Logos spermatikos

[Alexis]

Can someone explain to me what Justin the martyr means by "Logos Spermatikos" in his writings?

Thanks,
Alexis

[John Curtis Dunn]

St. Justin struggled to construct a bridge from Greek philosophy to Christianity (or from Christianity to Greek philosophy). He uses the term to express his conviction that God has planted in each individual person a seed(SPERMATIKOS) of His own Divinity (LOGOS).

He aims to prove that the LOGOS (Jesus Christ) whom Christianity worships, is the same LOGOS of whom the Greek Philosophers were dependent upon.

The idea, in its vagueness, is Orthodox enough, since we can say, the Image of God is within everyman, though only the Saints have become *like* God. But, because of its vagueness, it can and has also been the idea by/through/from which the uniqueness of Christ and Christianity have been minimized into something of a "common religious syncretism."

john

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Alexis,

I thought you might like to know the historical use of the term in philosophy. It comes from Stoicism and perhaps Aristotle (? -- someone else may be able to help here).

According to F. E. Peters in The Harvest of Hellenism (pp.131-135), Stoicism was founded by Zeno, a Phoenician immigrant to Athens from (a Hellenized) Cyprus in about 310 BC. Apparently, before the time of Parmenidese (c.480 BC) what we call "the universe" and they "the kosmos" was thought of as a living organism. Parmenides cast grave doubt on this notion. Subsequent philosophers (such as Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, and Zeno) in constructing their own versions of reality were all in part more or less responding to Parmenidese's new idea.

We might recall that Plato has Socrates speak of the universe as a living organism.
Zeno too,


...saw both being and universe of beings as an immense physical organism and so was led by the analogy with living beings to an internal principle that had been discussed in fifth-century medical circles, the vital spirit, or pneuma. Here too Aristotle had gone before, and when he had allowed himself to speak with the voice of a biologist rather than that of a reformed Platonist, Aristotle had explored the possibilities of this hot, foamy liquid serving as a link between the physical organism and the spiritual soul. The pneuma, however, is more than a mere fiery breath of life that can be inhaled and exhaled. It is a subtle, almost spiritual substance that mixes through the grosser material of the body without ever losing its own identity. Within the pneuma are carried, again in the manner of Aristotle, the "seedlings of reason" (logoi spermatikoi).

The pneuma served, then as the vehicle which transmitted the principle of reason (logos) from parent to offspring. For Aristotle it solved the problem of the passage of the soul from one generation to the next, but for the Stoics logos was a principle that extended throughout the system, from the individual man to the entire cosmic organism=, and exploring its wide range of notations they reached far behind Aristotle.

For the Greeks logos had a great many related meanings.... The term had become domesticated in philosophy through Heraclitus c. B.C. 500),....The Heraclitean logos was the wisdom of philosophy,...it was the state of things, an underlying equilibrium between conflicting forces that constituted the true being and the true meaning of the universe. An immutable logos underlay the apparently constant flux visible in the sensible world. To illustrate it, Heraclitus resorted to a staple of the pre-Socratic physicists, fire. Fire was the basic element of the universe, all-pervasive, directive and intelligent.

The Stoics joined these concepts, "logos-fire" and "pneuma." This "logos-fire" the first and progenitor of all the other elements courses through them and "...is individualized as the logoi spermatikoi and is carried in the pervasive pneuma. The logoi animate, shape and order the various parts until the universe...is constituted in all its interrelated variety."


Man is...a mixture of pneuma and passive matter. The pneuma, which is mixed with blood, circulates through an intricate internal system which centers in the directive faculty (hegemonikon) located in the heart and terminates in the five senses and the speech and genital organs. There is input into the system through the speech organs and genitals, the former emitting external discourse (logos), which reflects man's internal reasoning [a footnote to this says, among other things: "The connection of internal and external logos in Stoicism also became an essential ingredient in Philo's "Mosaic Philosophy"], and the latter the seedlings (logoi spermatikoi), whereby one animal generates soul in another.

Stoicism was big in Rome in the first and second centuries AD and Justin before his conversion had become a philosopher (emigrated to Rome from Samaria to do so) in order to find the right way of life. When he found Christianity (or rather, was found by Christ) he considered it the best "philosophy" of all, and we must remember that as one of the first apologists for Christianity to the pagan world it would be appropiate to find terminology that most closely approximates the Christian world view since he needs to address the World in its own language. This always presents a dilema for the missionay, evangilist, and teacher.

Yours,

Richard

[Owen Jones]

Dear Richard,

I think literally millions of people could be converted to Christianity the same way St. Justin was -- by beginning with classical philosophy.

Not everyone needs to come to Christ through dogmatic apologetics.

[John Curtis Dunn]

I think literally millions of people could be converted to Christianity the same way St. Justin was -- by beginning with classical philosophy.

Not everyone needs to come to Christ through dogmatic apologetics.

Are these the only two choices...? Pierre Hadot has complained that Christianity destroyed philosophy by making a vehicle for dogmatic apology.

Also, did St. Justin actually reason himself into Christianity? If so, it would seem that his reason is the foundation for his knowing the Truth, not Faith?

john

[Moses Anthony]

Dear Owen,

Surely you didn't actually mean the statement in your post, about how


"...millions of people could be converted...."

I personally (already "converted")lay in a hospital bed after about two weeks in ICU, when the Psalmists words "...He brought me out into a broad place,...because He delights in me..." sank into my heart. My lungs had been in shock from a motorcycle wreck, and I was near death. I had had a dream that I was an ace from WWI, and had landed behind enemy lines. A sympathetic woman found and hid me from those looking for me. Seriously hurt I asked for a tablet, and wrote a note to be delivered to my wife, consisting of one line, "I'll be back." It was then that I read the verse from the Psalms.

The point of this story is that many more people than we think; whatever our predelictions may be, are brought to Christ through an opposing viewpoint. Sometimes it's because of circumstances prior, sometimes because of how we perceive ourselves.

Why should we quibble? If people were being brought to us, then maybe, just maybe, we could have a say in the matter. However, people are being brought to our Lord Jesus Christ, and it is the Holy Spirit who brings them, without asking our opinion on what would be the best tool to use. All He requires of you and I is obedient submission and intercession.

You should know this after the discussion we've had about the role of monasticism and marriage. My personal favorite to bring more people to the Faith, evangelism performed by those who are living as close to God as they know how. They may use intellectualism, apologetics, or an appeal to the love of God. IT DOESN'T MATTER, unless of course it may hurt the predelictions of our pride, which then of course means it's time to confess and repent.

Hmmm, was it the arguements of phlosophy that brought you to the Lord Jesus Christ?

I am by His grace,

the unworthy servant

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Owen (and others),

What Justin seems to have found in philosophy was that it did not come near enough to the truth to satisfy the thirst of his soul. I suspect he went to a Christian teacher and believed what he was taught there. He never gave up his philosopher's robes and continued to teach this new and better "philosophy" i.e., Christianity.

I was,BTW Owen, not taking any shots at philosophy, per se (but then, maybe I misread the "tone" in your seeming definsive reply?). It is interesting, don't you think, that one who came to Christianity through philosophy should take to apologetics?

Richard

[Owen Jones]

I suppose I could just as easily assume that you were being defensive in your response, Richard. Let's put that stuff aside, shall we?

Philosophy, if properly taught, creates a thirst. Now, we have millions, tens of millions of young people throughout the world who are bored and numbed by their schooling. Their primary experience is alienation, so they look to belong to some tribe or cultish behavior to find meaning.

Philosophy, properly undertood, not only challenges and disciplines the mind, but awakens the soul to transcendence, as well as teaching virtue. It teaches that there is an ordered, intelligible universe, not something based on magical incantations.

The dominance of all kinds of religious, social and political pathologies, drugs, sex, rock music, is a symptom of a turn toward a kind of atavism that sees the world in terms of sinister forces that can be manipulated and controlled only through magical incantations. It's a kind of reversion to tribalism, tribal envy, or fear of envy, and various superstitutions designed to ward off evil conspiracies.

Philosophy begins by refuting such sophistry and guiding the intellect. It teaches that there is a universal concept of human nature, most importantly. Without that universalism, just believing in Christ is not good enough, because people are still driven toward sectarianism and cultism, various emotionalisms, certain guarantees of salvation as long as you are part of the tribe, etc.

[John Curtis Dunn]

Without that universalism, just believing in Christ is not good enough, because people are still driven toward sectarianism and cultism, various emotionalisms, certain guarantees of salvation as long as you are part of the tribe, etc.

You seem to always be arguing (in some vein) that without Classical philosophy, Christianity is politically feckless (incapable of resolving or achieving a balance between conflict and cooperation) against sectarianism, cultism, etc...

john

[Owen Jones]

That's exactly what I'm saying, John. Just look around you.

[Richard Leigh]

Dear Owen,

Well, then: glad to hear your weren't being offended.

I don't think millions are what we might call "philosophically inclined." YOur plan seems to be teach the unbelieving philosophy and then bring them to what Justin calls "the true philosophy." I think though that appealing to the philosophy of the day (everybody has a philosophy, it they don't know there's, it'll be the philosophy of the day), showing its emptyness and bringing the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Those would be the logoi spermaticoi from my mouth!

Richard