Taking Tertullian and Origen as examples, describe the different ways in which the Church Fathers aproached the problem of faith and reason. How can St. Paul's Areopagus speech be seen to set the tone for the discussion?
Both thinkers are interesting in that they both applied reason and logic to develop and formulate new ways of solidifying or consolidating Christian thought and approaches to areas of doctrine that did much to help identify the early Christian church. The concept of simple vs. single faith is something that is highlighted above, and this clearly relates to your question.
Both Tertullian and Origen were instrumental in formulating hypotheses, which while controversial, and (in the case of Origen) mostly deemed heretical in the Arian controversy, served as points of debate in articulating exactly what forms Christianity would take. Tertullian, in particular, was very important in explaining the nature of the Trinity. In any case, both thinkers explained the ways in which the new faith would diverge from pagan faiths.
Tertullian is often associated with the idea of "simple faith" (that is, a faith that does not rely excessively upon reason for justification of belief); Origen is often associated with the idea of "single faith," which stressed the importance of reason in justifying faith. For more on this contrast, follow this link:
The focus of the speech was on the danger of Pagan traditions, including the worship of false idols. He basically was suggesting the Church had outgrown these transitional ideas and needed to focus on God and proper tenets of worship. These leftover Pagan influences did more harm than good.