The goal of this research is to compare early Christianity with its philosophical contemporary of Stoicism, by exploring how their respective metaphysical systems effected their prescribed ethical perspectives. This project will argue that while there are general points of congruence in their ethics and metaphysics there are salient points of disagreement – something that is often downplayed. Throughout this paper I will compare the two systems upon the following contours: points of agreement, points of seeming agreement, and points of disagreement. For each point, I will assess a claim made by each system and explore the respective metaphysics that inform that claim. I will assess points of agreement, disagreement, and seeming agreement in the domains of their respective views on God, anthropology, ethics, and providence. On God we find disagreement in the relation between God and the universe. The Stoic system describes God as corporeal and mixed into the universe, to the point that God and the universe are occupying the same space, at the same time. Hence the Stoics are often interpreted as pantheists. The Christian system contrasts with this as it distinguishes God as wholly other than the universe. The Christian God is transcendent in relation to the universe; the Stoic God is nearly identical to the universe. This is a metaphysical disagreement. With respect to fate, while we find seeming agreement in both systems’ description of God as providentially working in the unfolding of history, there is disagreement, however, in the axiology of that providence. The Stoic maintains that all that happens is according to the God’s rational plan and is accordingly good. The Christian system would respond rather that God is working all things towards good. In the Christian system God is working all things out “according to the counsel of his will” and “for the good of those who love God.” According to the Christian, history is working towards redemption, in the Stoic system history needs no redemption. On Anthropology, there is seeming agreement in how human value is described but upon further analysis disagreement comes to the surface. While the systems share similar language to speak of the soul of a human and agree that humans have a high place in the cosmos, they disagree in how that value is grounded. In the Stoic system human value is grounded in that we are an instance of the God who permeates all. In our sharing of the divine rationality, we “constitute an emanation” of that God. In the Christian system human value is grounded in our relation to God as his image bearers. There is a distinction between God and man. That is to say we share a likeness and relation to God while remaining something separate, while the Stoics say we are something more like an occurrence or instance of God. This is a point of disagreement. On ethics, we find a seeming agreement in that both systems describe a struggle between vice and virtue for the Stoics and sin and righteousness for the Christians. Disagreement arises in their means to overcome the respective struggles. The Stoic maintains that humans are self-sufficient in their nature to overcome vice, given their divine rationality. The Christian maintains the natural human is not sufficient to overcome sin, rather grace is necessary. By comparing the two systems in the previously mentioned domains, this research illustrates that while there is often surface level agreement, there are sharp and irreconcilable differences between the two systems.