The most controversial early church father concerning his alleged beliefs on reincarnation is undoubtedly Origen (185-254). Many adherents of reincarnation mention him today as a classic example proving the alleged early Christian belief in reincarnation, which is supposed to have been condemned and forbidden by the fifth ecumenical council (Constantinople, 533 AD). Although it is a fact that Origen was strongly influenced by Platonism prior to his conversion to Christianity, the claim that he believed in reincarnation is absurd.

Before using any quotes from his writings, we strongly advise you to read the file Origen and Origenism in order to get a brief description of Origen’s life, writings and teachings. This article will give you a sound perspective on what he actually taught and what was later condemned as Origenism. Then see the act of refuting Origenism by the fifth ecumenical council, The 15 Anathemas Against Origen.

As it can easily be observed, there is no clear concept of reincarnation mentioned at this council of the early church, but only the Platonist ideas concerning the pre-existence of souls, besides universalism and a wrong form of Christology, as main heresies to be rejected. Origenism has incorporated these Platonistic ideas and they were condemned at the council of Constantinople, certainly not some classic form of reincarnation, as is claimed today. For instance, the fourth anathema states:

If anyone shall say that the reasonable creatures in whom the divine love had grown cold have been hidden in gross bodies such as ours, and have been called men, while those who have attained the lowest degree of wickedness have shared cold and obscure bodies and are become and called demons and evil spirits: let him be anathema.

The condemned ideas are very close related to what Plato has stated in Phaedrus. Therefore it cannot be stated that Origenism taught a classic form of reincarnation. In fact, Origen rejected plainly this doctrine in his Commentary on Matthew (Book XIII,1), written in the last years of his life. He refutes the speculation of considering John the Baptist the reincarnation of Elijah (Matthew 11,14; 17,12-13), a text we mentioned earlier. Origen writes:

In this place it does not appear to me that by Elijah the soul is spoken of, lest I should fall into the dogma of transmigration, which is foreign to the church of God, and not handed down by the Apostles, nor anywhere set forth in the Scriptures; for it is also in opposition to the saying that "things seen are temporal," and that "this age shall have a consummation," and also to the fulfillment of the saying, "Heaven and earth shall pass away," and "the fashion of this world passeth away," and "the heavens shall perish," and what follows.

In the same commentary, under the title "The spirit and power of Elijah" - not the soul - were in the Baptist, Origen adds: "For, observe, he did not say in the ‘soul’ of Elijah, in which case the doctrine of transmigration might have some ground, but ‘in the spirit and power of Elijah.’" Origen’s whole commentary on this text is a refutation of the reincarnation theory. Therefore it is obvious that he cannot be considered at all an "early Christian adherent of reincarnation".

Here are some quotations from other early church fathers concerning their opinion on reincarnation, which prove that it cannot have been one of their beliefs. Use the links in order to get a larger picture on their writings.
Justin Martyr (100-165)

His opinion on reincarnation is plainly stated in the following fragment of his Dialogue with Trypho 1,4 (155 AD), part one, chapter 4, where he discusses Platonism with Trypho the Jew:

The old man: "What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? Or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?"

Justin: "I cannot tell," I answered.
The old man: "And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?" said he.
Justin: "[According to Plato] They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment."
The old man: "Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin?"
Justin: "I do not think so."
The old man: "Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment."
Justin: "No indeed."
The old man: "Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you," said he.
Justin: "You are right," I replied.

In his Treatise on the Soul (see ch. 28-33), Tertullian traces the origin of reincarnationist ideas down to Pythagoras. He writes:

If, indeed, the sophist of Samos is Plato's authority for the eternally revolving migration of souls out of a constant alternation of the dead and the living states, then no doubt did the famous Pythagoras, however excellent in other respects, for the purpose of fabricating such an opinion as this, rely on a falsehood, which was not only shameful, but also hazardous.

His conclusion is that "we must likewise contend against that monstrous presumption, that in the course of the transmigration beasts pass from human beings, and human beings from beasts".

Finally, the master theologian of that time rejected in his turn any idea of predestination (as an impersonal law like karma might impose) in his writing Against Fate, and also the concept of reincarnation in the 28th chapter of his treatise On the Making of Man:

Those who assert that the state of souls is prior to their life in the flesh, do not seem to me to be clear from the fabulous doctrines of the heathen which they hold on the subject of successive incorporation: for if one should search carefully, he will find that their doctrine is of necessity brought down to this. They tell us that one of their sages said that he, being one and the same person, was born a man, and afterwards assumed the form of a woman, and flew about with the birds, and grew as a bush, and obtained the life of an aquatic creature; - and he who said these things of himself did not, so far as I can judge, go far from the truth: for such doctrines as this of saying that one soul passed through so many changes are really fitting for the chatter of frogs or jackdaws, or the stupidity of fishes, or the insensibility of trees.

The idea of reincarnation was never accepted by Christianity because it undermines its basic tenets. First, it renders futile God’s sovereignty over creation, transforming Him into a helpless spectator of the human tragedy. Because He is sovereign and omnipotent over creation, God can punish evil and will do it perfectly well at the end of history (see Matthew 25,31-46; Revelation 20,10-15). There is no need for impersonal karma and reincarnation to play this role.

Second, believing in reincarnation may affect one’s understanding of morality and motivation for moral living. An extreme application of reincarnationist convictions could lead to adopting a detached stand to crime, theft, lying and other such social plagues. They could be considered nothing else but normal debts to be paid by their victims, originated in their previous lives. Following this reasoning, social injustice should not be punished at all in order to not complicate even more someone’s karmic debt. Therefore it is hard to believe that accepting reincarnation would transform us into better people, pursuing moral values with more conviction, as reincarnationists usually claim. The amorality proposed by Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita, the demand to act totally detached from what results, is the highest moral status that can be reached as the result of accepting karma and reincarnation.

Third, reincarnation represents a threat to the very essence of Christianity: the need for Christ’s redemptive sacrifice for our sins. If we are to pay for the consequences of our sins ourselves in further lives and attain salvation through our own efforts, the sacrifice of Christ becomes useless and absurd. It wouldn’t be the only way back to God, but only a stupid accident of history. In this case Christianity would be a mere form of Hindu Bhakti-Yoga.

As a result, no matter how many attempts are made today to find texts in the Bible or in the history of the Church that would allegedly teach reincarnation, they are all doomed to remain pure speculations.