Tertullian, the majority of believers and the Trinity

[Imagican]

Fran,

Let's TRY this again:

1 Peter 1

1Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,

2Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

4To an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you,

5Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.

We'll pretend the word AND doesn't even EXIST.

3Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This STATEMENT was the PROOF that I was refering to. Let's see how you are ABLE to alter this one.

Blessed be THE GOD AND FATHER of our LORD Jesus Christ.

I EARGERLY await your reply.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Anth]

Fran,

Let's TRY this again:

....hmmm.... you are a slower learner than I am....

 

[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).

Fran,

As I mentioned, we should focus on one very narrow topic - it is so easy to get lost amid myriad of topics - reality is endless and my hands get tired!. The goal is to make some substantive gain in our respective understanding of and,ultimately, conformance to the nature of our Creator. I have reproduced a small section of Tertullians writings from the above link (which, BTW, is a very COOL resource!!). My apologies for the emendations that are included - I don't have control over that though I deleted a few. Please also note that for the purpose of this post I am taking this text as a "received" text - that is, that it was genuinely written by the historical Tertullian and that the original text is essentially retained (we can deal with textual issues in a separate thread if necessary).

Tertullian appears to be making a point blank statement that most of the early church did NOT believe in the Trinity. I have highlighted most of the key texts that make this point. The fact that Tertullian believed in SOME KIND of trinity is not relevant. Unquestionably Tertullian himself (presuming these are his writings) believed in some kind of tri-"personal" manifestation in God - that is not the point. The point is that Tertullian is acknowledging that "THE MAJORITY" of the "BELIEVERS" did NOT believe what Tertullian believed according to his own words. Unless I am missing what seems like plain English.

So the whole point of this post is simply to confirm or deny that Tertullian acknowledged the majority of the believers of his day did not believe in the Trinity based on this text. NOTHING MORE!!! Let us at least get this simple text clarified (if we cannot walk with the footmen, how shall we run with the horsemen...??). If there are other Tertullian texts that might be relevant, that would be acceptable to provide. No other text or source should be referenced for this thread.

It seems that if we are all reasonably honest and intelligent disciples of Jesus - we should be able to read and acknowledge and accept the basic meaning of the above text whatever it might be.

I look forward to you explaining what appears to be the plain meaning of the text in any other way.

Best,
In the man Christ Jesus, the Lord of Glory
Amen

NOTE: Because the majority of the early church were not trinitarian (as I understand from the above), that does not, in itself, necessitate that the trinity is a false model (though it is obviously very damaging).

i may have to step back from my harsh stance against tertullian. I am sorry Lord Jesus. I spoke presumptiously against him thinking that his teaching was inline with modern catholicism but it does not. it looks by his writings he was speaking the truth about 3 dispensations and not 3 persons like catholics say. 3 dispensations is true. it was always presented to me that tertullian was speaking of trinity as 3 persons and he was not as his writings show here. thanks for the post and the correction

 

[Anth]

i may have to step back from my harsh stance against tertullian. I am sorry Lord Jesus. I spoke presumptiously against him thinking that his teaching was inline with modern catholicism but it does not. it looks by his writings he was speaking the truth about 3 dispensations and not 3 persons like catholics say. 3 dispensations is true. it was always presented to me that tertullian was speaking of trinity as 3 persons and he was not as his writings show here. thanks for the post and the correction

King

With all due respect, Tertullian I believe was nearly advocating a tri-personal God - in fact, if you read a few sentences, you will find that his advesaries accuse him of just that - and, I suspect, with good reason.

My main purpose in this post was to recognize that the trinity was a late developing doctrine (promulgated by sopists, e.g. Tertullian, Origen) and that the early church did NOT hold the Trinity - as this passage clearly affirms.

Anth

 

[Imagican]

Exactly. Over and over again, when speaking of 'trinity', there are those that would point that it was a concept WAY before it actually existed in Christianity. So the gist of this thread is whether this is TRUTH or whether 'trinity' came along LATER.

The obviousness of the information available is that; while 'trinity', or the concept, may well have been MENTIONED before 325. (obviously it was), it wasn't a 'doctrine' taught by the apostles. For the words of Tertullian HIMSELF state that those, (the MAJORITY of BELIEVERS), were STARTLED to hear of this 'three-in-one' concept. SO startled, in fact, that they accused those that spoke of it as being polytheists, (followers of more than ONE God).

I believe that this thread was LONG over due. For, so many times we have been bombarded with opinions that state that 'trinity' is MUCH older than it actually is. Indicating that it was 'conceived' by the 'church fathers'. While this MAY WELL be true for SOME, it is certainly not true for OTHERS. For there were OBVIOUSLY MANY at the time of it's conception that DID NOT believe NOR accept this doctrine.

When we begin to study 'trinity', we find that it was a LONG and bitter process to introduce and indoctrinate Christianity INTO it. And this simply begs the question: WHY? Why was it introduced to BEGIN with, and WHY was it SO difficult to solidify it INTO Christianity?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Anth]

I believe that this thread was LONG over due. For, so many times we have been bombarded with opinions that state that 'trinity' is MUCH older than it actually is.

Happy to help

BTW - your points and questions above are right on! It is important to note that both Tertullian and Origen was simply sophists of their day who got involved in religion (perhaps crept into the church??

Best,
Anth

 

[Imagican]

I believe that this thread was LONG over due. For, so many times we have been bombarded with opinions that state that 'trinity' is MUCH older than it actually is.

Happy to help

BTW - your points and questions above are right on! It is important to note that both Tertullian and Origen was simply sophists of their day who got involved in religion (perhaps crept into the church??

Best,
Anth

And, once again, thanks for pointing out WHO these 'people' were. I have offered over and over concerning the issue of 'trinity' that it was 'created' by those WELL familiar with Mythology and Philosophy. The Greeks and Romans PRIDED themselves on these ideological disciplines. It is OBVIOUS in the wording of concepts such as 'trinity' that this is EXACTLY where it CAME from: wisdom of MEN.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

The Greeks and Romans PRIDED themselves on these ideological disciplines. It is OBVIOUS in the wording of concepts such as 'trinity' that this is EXACTLY where it CAME from: wisdom of MEN.

:biglol

Unlike YOUR "offerings", which are from God, no doubt???



Are you so daft that you cannot figure out that your offerings are the "wisdom of men"?

Whether the definitions of Trinity were promulgated in 325 or 200 or 50 AD make little difference, since they are based upon Scriptures and Apostolic Teachings by men led by the Spirit of Truth, as promised by the Christ, the same men who also were led by the Spirit of Truth to recognize and canonize Scriptures. We recognize that God has gradually revealed Himself to mankind (such as the canon of Scriptures), and some things, we are STILL trying to figure out about Him. The Spirit is STILL leading us to all knowledge and truth...

I have said enough and I will leave you the final posts...

 

[Imagican]

The Greeks and Romans PRIDED themselves on these ideological disciplines. It is OBVIOUS in the wording of concepts such as 'trinity' that this is EXACTLY where it CAME from: wisdom of MEN.

:biglol

Unlike YOUR "offerings", which are from God, no doubt???



Are you so daft that you cannot figure out that your offerings are the "wisdom of men"?

Whether the definitions of Trinity were promulgated in 325 or 200 or 50 AD make little difference, since they are based upon Scriptures and Apostolic Teachings by men led by the Spirit of Truth, as promised by the Christ, the same men who also were led by the Spirit of Truth to recognize and canonize Scriptures. We recognize that God has gradually revealed Himself to mankind (such as the canon of Scriptures), and some things, we are STILL trying to figure out about Him. The Spirit is STILL leading us to all knowledge and truth...

I have said enough and I will leave you the final posts...

By KNOWING you I can take your response as hitting WAY TOO CLOSE TO HOME.

IF 'trinity' was SIMPLY based on scripture and apostolic teachings by men led BY the Spirit in truth, then I would ACCEPT what you offer. But the TRUTH is that this is NOT SO. You may have been LED to believe it so, but the TRUTH is that there were MANY involved with the 'creation' of the concept that YOU HAVE NO MEANS TO KNOW what 'spirit' led them. Since 'trinity' was NOT offered in scripture, by the apostles or Christ Himself, I contend that your 'words' have little bearing on the truth.

You are a 'funny guy'. "Evolving identity' eh? That's a good one. Since we are SO STUPID, God was UNABLE to reveal Himself once and for all. It took TIME for Him to 'let us know' WHO He IS. And, EVEN those CHOSEN to reveal Him to us were UNABLE to conceive of His TRUE identity. It took MEN from a 'different time' and 'differnt' beliefs to UNDERSTAND what God was TRYING to say but couldn't be understood until the RIGHT men came along to discern what He meant.

Golly Gee Gomer, I thought I COULD 'have my cake and eat it too'.

Now Fran, where is YOUR proof that YOUR church is NOT a 'church of ONE'? That 'in the beginning' of YOUR church, that there was NOT just ONE MAN that created the beliefs that YOU follow. And having the power and authority to DO SO, was ABLE to 'create' that which we CLEARLY SEE today? An 'evolving church' so to speak.

I was going over some of the past posts and found it amusing to re-read your posts. You will ULTIMATELY refuse to answer, (or talk around), ANYTHING that refutes what you offer. ANYTHING. Once gain, IS God a PERSON? A simple YES or NO will suffice. And NO, I am NOT asking if the WORD person was EVER used in reference, I am asking you POINT BLANK: IS GOD A PERSON?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

I was going over some of the past posts and found it amusing to re-read your posts. You will ULTIMATELY refuse to answer, (or talk around), ANYTHING that refutes what you offer. ANYTHING. Once gain, IS God a PERSON? A simple YES or NO will suffice. And NO, I am NOT asking if the WORD person was EVER used in reference, I am asking you POINT BLANK: IS GOD A PERSON?

Blessings,

MEC

I will merely repeat what I wrote elsewhere...

Stop trolling. I have determined that future discussion with you is futile, so please stop trying to get me to make derogatory comments. I do not intend on answering you directly. Discussion with you, I have found, drains the spiritual life out of me and I have no desire to "prove" anything to you. You can take it or leave it.