The writings of Clement of Alexandria as “theological panspermia”
The article examines one of the reasons for the existence of contradictions between certain elements of Clement of Alexandria’s teaching. The reader’s attention is drawn to both Clement's acquaintance with the views of Christian teachers from different parts of the Roman Empire - Greece, Southern Italy, Syria, Egypt, Assyria and Palestine (Strom. I, 1, 11, 1-2) - probably representing different traditions, and to his awareness of the need to record everything heard from his predecessors (Strom. I, 1, 11, 1). The paradoxes of Christian doctrine, not yet formulated as chiseled oxymorons, as it would be done later, at the Ecumenical Councils (e.g. ἀσυγχύτως ἀτρέπτως ἀδιαιρέτως ἀχωρίστως), could not but lead to the appearance of contradictory statements in a text written by an ante-Nicene author (first of all, in triadology, Christology and soteriology) who attempted an exposition of everything that he had heard from his mentors. Although Clement's statements are not explicitly ‘heretical’, the directions of his thought are so diverse that his writings might be called a ‘Pierian Spring’ of theology, from which subsequent orthodox and heterodox writers were able to draw. Clement calls the Logos the true God, equal to the Ruler of the Universe (Protr. 10, 110, 1), but speaking of His assumed human nature, he uses the expression ‘New creation’ in relation to Christ (ἡ καινὴ κτίσις) (QDS. 12, 1). Insisting on the passiveness of the body of Christ, he declares the impassivity of the Savior. This idea, which is close to the doctrine of the aphthartodocetes, does not contradict the theses of the orthodox authors of the period of the Ecumenical Councils and becomes clear when compared with the Chalcedonian Oros. Refuting the Gnostic doctrine, which deprives the person of the freedom of choice, Clement expresses ideas close to the views of Pelagius. Systematizing the church doctrine of the 2nd century, in which the entire spectrum of Christian views was presented and the extremes of which would later be condemned by the Church, Clement in his writings could not avoid salient contradictions that could be resolved only at the apophatic level.