreted by Augustine.
“Now, that it is chiefly the will of God most high, whose power extends itself irresistibly through all things which they call fate, is proved by the following verses, of which, if I mistake not, Annæus Seneca is the author:
‘Father supreme, Thou ruler of the lofty heavens, Lead me where’er it is Thy pleasure; I will give A prompt obedience, making no delay, Lo! here I am. Promptly I come to do Thy sovereign will; If thy command shall thwart my inclination, I will still Follow Thee groaning, and the work assigned, With all the suffering of a mind repugnant, Will perform, being evil; which, had I been good, I should have undertaken and performed, though hard, With virtuous cheerfulness. The Fates do lead the man that follows willing; But the man that is unwilling, him they drag.’ Most evidently, in this last verse, he calls that “fate” which he had before called “the will of the Father supreme,” whom, he says, he is ready to obey that he may be led, being willing, not dragged.”
(City of God 5.8, trans. Marcus Dods, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 2, 1887)
With Augustine, we read the Stoics through a Christian lens, knowing their divine Logos that controls all fate, the Unknown God of Athens, now by name and adoption. Attributing nothing to the unbiased happenstance for which the word is commonly used, we, with Seneca, know that those not led by that Fate will not avoid it, but be dragged by it; for that Logos, that Father Supreme, directs the worst event gainfully, and we would be found willing.
Boethius - c. 480-524 A.D.: Stoic Contentment in Spite of Circumstance
Sitting in a prison cell as did Paul, and awaiting his martyrdom, Boethius wrote in his Consolation of Philosophy a beautiful treatise on happiness. That his thoughts were his own I cast no doubt, but rather observe that the preceding Stoic library stands by with a ready line or paragraph in paraphrase to each, from Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius; all of whom earlier wrote in the same meaning, and in some phrases, the resemblance nearing word for word. ‘How many are they, think you, who would think themselves raised to heaven if the smallest part of the remnants of your good fortune fell to them? This very place, which you call a place of exile, is home to those who live herein. Thus there is nothing wretched unless you think it to be so: and in like manner he who bears all with a calm mind finds his lot wholly blessed. Who is so happy but would wish to change his estate, if he yields to impatience of his lot? With how much bitterness is the sweetness of man’s life mingled! For even though its enjoyment seem pleasant, yet it may not be surely kept from departing when it will. It is plain then how wretched is the happiness of mortal life which neither endures for ever with men of calm mind, nor ever wholly delights the care-ridden. Wherefore, then, O mortal men, seek ye that happiness without, which lies within yourselves? Ye are confounded by error and ignorance. I will shew you as shortly as I may, the pole on which turns the highest happiness. Is there aught that you value more highly than your own self? You will answer that there is nothing. If then you are master of yourself, you will be in possession of that which you will never wish to lose, and which Fortune will never be able to take from you. Yet consider this further, that you may be assured that happiness cannot be fixed in matters of chance: if happiness is the highest good of a man who lives his life by reason, and if that which can by any means be snatched away, is not the highest good (since that which is best cannot be snatched away), it is plain that Fortune by its own uncertainty can never come near to reaching happiness.“
Boethius, The Consolation of Philosophy 2.4 (Prose IV), trans. W. V. Cooper (London: J. M. Dent, 1902).
And, that he was versed in the Stoics and their philosophical ancestors, of this we must be doubtless, for he lists no less than four (if we, as the Stoics did, count Socrates as predecessor) in Lady Wisdom’s list of philosophy’s martyrs, whom she names raised up in her ways, but run afoul of the desires of unscrupulous men. To this list would Boethius himself soon be added. Below italicized.
“But if you have not heard of the exile of Anaxagoras, nor the poison drunk by Socrates,nor the torture of Zeno*, which all were of foreign lands, yet you may know of Canius, Seneca, and Soranus, whose fame is neither small nor passing old. Naught else brought them to ruin but that, being built up in my ways, they appeared at variance with the desires of unscrupulous men. So it is no matter for your wonder if, in this sea of life, we are tossed about by storms from all sides; for to oppose evil men is the chief aim we set before ourselves.”
(Consolation of Philosophy 1.3, trans. W. V. Cooper, 1902)
*This Zeno of Elea, not Zeno of Citium, the father of Stoic philosophy
If not even greater comradery, Boethius, as we do, paints the Stoics as allies in battle with evil, is unashamed to list them among the voices reproaching wickedness, and those sharing in his own suffering for that cause.
Thomas Aquinas - c. 1225-1274 A.D.: Stoic Natural Law and Christian Ethics
This medieval giant, Aristotelian in bent, drew from the well of Greek philosophy, inclusive of the Stoa, in his Summa Theologica. Most notably, his famous unmoved mover proof is a direct lift from “The Philosopher,” Aristotle. As if responding to the Stoic promotion and desperate cling to natural law, He points to God as the sower of this seed among them. Its very presence and prominence in the pagan mind, per Aquinas, proves its universality as a first thing, demonstrates undeniably that it is sourced from God as a common grace, and disproves the requirement of promulgation (to be made known as a posted edict, rather than being known inherent).
“The natural law is promulgated by God when He implants it in the minds of men to be known by them naturally”
(Summa Theologica I-II, Q. 90, A. 4, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province, Benziger Bros., 1947, CCEL.org).
It is likewise true that the modern Christian reader, recoiling at the Stoic appeal to nature, and reading into it an Eastern or druidic presupposition, would be nearer the truth if guided by Aquinas as interpreter. It is not to bees, flowers and breeze that your attention is called by the Stoic collection, but to the law of God written on the hearts of all men.
In ethics also does Aquinas uplift the Stoa, not burdened by the positive tint of the word “passions” that is a modern evolution, and understanding the word as used by them, to indicate base lusts and desires, outbursts of wrath, etc. The modern reader, his own definition of passion referencing even positive emotion such as joy, love, glee, and sexual fever for the spouse, gleans from the Stoics a call to be emotionless. This is so much the case that the word “stoic” in its common adjective use describes one who does not feel emotion. Akin to the modern use of skeptic as “one who disbelieves everything” instead of its philosophical use, “one who asks questions of everything,” this twist, though unintentional and spurred by the evolution of language, is a misreading. St. Thomas Aquinas corrects us.
“I answer that, as the Stoics held that every passion of the soul is evil, they consequently held that every passion of the soul lessens the goodness of an act; since the admixture of evil either destroys good altogether, or makes it to be less good. And this is true indeed, if by passions we understand none but the inordinate movements of the sensitive appetite, considered as disturbances or ailments. But if we give the name of passions to all the movements of the sensitive appetite, then it belongs to the perfection of man’s good that his passions be moderated by reason. For since man’s good is founded on reason as its root, that good will be all the more perfect, according as it extends to more things pertaining to man. Wherefore no one questions the fact that it belongs to the perfection of moral good, that the actions of the outward members be controlled by the law of reason. Hence, since the sensitive appetite can obey reason, as stated above (I-II:17:7), it belongs to the perfection of moral or human good, that the passions themselves also should be controlled by reason.
Accordingly just as it is better that man should both will good and do it in his external act; so also does it belong to the perfection of moral good, that man should be moved unto good, not only in respect of his will, but also in respect of his sensitive appetite; according to Psalm 83:3: “My heart and my flesh have rejoiced in the living God“: where by “heart” we are to understand the intellectual appetite, and by “flesh” the sensitive appetite.”
Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 24, a. 3, trans. Fathers of the English Dominican Province (New York: Benziger Bros., 1947).
Conclusion: Stoic Wisdom Literature, Baptized and Supplemental
These fathers, taken broadly, were unabashed to consider the Stoic library, and its intellectual ancestry, in terms of near-alliance and endearment. They extolled as virtuous such things as were virtuous among their principles, embraced them with varying degrees of boldness, and discarded that which the Scripture’s revelation displaced. We are no philosophers, but Christians. But we do not shrink from the doctrines of the philosophers, insofar as they are true. For they have discovered some things rightly, and all that is right is of God. Like Kilmer acknowledging the tree, pointing its viewer to the heavens, we take pleasure and instruction from the minds of great men; who being unversed in the books of Moses and the prophets, and preceding the gospels and letters, proved unwittingly the words of St Paul:
“For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them, for his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.” (Romans 1:19-20).
To the question of Scripture’s sufficiency, I answer: That while the Word of God is complete, Stoic wisdom proves out many claims within it, as those made by Paul above, and gives support to the existence of God’s gracious work outside of the covenant, as do the figures of Jethro and Melchizedek. Seneca’s On Anger unpacks the command tendered by Paul in Ephesians, to avoid sinful wrath, with a lengthy treatise of vividly lucid logic and rigorously honed reason that cannot be called unchristian. Epictetus’ opening to The Discourses paints clearly the Imago Dei, and his dichotomy of control preaches Christ’s “consider the lily” in terms unexposed to the sermon. That one does not go to the Stoics for salvation or doctrine is evident, but to Schaefer’s question “How shall we then live?” they have much to offer the believer in the pursuit of Christ likeness. To me, they have been of immense help.
One further answer I give, in the form of a question: If the Scripture is sufficient, why turn again and again to the stories of Tolkien and Lewis for supplement? Or to any of the Church fathers here listed?
The answer does not throw shade on the sufficiency of Holy Scripture, but rather speaks to man’s need for man, to aid understanding and encourage good works.
To the question, “Why study the Stoics when Scripture abounds?” I answer twofold: First, that precedent set by the Church fathers permits, and even perhaps compels me. Second, that if the study of rocks or trees, miraculously made, is no unworthy pursuit of the Christian, nor is the study of great human minds, no less made and occurring in the extremes of the natural miraculous.
To those curious about the crossover, I point to the 8 saints above, each of whom found some common ground, alliance, and value. I point to the hesitant Tertullian, often “finding Seneca on his side.” But most importantly, I point to the Venn in the title of this publication. We make no sermons on the adoption of Stoicism as a full plate, but rather, like picky eaters, pluck out the morsels that are profitable to the follower of Jesus. These morsels are many and delicious, more numerous indeed than a reader with modern definitions in his ears could know, until he has first adjusted his hearing to old words in old use. With Augustine, we first submit Stoic wisdom to Christian baptism, and then find in its dripping emergence a rich feast of application.
In departure, allow me a trite dysphemism.
One man approaches another, and offers upon a spoon the reproductive emissions of inedible plants, consumed and regurgitated by insects. Honey may disgust the man who has never tasted any.
I would encourage a Christian, skeptical of value in the Stoics, to read them. If there is value to be weeded, plucked and repurposed, well and good. If not, you will have encountered no harm but that caused by education.
Please subscribe for free to the Apostoic Venn blogcast. Your subscription tells the internet lords that this content is valuable, and they, in turn, show Gospel, reason, and the pursuit of virtue to more viewers.
Keywords Church Fathers Stoicism | Christian Stoicism history | Justin Martyr Stoic | Clement of Alexandria Stoic | Origen and Stoics | Tertullian Stoic logos | Augustine and Stoicism | Basil the Great Musonius Rufus | Gregory of Nazianzus Stoic | Nemesius of Emesa | Jerome Seneca friendship | Boethius Consolation Stoicism | Thomas Aquinas Stoic virtue | Stoicism compatible with Christianity | early church Stoic influence | logos spermatikos Christianity | Seneca and Paul | Christian appreciation Stoicism | Stoic philosophy Church Fathers | plunder the Egyptians Stoicism | Apostoic Christian Stoicism | D.S Cook theology
