was tertullian a wolf in sheeps clothing?

[kingdavid]

he is the first one to coin the phrase trinity and followed false prochecy known as montanism to his own destruction.

i think that would definitely classify him as a false teacher and an antichrist. a reprobate who knew not God

 

[Imagican]

I have always found it amusing that those that would POINT to this man's 'belief' in 'trinity' yet NOT POINT out that he was LATER considered to BE an 'heretic' over OTHER issues. Using HIM to show that 'trinity' existed well before 324 AD, but LEAVE OUT that he was LATER deemed to be an heretic.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[follower of Christ]

he is the first one to coin the phrase trinity and followed false prochecy known as montanism to his own destruction.

i think that would definitely classify him as a false teacher and an antichrist. a reprobate who knew not God

In reading the ECFs in general frankly I find that many to most of them taught damnable heresies....including pennace for payment for sin and confession to priests rather than God....Universalism and preexistence of the soul...alls sorts of godless tripe.

So Tertullian isnt the only guilty party. Hes just one that gets some extra attention for his deceptive heresies. We can thank the catholic church for his notoriety

 

[follower of Christ]

I have always found it amusing that those that would POINT to this man's 'belief' in 'trinity' yet NOT POINT out that he was LATER considered to BE an 'heretic' over OTHER issues. Using HIM to show that 'trinity' existed well before 324 AD, but LEAVE OUT that he was LATER deemed to be an heretic.

Blessings,

MEC

Irrelevant.
Just because a man teaches SOME error doesnt mean that EVERYthing he believes is also error. Otherwise every group on this planet who professes Christ is completely lost in error and always have been.

We can look to the ECFs, not for doctrine, but to see *IF* a view existed then at all...if anyone ever concluded what we have and do. Which is the only thing the ECFs are good for.

 

[francisdesales]

So Tertullian isnt the only guilty party. Hes just one that gets some extra attention for his deceptive heresies. We can thank the catholic church for his notoriety

Thank them for your Bible, while you're at it...

Just because YOU think certain things are "godless tripe" doesn't make it so...

Lot of people thought a criminal rising from the dead as the savior of man was "godless tripe", as well.

 

[francisdesales]

I have always found it amusing that those that would POINT to this man's 'belief' in 'trinity' yet NOT POINT out that he was LATER considered to BE an 'heretic' over OTHER issues. Using HIM to show that 'trinity' existed well before 324 AD, but LEAVE OUT that he was LATER deemed to be an heretic.

Blessings,

MEC

Typical of your posts...

Tertullian wrote his defense of the Blessed Trinity WHILE in schism from the Catholic Church. Just because he disagreed on the strictness of action within the Church doesn't mean he totally rejected the Gospel. Even today, we find numerous non-catholic Christians who still teach truth in many instances, as in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Do you even know WHY Tertullian left the Catholic Church?

 

[Imagican]

I thought that it was for JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you stated. He thought that the CC was TOO slack. He opted for a MUCH MORE strict following of the Gospels and doctrines.

But the point is this: If this man was LITERALLY INSPIRED from above, how could he have been RIGHT about ONE THING and WRONG about SO MUCH MORE?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

I thought that it was for JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you stated. He thought that the CC was TOO slack. He opted for a MUCH MORE strict following of the Gospels and doctrines.

I didn't state that Tertullain thought the Catholic Church was too strict. I said he disagreed on the strictness of the Church's action, which was, in his view, to lax. You are correct that he was more strict. He didn't think the Church had the power to forgive adulterers, for example.

But the point is this: If this man was LITERALLY INSPIRED from above, how could he have been RIGHT about ONE THING and WRONG about SO MUCH MORE?

You STILL think that the Holy Spirit inspires a single individual to be right on EVERYTHING?

We don't say Tertullian was "inspired from above", as if writing Scriptures. He was merely relating that apostolic doctrine taught into a coherent writing that the rest of the Church said "Yep, that's what we believe".

He disapproved of the Church's desire to forgive, as the Lord did... This does not mean that Tertullian was wrong on everything. As I have said so many times, people are very rarely always wrong on matters of religion... All religions, means of reaching to God, have some truth. And all schismatics are correct on many positions of the faith. They left because of one or several issues, not a complete and total disagreement on every issue of faith. Note on this forum that many non-Catholics agree with me on numerous issues.

 

[Imagican]

No, Fran, I don't. But I find it suspect that an individual that introduced something as MONUMENTAL as 'trinity' could have been SO CONFUSED about so much of the REST of his understanding. For, it has been pointed out over and over again that this man WAS instrumental in the formation of the 'trinitarian doctrine' through his writtings.

So, it would SEEM that the 'creation' of a NEW doctrine would CERTAINLY ONLY be ABLE to be produced, IN TRUTH, by one IN The Spirit.

It would be like me stating that what Hitler did was UNSPEAKABLE but what he accomplished was a 'good thing'. Seems contradictory in terms. It's either ONE WAY or the other.

And, how do we PLACE our FAITH in the creation of MEN that have PROVEN that MUCH of what they offer is AGAINST truth? For we have been TOLD that we cannot SERVE TWO MASTERS.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[follower of Christ]

So Tertullian isnt the only guilty party. Hes just one that gets some extra attention for his deceptive heresies. We can thank the catholic church for his notoriety

Thank them for your Bible, while you're at it...

Please ...I thank GOD for my bible.

Just because YOU think certain things are "godless tripe" doesn't make it so...

Is this your best refutation ?

I made my points that I wanted to make. Im not going to allow you to draw me into a catholic/protestant debate here so you may as well drop it.

 

[follower of Christ]

I thought that it was for JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you stated. He thought that the CC was TOO slack. He opted for a MUCH MORE strict following of the Gospels and doctrines.

But the point is this: If this man was LITERALLY INSPIRED from above, how could he have been RIGHT about ONE THING and WRONG about SO MUCH MORE?

Blessings,

MEC

Thats ridiculous.
So everyone is either 100% right or 100% wrong in your mind ?
Again, that condemns 100% of the church as NONE of us is likely to be 100% right or wrong on every single detail.

 

[follower of Christ]

No, Fran, I don't. But I find it suspect that an individual that introduced something as MONUMENTAL as 'trinity' could have been SO CONFUSED about so much of the REST of his understanding. For, it has been pointed out over and over again that this man WAS instrumental in the formation of the 'trinitarian doctrine' through his writtings.

You cant blame Tertullian for what is SAID in Gods word that very clearly presents the Trinity concept.

It would be like me stating that what Hitler did was UNSPEAKABLE but what he accomplished was a 'good thing'. Seems contradictory in terms. It's either ONE WAY or the other.

Hardly the same thing.
It would only be even remotely comparable if every act and thought Hitler ever had was entirely evil.
And it still would be irrelevant.
Hitler could BELIEVE some truth and still be what he was.

Even the demons 'believe'....and tremble....as evil as they are they KNOW judgment is coming.

 

[Imagican]

I thought that it was for JUST THE OPPOSITE of what you stated. He thought that the CC was TOO slack. He opted for a MUCH MORE strict following of the Gospels and doctrines.

But the point is this: If this man was LITERALLY INSPIRED from above, how could he have been RIGHT about ONE THING and WRONG about SO MUCH MORE?

Blessings,

MEC

Thats ridiculous.
So everyone is either 100% right or 100% wrong in your mind ?
Again, that condemns 100% of the church as NONE of us is likely to be 100% right or wrong on every single detail.

We AREN'T discussing every LITTLE detail. We debate DOCTRINE. And there is NO ROOM for 'false doctrine' in a 'worship of God through Christ'.

Now, if you simply want to ADMIT to 'belief', then that takes NO TRUTH. But IF we are to discuss TRUTH, then there is little room for error.

Do YOU believe that there ARE or HAVE been those that are ABLE to discern TRUTH? If NOT, then we have little that we will be ABLE to discuss except in the respect of 'you are wrong and I am RIGHT'. But, we have been given The Word. And IN The Word is to be found that WORTHY of doctrine IN TRUTH. For that IS what was stated by the apostles and Christ Himself.

What this particular subject concerns is the legitimacy of the teachings of 'tertullian'. I was simply pointing out that the church that ADOPTED his teachings concerning 'trinity' is the SAME church that LATER labeled him an 'heretic'. So, which IS IT? Was he TRULY inspired by God through The Spirit, or was he an heretic?

We have much evidence that points to ANYONE refuting the teachings of 'the church' WERE labeled as heretics in order to stiffle any resistance. It had LITTLE to do with TRUTH so much as "THEIR TRUTH''. For to admit to ANY mistake would certainly 'take away' from their TEACHINGS that THEY were the REPRESENTATIVES of Christ here on earth. And THAT, my friends, is what HAPPENS when MEN decide that THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. Eventually, they are going to be challenged with The Truth.

Now, was Tertullian an heretic? And IF SO, then how is it that those that labeled him thus are ABLE to USE him as a legitimate source of INFORMATION so far as present doctrine? It would be NICE if we COULD have it 'both ways'. But the TRUTH is that he either WAS or he WASN'T inspired BY The Spirit.

I, for one, do NOT accept that mentality of; "what HE stated that AGREES with OUR THINKING he WAS inspired, but in that which we DON'T, he wasn't". You are certainly at liberty to BELIEVE whatsoever you CHOOSE to believe. But, unless one can answer the simple questions posted here, then there is little that we can conclude concerning this MAN.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Oh, and I wasn't discussing BELIEF in truth, I was discussing FOLLOWING in truth. For, belief has LITTLE bearing ON TRUTH. Believing in the NAME of Christ is NOT the SAME as FOLLOWING Christ. For, as you have so poiniently pointed out already, even the DEMONS are AWARE of the NAME of Christ and tremble at it's mention.

So, understand, I have little desire to discuss 'beliefs' for the SAKE of beliefs. What I THOUGHT we were discussing is TRUTH.

Was Tertullian a 'wolf in sheeps clothing', (one PRETENDING to be following The Spirit), or was he TRULY inspired from above? Or, was he as 'wishy washy' as some of these posts would indicate?

That IS 'the question'.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[francisdesales]

No, Fran, I don't. But I find it suspect that an individual that introduced something as MONUMENTAL as 'trinity' could have been SO CONFUSED about so much of the REST of his understanding.

Yet again, you are confused. Tertullian was not "introducing" anything. He was writing a letter to a person such as yourself. Utterly confused on who God is. He thus drew upon what was taught before by the Apostles and their understanding of Scriptures. Tertullian himself was certainly not introducing new teachings, but giving a coherent writing that had not been addressed so extensively before, although bits and pieces are found in the writings of Christians well before him.

For, it has been pointed out over and over again that this man WAS instrumental in the formation of the 'trinitarian doctrine' through his writtings.

NO ONE says that Tertullian was "instrumental in the formation of the trinitarian doctrine". He expounded on it to the most fullest details the earliest. Justin and Irenaeus speak of the relationship between God and the Son. So does Ignatius. One hundred years before Tertullian, Ignatius calls Jesus the THOUGHT OF THE FATHER. The Word, the Logos of God IS God.

Here is what Tertullian writes to Praxeas on this matter:

In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία , as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded. The Church afterwards applied this term exclusively to the Holy Ghost, from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of herâ€â€being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the “Comforter.†the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date, which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas Against Praxeas, Chapter 2.

No new doctrine. It is from heretics that "new doctrines" come from, such as yours...

 

[Guest]

If this man was LITERALLY INSPIRED from above, how could he have been RIGHT about ONE THING and WRONG about SO MUCH MORE?

What do you mean by inspired? It seems as though you're implying people believe Tertullian was inspired as the biblical writers were inspired. I am not familiar with any theologians or church historians who believe as such.

That said, and either way, Tertullian was human. He is prone to mistakes.

 

[follower of Christ]

We AREN'T discussing every LITTLE detail. We debate DOCTRINE. And there is NO ROOM for 'false doctrine' in a 'worship of God through Christ'.

Now, if you simply want to ADMIT to 'belief', then that takes NO TRUTH. But IF we are to discuss TRUTH, then there is little room for error.

Do YOU believe that there ARE or HAVE been those that are ABLE to discern TRUTH? If NOT, then we have little that we will be ABLE to discuss except in the respect of 'you are wrong and I am RIGHT'. But, we have been given The Word. And IN The Word is to be found that WORTHY of doctrine IN TRUTH. For that IS what was stated by the apostles and Christ Himself.

What this particular subject concerns is the legitimacy of the teachings of 'tertullian'. I was simply pointing out that the church that ADOPTED his teachings concerning 'trinity' is the SAME church that LATER labeled him an 'heretic'. So, which IS IT? Was he TRULY inspired by God through The Spirit, or was he an heretic?

We have much evidence that points to ANYONE refuting the teachings of 'the church' WERE labeled as heretics in order to stiffle any resistance. It had LITTLE to do with TRUTH so much as "THEIR TRUTH''. For to admit to ANY mistake would certainly 'take away' from their TEACHINGS that THEY were the REPRESENTATIVES of Christ here on earth. And THAT, my friends, is what HAPPENS when MEN decide that THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. Eventually, they are going to be challenged with The Truth.

Now, was Tertullian an heretic? And IF SO, then how is it that those that labeled him thus are ABLE to USE him as a legitimate source of INFORMATION so far as present doctrine? It would be NICE if we COULD have it 'both ways'. But the TRUTH is that he either WAS or he WASN'T inspired BY The Spirit.

I, for one, do NOT accept that mentality of; "what HE stated that AGREES with OUR THINKING he WAS inspired, but in that which we DON'T, he wasn't". You are certainly at liberty to BELIEVE whatsoever you CHOOSE to believe. But, unless one can answer the simple questions posted here, then there is little that we can conclude concerning this MAN.

Blessings,

MEC

What a waste of time and effort on your part.
As I said, NONE of us have it 100% right or wrong....so the ISSUE here, which was YOUR point that Tert had SOME things wrong therefore he couldnt have had trinity right, is entirely absurd.

Point made. Sorry if you dont get it.

 

[follower of Christ]

That said, and either way, Tertullian was human. He is prone to mistakes.

Exactly.
Apparently Imagican believes that HIS doctrine is bullet proof. If not then he's in the same boat as the rest of us.

 

[follower of Christ]

Oh, and I wasn't discussing BELIEF in truth, I was discussing FOLLOWING in truth. For, belief has LITTLE bearing ON TRUTH. Believing in the NAME of Christ is NOT the SAME as FOLLOWING Christ. For, as you have so poiniently pointed out already, even the DEMONS are AWARE of the NAME of Christ and tremble at it's mention.

So, understand, I have little desire to discuss 'beliefs' for the SAKE of beliefs. What I THOUGHT we were discussing is TRUTH.

Was Tertullian a 'wolf in sheeps clothing', (one PRETENDING to be following The Spirit), or was he TRULY inspired from above? Or, was he as 'wishy washy' as some of these posts would indicate?

That IS 'the question'.

Blessings,

MEC

You can run this twist anyway youd like to but your POINT that *I* responded to was that Tert couldnt have ANY truth because he was erroneous on SOME of his views.
THAT is the nonsense *I* responded to.
MOST false doctrines and heresies are riddled with truths and non truths.
Id expect that anyone here could see enough of false teachers and heretics out there to know this to be fact.
FEW would fall for heretics if they were ALL error.
Thats how they work...they draw people in with SOME truth, but mixed with fallacy.

Tert did not have to be wrong about the Trinity concept, where this point BEGAN, simply because he believed SOME heretical views.

btw...SOME error is heresy and against the essentials of the faith....SOME error is not.

Is this that complex a concept...or is it simply an argument you are looking for ?

 

[kingdavid]

We AREN'T discussing every LITTLE detail. We debate DOCTRINE. And there is NO ROOM for 'false doctrine' in a 'worship of God through Christ'.

Now, if you simply want to ADMIT to 'belief', then that takes NO TRUTH. But IF we are to discuss TRUTH, then there is little room for error.

Do YOU believe that there ARE or HAVE been those that are ABLE to discern TRUTH? If NOT, then we have little that we will be ABLE to discuss except in the respect of 'you are wrong and I am RIGHT'. But, we have been given The Word. And IN The Word is to be found that WORTHY of doctrine IN TRUTH. For that IS what was stated by the apostles and Christ Himself.

What this particular subject concerns is the legitimacy of the teachings of 'tertullian'. I was simply pointing out that the church that ADOPTED his teachings concerning 'trinity' is the SAME church that LATER labeled him an 'heretic'. So, which IS IT? Was he TRULY inspired by God through The Spirit, or was he an heretic?

We have much evidence that points to ANYONE refuting the teachings of 'the church' WERE labeled as heretics in order to stiffle any resistance. It had LITTLE to do with TRUTH so much as "THEIR TRUTH''. For to admit to ANY mistake would certainly 'take away' from their TEACHINGS that THEY were the REPRESENTATIVES of Christ here on earth. And THAT, my friends, is what HAPPENS when MEN decide that THEY KNOW EVERYTHING. Eventually, they are going to be challenged with The Truth.

Now, was Tertullian an heretic? And IF SO, then how is it that those that labeled him thus are ABLE to USE him as a legitimate source of INFORMATION so far as present doctrine? It would be NICE if we COULD have it 'both ways'. But the TRUTH is that he either WAS or he WASN'T inspired BY The Spirit.

I, for one, do NOT accept that mentality of; "what HE stated that AGREES with OUR THINKING he WAS inspired, but in that which we DON'T, he wasn't". You are certainly at liberty to BELIEVE whatsoever you CHOOSE to believe. But, unless one can answer the simple questions posted here, then there is little that we can conclude concerning this MAN.

Blessings,

MEC

What a waste of time and effort on your part.
As I said, NONE of us have it 100% right or wrong....so the ISSUE here, which was YOUR point that Tert had SOME things wrong therefore he couldnt have had trinity right, is entirely absurd.

Point made. Sorry if you dont get it.

that is false. the scripture says that a few people will get it 100% as one scripture relates- some 100, some 60 and some 30. then it states the bride will be without spot or wrinkle so she will be completely correct, 100%