Tertullian, the majority of believers and the Trinity

[Anth]

[quote:joj9tfmh]Tertullian:
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God;

It is clear that the not only are the simple startled - they are asserting that Tertullian IS A LIAR!!!!!![/quote:joj9tfmh]

You totally avoided dealing with Tertullian's statement which clearly shows the context - the majority of the church "were CONSTANTLY throwing out against us" - and showed their teachings were in total contrast.

Are you going to deal with this text???

Anth

 

[Imagican]

Allow me to answer for him: NO, there is NO way that Fran is going to admit that he was wrong from the BEGINNING of this arguement.

As stated previous, I read the writting over and over and it is APPARENT in context that Tertullian IS offering that the MAJORITY of those FOLLOWING Christ were NOT in AGREEMENT with 'trinity' or even the CONCEPT of Christ AS God.

Anyone that has done ANY amount of study concerning 'trinity' is WELL aware that for the first three hundred years of Christianity there was NO "trinity''. The WORD may well have been MENTIONED, but the DOCTRINE was NOT defined NOR implimented until HUNDREDS of years AFTER the death of Christ. This BEING the case, it is OBVIOUS that the MAJORITY of 'followers' knew LITTLE if ANYTHING about this concept.

So, LIKE it or NOT, that is NOT the issue. We, (at least I THOUGHT was the case), were discussing whether or not the MAJORITY of BELIEVERS believed as Tertullian or 'something different'. By the MAN'S OWN ADMISSION, it is CLEAR that the MAJORITY, (the SIMPLE and UNLEARED are USUALLY refered to as JUST SUCH a GROUP), did NOT believe as offered by Tertullian and were actually STARTLED to hear of such teachings.

And startled is NOT used as a mere defining of 'surprised'. Startled would be more in line with SHOCKED.

And it's FUNNY that this argument exists to START with. I have NEVER had EVEN KNOWLEDGABLE CATHOLICS argue that 'trinity' as offered by Tertullian was a GENERAL BELIEF. For even those students and FOLLOWERS of the Catholic faith are USUALLY willing to OPENLY admit that Tertullian IS considered to be one that FIRST even MENTIONED the WORD 'trinity' as concerns Christianity. Fran is simply choosing beligerence for the sake of 'argument'.

For I can assure ANYONE following this thread that He is CERTAINLY not offering the ACCEPTED belief in the truth concerning Tertullian and the NATURE of his writtings. For Tertullian's offerings WERE ''NEW'' and had as YET to be either accepted or denied by The Church that Fran refers to.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

[quote:2uq202zq]Tertullian:
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God;

It is clear that the not only are the simple startled - they are asserting that Tertullian IS A LIAR!!!!!!

You totally avoided dealing with Tertullian's statement which clearly shows the context - the majority of the church "were CONSTANTLY throwing out against us" - and showed their teachings were in total contrast.

Are you going to deal with this text???

Anth[/quote:2uq202zq]

I already did. I even gave you some Bible verses.

Are you going to present me with some evidence?

 

[francisdesales]

Allow me to answer for him: NO, there is NO way that Fran is going to admit that he was wrong from the BEGINNING of this arguement.

As stated previous, I read the writting over and over and it is APPARENT in context that Tertullian IS offering that the MAJORITY of those FOLLOWING Christ were NOT in AGREEMENT with 'trinity' or even the CONCEPT of Christ AS God.

Anyone that has done ANY amount of study concerning 'trinity' is WELL aware that for the first three hundred years of Christianity there was NO "trinity''. The WORD may well have been MENTIONED, but the DOCTRINE was NOT defined NOR implimented until HUNDREDS of years AFTER the death of Christ. This BEING the case, it is OBVIOUS that the MAJORITY of 'followers' knew LITTLE if ANYTHING about this concept.

So, LIKE it or NOT, that is NOT the issue. We, (at least I THOUGHT was the case), were discussing whether or not the MAJORITY of BELIEVERS believed as Tertullian or 'something different'. By the MAN'S OWN ADMISSION, it is CLEAR that the MAJORITY, (the SIMPLE and UNLEARED are USUALLY refered to as JUST SUCH a GROUP), did NOT believe as offered by Tertullian and were actually STARTLED to hear of such teachings.

And startled is NOT used as a mere defining of 'surprised'. Startled would be more in line with SHOCKED.

And it's FUNNY that this argument exists to START with. I have NEVER had EVEN KNOWLEDGABLE CATHOLICS argue that 'trinity' as offered by Tertullian was a GENERAL BELIEF. For even those students and FOLLOWERS of the Catholic faith are USUALLY willing to OPENLY admit that Tertullian IS considered to be one that FIRST even MENTIONED the WORD 'trinity' as concerns Christianity. Fran is simply choosing beligerence for the sake of 'argument'.

For I can assure ANYONE following this thread that He is CERTAINLY not offering the ACCEPTED belief in the truth concerning Tertullian and the NATURE of his writtings. For Tertullian's offerings WERE ''NEW'' and had as YET to be either accepted or denied by The Church that Fran refers to.

Blessings,

MEC

Do you actually have anything to say about the OP, or is this another Imagican rant?

 

[francisdesales]

[quote:2j1o1fy3]Tertullian:
They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God;

It is clear that the not only are the simple startled - they are asserting that Tertullian IS A LIAR!!!!!!

You totally avoided dealing with Tertullian's statement which clearly shows the context - the majority of the church "were CONSTANTLY throwing out against us" - and showed their teachings were in total contrast.

Are you going to deal with this text???

Anth[/quote:2j1o1fy3]


The fact of the matter is that Tertullian is certainly not writing to Praxeas to tell him about how he has "startled" the simple Catholics with his new-found theology - as in they rejected it. It would be destroying his VERY REASON for writing Praxeas in the first place. Think about it. Do you really think Tertullian is telling Praxeas that the tract he is about to embark upon is rejected by the Church?

Some common sense would be useful right about now. It should be evident that Tertullian is not undermining his very position by TELLING Praxeas that he is ALSO a "new-fangled" heretic!

:halo

 

[Imagican]

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (οἰκονÃ…μία) (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God).77917791 So Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 499. And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the οἰκονομία, or Dispensation (of the Three in One).

These statements PLAINLY point to the FACT that Tertullian is offering that the MAJORITY of BELIEVERS do NOT understand the 'trinity' that is being spoken of. They do NOT accept a 'plurality of gods' as in 'three in one'. These are actually ACCUSING those that teach this 'triune nature' of being worshipers of MORE THAN ONE GOD. He even goes so far as to say that the GREEKS REFUSE to accept this 'dispensatoin of THREE IN ONE.

This is PURE and UTTER statement that the MAJORITY of believers do NOT, at this TIME, accept 'trinity'. And that they do NOT even UNDERSTAND how those that PREACH it are ABLE to claim a following of the ONE TRUE GOD. Believing instead, that those that PREACH this 'trinity' are POLYTHEISTS that worship TWO or even THREE Gods.

Now, HOW one can DENY what is so SIMPLY STATED is beyond my ability to perceive. The ONLY reason that ANYONE would offer ANYTHING against what I have broken down here would be for the sake of UTTER deception. For the words are CLEARLY stated. This writting does NOT require PERSONAL interpretation. The words are CLEARLY OFFERED.

Fran, how is it SO difficult to accept the truth when it is STARING you in the FACE? Now, I challenge you to either admit that you have been PURPOSELY being deceptive over this issue, or I contend that there is NO TRUTH in you whatsoever.

God is MY witness. Who is YOURS?

Help us out here folks. Is it simply MY inability to UNDERSTAND the words that are written above, or is Fran DELIBERATELY being DECEPTIVE?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Anth]

I already did. I even gave you some Bible verses.

:crazy Bible verses??? What do Bible vss have to do with this specific issue I am raising?

The specific issue only relates to this quote from Tertullian and the question is whether the majority of believers accepted (albeit were puzzled) by what Tertullian taught (which you are teaching based on your interpretation of the word "startled")

OR

Whether they were shocked by what Tertullian was teachings and in fact rejected his teachings since as clearly demonstrated by Tertullian's statement "They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; "

in which Tertullian ACKNOWLEDGES that the rule of faith of THE MAJORITY was so diametrically opposed to Tertullian's rule of faith that they labeled Tertullian a BINATARIAN or a TRINITARIAN.

Here I am only dealing with this one sentence highlight in bold above. Please provide a cut and paste of how you responded to the one sentence highlighted in bold above.

Anth

 

[francisdesales]

:crazy Bible verses??? What do Bible vss have to do with this specific issue I am raising?

Go back and read the post that have the Bible verses and it will become more clear.

The specific issue only relates to this quote from Tertullian and the question is whether the majority of believers accepted (albeit were puzzled) by what Tertullian taught (which you are teaching based on your interpretation of the word "startled")

OR

Whether they were shocked by what Tertullian was teachings and in fact rejected his teachings since as clearly demonstrated by Tertullian's statement "They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; "

Again, Tertullian is not making the claim that he is teaching something new. That is quite obvious when he states that HE is teaching the Rule of Faith vs. Praxeas' understanding.

in which Tertullian ACKNOWLEDGES that the rule of faith of THE MAJORITY was so diametrically opposed to Tertullian's rule of faith that they labeled Tertullian a BINATARIAN or a TRINITARIAN.

Because they were simple-minded and infants in the faith, which brings us in full circle to the reason for the Bible quotes... The connection is clear.

 

[francisdesales]

Help us out here folks. Is it simply MY inability to UNDERSTAND the words that are written above, or is Fran DELIBERATELY being DECEPTIVE?

Are you saying that all Christians feed on the "meat" of the Gospel and that the simple minded are not babes or infants with limited understanding? Paul seems to have had the same problems that Tertullian did. Are you saying that Paul also was teaching something outside of the Rule of Faith?

Can I make this any clearer to you? To answer your question, it is the former...

 

[Imagican]

Fran,

EVERYONE, (anyone that has ever STUDIED 'trinity'), KNOWS that 'trinity' was NOT what the first followers of Christ BELIEVED. Your insinuations that they did is absolutely INSULTING to ANYONE with a GRAIN of intellect or understanding.

i THOUGHT the ENTIRE premise of this thread was the POINT that Tertullian was WELL AWARE that the MAJORITY of FOLLOWERS, (I couldn't care LESS whether YOU consider these, or HE considered these to BE 'babes in Christ'. That is NOT THE POINT), did NOT believe as Tertullian did. And HIS OWN WORDS bear this out.

"Trinity'' was NOT EVEN confirmed doctrine UNTIL LONG AFTER Tertullian was DEAD.

I have YET to find a SINGLE offering of the apostles that Christ WAS God Himself. YES, you can CERTAINLY twist words in order to MAKE scripture say what YOU CHOOSE. But the FACT is, there is not a SINGLE statement of the apostles that SAYS; "Jesus Christ IS God".

Therefore, it would be SAFE to say that they, (the apostles), did NOT follow in belief, this 'trinity'. And these were those CHOSEN BY CHRIST HIMSELF to 'spread The Word'. And if the apostles did NOT believe in this 'three in one God', then they OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TEACH IT TO OTHERS.

Fran, you have certainly 'proven yourself' in this thread. I can see that REASON or TRUTH plays LITTLE part in your BELIEF. That you have simply chosen to follow certain teachings and regardless of their validity, you will go to practically ANY lengths to defend it. While I admire such passion, I can ONLY offer that; such passion, when improperly directed, can ONLY be 'downright dangerous'. Especially when it concerns such an important aspect of our lives as 'FAITH' is concerned.

I HOPE that one day you will be ABLE to come to the truth and flee that which you follow. For there is SO MUCH to be cherished in truth and little to be gained in following that which ISN'T. God LOVES you and sent His Son to DIE for you. But, you MUST be ABLE to ACCEPT what has been offered in order to grow into that which we were MEANT to be. So long as ANYONE chooses to 'follow MEN', they are doomed to the flesh and all that has been reserved for IT.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Anth]

Again, Tertullian is not making the claim that he is teaching something new. That is quite obvious when he states that HE is teaching the Rule of Faith vs. Praxeas' understanding.

Fran -

You are completely avoiding the text and my point for posting it (raisiing up straw men that I never referenced). I am amazed at how slithery you are - admittedly I have met some RC how could avoid the color of the sky but I never met anyone who could avoid the sky itself....

All right - you have shown yourself not worth the time. I now understand why the "bullseye is on your back" - not because you are RC but because you refuse to be honest - in this case, refusing to acknowledge the point I have raised and the specific statement of the text.

MEC was correct - NO, you will NOT answer the question.

Anth

I look forward to an honest open discussion with a member of the RC - I long for such a discussion in fact

 

[Rick W]

There's still the opinion that the Trinity is a man's doctrine taught solely by man. Ok, so some believe that but I must point out there are others that came to the conclusion of a triune God simply by reading the bible, a conclusion drawn of their own accord. I'm such a one. It wasn't until some time afterward that I learned of the term Trinity. Back then it solved my dilemma of "Why would God command someone to do something He wasn't willing to do Himself?" When I read those verses in John it became clear that He didn't. And that gave me quite a different perspective of the nature of God. It really touched my heart for who God is.
In these cases it is man who then "unteaches" the doctrine. And as far as I'm concerned I'm not going to allow any man to dispel that belief. It's far too important for me.
As far as the RC is concerned they don't own the doctrine of a triune God. There are denominations that hold to the doctrine but don't follow many other Catholic teachings. As far as I can tell there was debate about the issue long before the Catholic Church made the Trinity an "official" doctrine. And I can well imagine all the points from both sides presented here were voiced with just as much passion as we see in these "Trinity" threads.
For me it was reading John 1:1 then running into John 1:14. From then on that realization gave me a new perspective on reading the bible and I reread much I had read before. What I read reinforced what I concluded from the first chapter of John.
If there are those who want to dispel the belief of a triune God then about the only way to assure that happens to to get rid of John 1:1 and John 1:14 because those verses seem to be the focal point at which many conclude the deity of Christ within a triune belief.

I would also like add a reminder to all to please respect each other and not allow opposition to get the better of you. Civil discussion without a constant motivation to "win" makes for much better reading.

 

[Imagican]

Rick,

While I DO respect the right of others to BELIEVE as they CHOOSE, I believe if you have been following this thread, you will NOT be ABLE to deny that; what has been offered, so far as Tertullian's writting is concerned, STRAIGHT OUT speaks of the majority of BELIEVERS, of THAT TIME, to be SHOCKED to hear of this 'triune God'.

Since that IS the topic of concern, perhaps YOU would care to step in and tell us what YOU think Tertullian is offering in the piece of writing that we are using in this thread. Give us YOUR opinion of what HE is saying.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

You are completely avoiding the text and my point for posting it (raisiing up straw men that I never referenced). I am amazed at how slithery you are - admittedly I have met some RC how could avoid the color of the sky but I never met anyone who could avoid the sky itself....

I think you need to re-read this entire thread and reassess your accusations. I have addressed all of your concerns and have done so from multiple directions, even bringing the Bible into play to help explain what Tertullian was doing and the "accusations" from the "simple-minded". I have not "completely avoided" a thing, despite the drama you desire to dredge up. I have addressed and disagreed with your interpretation of Tertullian.

Anyone reading this thread will soon see that it is YOU who are avoiding the totality of the context. You focus on one sentence and blot out all attempts to place it within a proper context.

Again, I say, "which person thinks Tertullian, on the one hand, would say "I teach a new theology, one rejected by Christians of the faith" while CONDEMNING Praxeas of the very same thing in the same work???!!! Do you really think Tertullian is telling Praxeas that the tract he is about to embark upon is rejected by the Church?

Is Tertullian that stupid that he admits that he teaches another Gospel and then accuses Praxeas of teaching another Gospel??? Quite obviously, you read Tertullian's sentence out of context.

Please. Try to read beyond one sentence...

Furthermore, I gave you a very clear example to consider (if you could swallow the pride). If we had your attitude, we'd have to condemn Paul for the very same thing you accuse Tertullian of. He teaches "meat" and those who are yet carnal have problems with that, still feeding on "milk". But all you can do is make crazy faces and utterly refuse to hear what I have to say to help explain the context. Good for you. I can see how intent you are in reaching the truth of the matter.

Who (unless they only read one sentence of Tertullian) can think I have tried to provide the context for Tertullian's words, but you will not have it.

The issue is not how slithery I am, (which again shows your debating techniques) but why you refuse to consider what I am saying in response to you.

I hadn't realized that your definition of "responding to me" = "total abject admitting of defeat..." Apparently, I will no longer be "completely avoiding the text" UNTIL I bow in complete adject humiliation. Any attempt to show the wider scope of the context is deemed as "slithery".



How ironic...

I now understand why the "bullseye is on your back" - not because you are RC but because you refuse to be honest - in this case, refusing to acknowledge the point I have raised and the specific statement of the text.

I have answered the question. The issue is that the answer is not to your liking. Thus, your whining...

I look forward to an honest open discussion with a member of the RC - I long for such a discussion in fact

You look forward to no such thing.

I have participated in a number of such discussions with non-Catholics here. Many times, we part company with a mutual respect for each other, not requiring that the other admit "adject defeat", as you so desire in conversations. I enjoy open discussion with someone who is respectful of me and don't expect me to toss aside my beliefs during discussion, but I don't think YOU are capable of open and honest discussion, honestly. You may PM Rick, one of the moderators who has responded here recently, if you don't believe what I have done here before.

If I was so combative, as MEC suggests, I would have been banned long ago and people wouldn't bother writing to me who have been here awhile. It would be quite easy for the Protestant administrators to eliminate this Catholic from the forum if they felt I was being combative or disrespectful to their fellow Protestant brothers. The fact of the matter is that the two of you choose not to see my point of view and that carnal Christians do not necessarily understand the deeper teachings of Christianity. Their blindness or immaturity does not mean these sublime teachings were not part of Christianity. Sublime teachings do not require common acceptance by the simple-minded. My point is that the essentials of Trinitarian teaching existed long before Tertullian. He was the first to FORMULATE it into a coherent writing that we still have many years later. Is this so difficult to understand?

Re-read this thread. I have responded to you, but you have not responded to my issues to defend my point. This is certainly not my fault, but yours.

 

[kingdavid]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html

Chapter III.â€â€Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (οἰκονÃ…μία) (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of God).77917791 So Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 499. And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their understanding of the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the μοναÃÂÇία (or Monarchy), while Greeks actually refuse to understand the οἰκονομία, or Dispensation (of the Three in One).

the man of God named william branham did preach that God was in 3 dispensations, not persons as tertullian wrote here. moses was a minister of the 1st dispensation of the Father, paul was a minister of the 2nd dispensation of Christ, and i belive what we saw in william branham's ministry was the fulfillment of bible prophecy of the 3rd dispensation of the Holy Spirit. the scripture prophecied of a new dispensation to come which said, in the dispensation of the fulness of times when all things shall be fulfilled. this was the prophecy of the 3rd and final dispensation, the dispensation of the holy ghost


however, this was not his explanation of the Godhead so don't confuse this truth and say bro. branham was a strict modalist. he was not.

 

[francisdesales]

Fran,

EVERYONE, (anyone that has ever STUDIED 'trinity'), KNOWS that 'trinity' was NOT what the first followers of Christ BELIEVED. Your insinuations that they did is absolutely INSULTING to ANYONE with a GRAIN of intellect or understanding.

The elements of Trinity are all in the Bible, whether you accept that or not. When later Christians questions the seemingly contradictory proclamations of "God is One" and "God is Father, God is Son, and God is Spirit", then it became necessary to further ponder on God's Word. Trying to fit God into a box because you do not want to ponder is a choice you are making, a choice to move to darkness rather than light.

i THOUGHT the ENTIRE premise of this thread was the POINT that Tertullian was WELL AWARE that the MAJORITY of FOLLOWERS, (I couldn't care LESS whether YOU consider these, or HE considered these to BE 'babes in Christ'. That is NOT THE POINT), did NOT believe as Tertullian did. And HIS OWN WORDS bear this out.

They did not understand how the two propositions could be BOTH true. They accepted both propositions, admitting that the Son of God WAS God, with God, and was given everything of God's before creation. You misunderstand the premise. The premise is not whether everyone recited the Nicene Creed in 200 AD. The premise is whether the elements of Trinity were present among the believers. Whether the Rule of Faith was overturned by this explanation that we now call "Trinity".

"Trinity'' was NOT EVEN confirmed doctrine UNTIL LONG AFTER Tertullian was DEAD.

So what? That reflection ALWAYS comes later. Dogma is merely a reflection on what we ALREADY believe, not a new teaching that was never believed before. It is a definition that accurately and precisely defines a difficult teaching (usually instigated by false teachers).

I have YET to find a SINGLE offering of the apostles that Christ WAS God Himself.

He does so subtly throughout. The problem is that you are like the Jewish Pharisees, expecting SOMETHING that must fit into YOUR paradigm. Otherwise, it is not so. Just like the Jews who would not accept Christ, because He didn't fit into THEIR plans of what the Messiah should be. You completely miss the point of the Gospels, that Jesus revealed Himself in HIS particular way and that it is the BELIEVER who must come to believe what is offered, NOT whether God fits into YOUR paradigm of acceptance...

YES, you can CERTAINLY twist words in order to MAKE scripture say what YOU CHOOSE. But the FACT is, there is not a SINGLE statement of the apostles that SAYS; "Jesus Christ IS God".

There is plenty of statements that leads one by faith that Jesus is Lord and God. If you don't have faith that Jesus is our Lord and Savior, God Himself in flesh, that is your perogative. But DO NOT call yourself Christian, then. That name is reserved for those of us who believe that Jesus is indeed God who became man.

And if the apostles did NOT believe in this 'three in one God', then they OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T TEACH IT TO OTHERS.

Let's lay this out mathematically. Maybe you are better in math than in theology...

If A=B
and C=B
and D=B,

Then A=C=D.

In logic (or math), one can take propositions that do not directly equal each other and are related only indirectly, and show a relationship of equality. This is the same thing that happens with Trinity. We have enough to see that Jesus is God, although YOU say there is no Scriptural support DIRECTLY.

Fran, you have certainly 'proven yourself' in this thread. I can see that REASON or TRUTH plays LITTLE part in your BELIEF...

[/quote]

Uh-oh, another rant. Count me out...I am not interested in your little temper-tantrums just because you cannot understand (or ALLOW me to explain) my explanations. I have learned to ignore such childish rants, not only from 6 year olds, but from you, as well.

So long

 

[mondar]

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.v.ix.iii.html

Chapter III.â€â€Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions.

"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (οἰκονÃ…μία) (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God;[/size] not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own οἰκονομία . The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it."

In Tertullians day there were two groups. Tertullian was an early leader of the homoousians (Those that believe Christ was the same substance as God). He was opposed to the homooiousians (those that believed Christ was of a similar substance).

What say you Anth, are the "simple" in your quote homooiousians that were opposed to Tertullian's teaching? Or are these "simple" are people who saw Tertullian as teaching three gods, and Tertullian seeks to correct their misunderstanding?

Sorry for any bad spelling of the words. I should look them up.

 

[kingdavid]

Fran,

EVERYONE, (anyone that has ever STUDIED 'trinity'), KNOWS that 'trinity' was NOT what the first followers of Christ BELIEVED. Your insinuations that they did is absolutely INSULTING to ANYONE with a GRAIN of intellect or understanding.

The elements of Trinity are all in the Bible, whether you accept that or not. When later Christians questions the seemingly contradictory proclamations of "God is One" and "God is Father, God is Son, and God is Spirit", then it became necessary to further ponder on God's Word. Trying to fit God into a box because you do not want to ponder is a choice you are making, a choice to move to darkness rather than light.

no, the scriptures all indicate that there is One God and He had a Son, not trinity. it is the Both of them and they are not seperate from each other.

God said, let us(God speaking to His Son) and what relationship did Christ have with God in the Beginning? The Son/christ was in the Father. God was speaking to the one that was in Him. that is the oneness that christ had with God in the beginning.

that is the same image and likeness that the christian has to fulfill the lord's prayer that we be one like him and the Father. Christ dwells in the believer. Christians speak to the one that is in them which is Christ. it is not as the new agers say that we are speaking to our selves but we are speaking to christ in us but to the world it may appear that the christians speak to themselves yet they are in error

 

[Anth]

If there are those who want to dispel the belief of a triune God then about the only way to assure that happens to to get rid of John 1:1 and John 1:14 because those verses seem to be the focal point at which many conclude the deity of Christ within a triune belief.

I would also like add a reminder to all to please respect each other and not allow opposition to get the better of you. Civil discussion without a constant motivation to "win" makes for much better reading.
Rick W
Christian Forum Pro

Rick,

I did not copy your entire quote - but I want to thank you for both your testimony and the very positive presentation and admonition to what is obviously been a difficult subject for millenia.

I do think your testimony is interesting. I am reminded that I came to certain conclusions when I was a "young" Christian - conclusions which I later realized - as I became more familiar the manners of speaking by an Eastern (vs. our very systematic Western) linguistic culture that used words much more randomly with metaphor and much poetic license (John said, "I am NOT Elijah", Jesus said, John IS Elijah - the Western mind says - COME ON GUYS, GET IT TOGETHER HERE....!!) - were inaccurate.

I would like to dialogue a bit with you on this matter but I am tending towards closing this thread since it was primarily a point of contact with Fran. However, I want others be able to use it as well to at least gain some familiarity with what is a "startling" passage from Tertullian - and certainly contrary to the "received text of history".

At some point we can dive into Jn1:1, 14 (a couple of my favorite verses) - GOD SPOKE - AND A MAN BECAME..... (how cool is that!!!!) but in a separate thread.

Best,
Anth

 

[Anth]

the man of God named william branham did preach that God was in 3 dispensations, not persons as tertullian wrote here. moses was a minister of the 1st dispensation of the Father, paul was a minister of the 2nd dispensation of Christ, and i belive what we saw in william branham's ministry was the fulfillment of bible prophecy of the 3rd dispensation of the Holy Spirit. the scripture prophecied of a new dispensation to come which said, in the dispensation of the fulness of times when all things shall be fulfilled. this was the prophecy of the 3rd and final dispensation, the dispensation of the holy ghost

however, this was not his explanation of the Godhead so don't confuse this truth and say bro. branham was a strict modalist. he was not.

King D

There is not a man nor a preacher who I appreciate and respect more than William Branham. I don't necessarily accept all that he said - but I have never seen someone - at least as best as I could tell - totally functioned in integrity and humility before God.

Peace,
Anth