Anth said:
francisdesales said:
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".
I chuckled when I read the above statement knowing what a stretch it was.
And I was disappointed on the "evidence" you provided to try to disprove that Tertullian was not teaching the "rule of faith", but something that only a few "high churchmen believed"...
You quote me from Tertullian. First of all, does "startled at the dispensation" mean they rejected something??? How did you get from "A" to "B" on that one? I think it would be more fair to say "they didn't fully understand it", just like today.
Second of all, what is the "rule of faith"? Are you familiar with that useage in the Church Father writings? Is it refering to what only "high churchmen" believe? Of course not, it is refering to what the faithful believed, as we do today. We call this "rule of faith" the "creed". It is a formulation of our beliefs. It should not be surprising, however, that people do not fully understand each and every point of this creed. Being mysteries, human attempts to explain God with words that always fall short, it is not surprising that people would be "startled". They remain so today.
And finally. Knowing that the rule of faith refers to what the Church (high and low) believe, does Tertullian say that the Trinity is part of the "rule of faith", something that Christians believe, even while being startled (like being startled that a supposed criminal executed by the Empire was the Savior of the world)?
In the chapter before the chapter you cited (by the way, it would be nice if you cited the work you took your source from -
Against Praxeas), Tertullian indeed says that the Trinity IS part of the Catholic faith, part of the "rule of faith" passed down from the apostles...
CHAP. II.--THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY AND UNITY, SOMETIMES CALLED THE DIVINE ECONOMY, OR DISPENSATION OF THE PERSONAL RELATIONS OF THE GODHEAD.
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 oikonomia, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded 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 her--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 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)
Anth said:
The fact that Tertullian was nothing more than a sophist - and not much of one at that - makes me tend to agree with the basic concept of the OP - albeit I don't adhere to all the reasoning. The reality is that the more you read of Tertullian the more you find out what kind of nut he really was - certainly one that I would avoid any of his thought. Regardless, his statement re: the majority of the church is probably the most compelling evidence of what most monarchians are aware - the early church was monarchian to the core (albeit not modalistic)
The Church was still trying to ascertain what Christ had given them and the Apostles. Clearly, Monarchianism did not amply state the totality of the Scriptures and Traditions given. Otherwise, we would be Monarchianists. We are not, and that is because the Trinity better explains the totality of Scriptures, not some wacko idea that the Church invented the idea to mislead people (while gladly going to their deaths as martyrs). If you want to discuss that further, let me know. However, it is clear that the Spirit gradually leads men into truth, and such a mystery as THEOLOGY is not something men clearly understand, even with what God has revealed. The problem is not "Trinity", but balancing all of Scriptures without doing injustice to other parts of Scriptures and the Teachings of those Scriptures that came before. Thus, heresy tends to overemphasize one part while ignoring another part of Scriptures.
In this case, one must distinguish between the divine economy (how God acts in the world) and the divine theology (God's inner processions within the "community" of the Godhead). This is not so clear to the "simple". But when explained, it fully describes, in fancy words and terms, what they believe.
Regards
