Tertullian in Against Praxeas 25.1 - "three are one", are his Holy Spirit references about Montanus and prophecy?

[Steven Avery]

Tertullian in Against Praxeas 25.1 - are his Holy Spirit references about Montanus and prophecy?
This is the actual theory of TNC

Moved from Early Church Fathers at mod request.

Chapter 25. The Paraclete, or Holy Ghost. He is Distinct from the Father and the Son as to Their Personal Existence. One and Inseparable from Them as to Their Divine Nature. Other Quotations Out of St. John's Gospel
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it, to the end of John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called another Comforter, indeed; John 14:16 but in what way He is another we have already shown, He shall receive of mine, says Christ, John 16:14 just as Christ Himself received of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, I and my Father are One, John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number. Run through the whole Gospel, and you will find that He whom you believe to be the Father (described as acting for the Father, although you, for your part, forsooth, suppose that the Father, being the husbandman, John 15:1 must surely have been on earth) is once more recognised by the Son as in heaven, when, lifting up His eyes thereto, John 17:1 He commended His disciples to the safe-keeping of the Father. John 17:11 We have, moreover, in that other Gospel a clear revelation, i.e. of the Son's distinction from the Father, My God, why have You forsaken me? Matthew 27:46 and again, (in the third Gospel,) Father, into Your hands I commend my spirit. Luke 23:46 But even if (we had not these passages, we meet with satisfactory evidence) after His resurrection and glorious victory over death. Now that all the restraint of His humiliation is taken away, He might, if possible, have shown Himself as the Father to so faithful a woman (as Mary Magdalene) when she approached to touch Him, out of love, not from curiosity, nor with Thomas' incredulity. But not so; Jesus says unto her, Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father; but go to my brethren (and even in this He proves Himself to be the Son; for if He had been the Father, He would have called them His children, (instead of His brethren), and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God. John 20:17 Now, does this mean, I ascend as the Father to the Father, and as God to God? Or as the Son to the Father, and as the Word to God? Wherefore also does this Gospel, at its very termination, intimate that these things were ever written, if it be not, to use its own words, that you might believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God? John 20:31 Whenever, therefore, you take any of the statements of this Gospel, and apply them to demonstrate the identity of the Father and the Son, supposing that they serve your views therein, you are contending against the definite purpose of the Gospel. For these things certainly are not written that you may believe that Jesus Christ is the Father, but the Son.

=====================

All about Trinity doctrine as seen by Tertullian.

The Montanism question is not the context.

This is very easy to see.

======================

In one spot above,
"He is called another Comforter, indeed; John 14:16 but in what way He is another we have already shown,"
Tertullian is looking back to Chapter 9.

Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth, John 14:16 thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.

Again, nothing related to anything special to Montanism.

======================

 

[cjab]

Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter...even the Spirit of truth, John 14:16 thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.

The problem with "thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself" is that it is ambiguous. Is this "distinction" to be observed on earth, where it is the Holy Spirit that denotes and represents the Father? Or is this a distinction that is to be observed in heaven? If in heaven, in what sense is a persons' spirit distinct from the person himself (i.e. the Father). Is your spirit distinct from you?

Further, in what sense is God the Father, the one whose very name is ineffable in human terms - let alone his being - a "person"? What is meant by the "person" of the Father? Do you have the faintest idea what you're talking about in conjuring a "distinction in heaven" between the Father and the Holy Spirit, except to say just that the one isn't the other as an inference of the etymology that we employ.

As for Tertullian, he was, it is construed by me, engaging here in a type of ranting that so characterized the montanists. cf.

"In some of his prophecies, Montanus apparently, and somewhat like the oracles of the Greco-Roman world, spoke in the first person as God: "I am the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

"According to opponents, the Montanist prophets did not speak as messengers of God, but believed they became fully possessed by God and spoke as God."

(wiki)

The confidence of Tertullian in Against Praxeas suggests he may have believed he was opining the oracles of God, but in reality he was engaging in an application of pseudo neo-platonic philosophy to the Christian God, as befitted his philosophical education.

 

[Steven Avery]

You seem to think I agree with Tertullian’s Trinity doctrines.
I consider them convoluted, but not “ranting”.

I am showing his writing because the heavenly witnesses verse was referenced.
And then, more clearly, in Cyprian.

When Tertullian quotes many Johannine and NT verses, he is not changing the meaning of Holy Spirit to mean Montanus or montanist prophecy. That is simply an absurd and comical claim. TNC is showing us that he has no credibility in “context”.

 

[cjab]

You seem to think I agree with Tertullian’s Trinity doctrines.
I consider them convoluted, but not “ranting”.

I am showing his writing because the heavenly witnesses verse was referenced.

What Tertullian references is the prevailing trinitarianism of the time that speaks of God as three persons united. To suggest that it derives from the Comma, has no support given that Marcellus in "On the Holy Church" assures us that this way of speaking of God has its origins in gnosticism, and therefore in philosophy, which is what gnosticism is based on.

And then, more clearly, in Cyprian.

Propaganda.

When Tertullian quotes many Johannine and NT verses, he is not changing the meaning of Holy Spirit to mean Montanus or montanist prophecy. That is simply an absurd and comical claim. TNC is showing us that he has no credibility in “context”.

Obviously where Tertullian says "it was certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived," he does mean the Holy Spirit and not Montanus. You'll need to be clearer on this.

 

[Steven Avery]

To suggest that it derives from the Comma, has no support given that Marcellus in "On the Holy Church"

Have you read this?

Is it available online free?

Do you have quotes

Thanks!

 

[cjab]

MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA (PSEUDO-ANTHIMUS), 'ON THE HOLY CHURCH': TEXT, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY | LOGAN, A. H. B. | download

MARCELLUS OF ANCYRA (PSEUDO-ANTHIMUS), 'ON THE HOLY CHURCH': TEXT, TRANSLATION AND COMMENTARY | LOGAN, A. H. B. | download | BookSC. Download books for free. Find books

hi.booksc.eu

You owe me a lot for that link.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You seem to think I agree with Tertullian’s Trinity doctrines.
I consider them convoluted, but not “ranting”.

I am showing his writing because the heavenly witnesses verse was referenced.
And then, more clearly, in Cyprian.

When Tertullian quotes many Johannine and NT verses, he is not changing the meaning of Holy Spirit to mean Montanus or montanist prophecy. That is simply an absurd and comical claim. TNC is showing us that he has no credibility in “context”.

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Chapter 1, Pages 130-131

Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, 1948.

"...on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla [...] I, [Tertullian] for my part, was subsequently separated from the natural men [the Church, i.e. Christianity] by my acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete [i.e. Montanus]"
​

Your view of Tertullian's Montantism can only be reached by:

1. Divorcing the context of the rest of the book of "Adversus Praxaen", and by divorcing the wider context of the rest of his works that mention "the NEW Prophecy", and​
2. Like Tertullian (and the rest of "the NEW Prophecy" believers) by denying the true Scriptural fulfillment of Jesus' promise at John 14:16-17 and John 14:25-26 and John 15:26 and John 16:7 and Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5,8; (compare John 7:39) was legitimately and truely fulfilled at Pentecost 33 A D./C.E. Thus denying the chronology of the true fulfillment of TRUE Bible prophecy - to project your modern views onto and over what Tertullian actually says, and to think Tertullian was somehow agreeing with the true Christians that it was indeed fulfilled in the upper room in Jerusalem in 33 A.D./C.E. and NOT in his time in the "NEW Prophecy" (as he says and acknowledges).​

Tertullian obviously believed that the promised "Paraclete" was fulfilled in his time, in the "NEW" (note "NEW") Prophecy" movement of Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla in "Adversus Praxaen" Chapter 1, and was seeking recognition and acknowledgement of his view's of the "NEW Prophecy" from Christian overseers in Rome and elsewhere, as the contemporary historical accounts also (note also) testify.

Your shutting your eye's to the overall and surrounding context of the Adversus Praxaen as a book.

Your isolation of one chapter from the rest of the book and context demonstrates your unsound (and that's me being polite) interpretive methodology and show's that what you accuse me of is simply untrue. ?

If Tertullian has separated himself from Christianity (i.e. the actual events Jerome was speaking of in DVI Chapter 53) and is also acknowledging and defending Montanus Maximilla and Priscilla in Chapter 1 (see quotation in red above), how is it conceivably possible that he is not, and has somehow stopped acknowledging and defending Montanus Maximilla and Priscilla in Chapter 25?

Answer, it's not, because of his statements in following chapters (i.e. surrounding context), and in particular Chapter 31.

 

[cjab]

TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS

Chapter 1, Pages 130-131

Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, 1948.

"...on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla [...] I, [Tertullian] for my part, was subsequently separated from the natural men [the Church, i.e. Christianity] by my acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete [i.e. Montanus]"
​

Your view of Tertullian's Montantism can only be reached by:

1. Divorcing the context of the rest of the book of "Adversus Praxaen", and by divorcing the wider context of the rest of his works that mention "the NEW Prophecy", and​
2. Like Tertullian (and the rest of "the NEW Prophecy" believers) by denying the true Scriptural fulfillment of Jesus' promise at John 14:16-17 and John 14:25-26 and John 15:26 and John 16:7 and Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:4-5,8; (compare John 7:39) was legitimately and truely fulfilled at Pentecost 33 A D./C.E. Thus denying the chronology of the true fulfillment of TRUE Bible prophecy - to project your modern views onto and over what Tertullian actually says, and to think Tertullian was somehow agreeing with the true Christians that it was indeed fulfilled in the upper room in Jerusalem in 33 A.D./C.E. and NOT in his time in the "NEW Prophecy" (as he says and acknowledges).​

Tertullian obviously believed that the promised "Paraclete" was fulfilled in his time, in the "NEW" (note "NEW") Prophecy" movement of Montanus, Maximilla and Priscilla in "Adversus Praxaen" Chapter 1, and was seeking recognition and acknowledgement of his view's of the "NEW Prophecy" from Christian overseers in Rome and elsewhere, as the contemporary historical accounts also (note also) testify.

Your shutting your eye's to the overall and surrounding context of the Adversus Praxaen as a book.

Your isolation of one chapter from the rest of the book and context demonstrates your unsound (and that's me being polite) interpretive methodology and show's that what you accuse me of is simply untrue. ?

If Tertullian has separated himself from Christianity (i.e. the actual events Jerome was speaking of in DVI Chapter 53) and is also acknowledging and defending Montanus Maximilla and Priscilla in Chapter 1 (see quotation in red above), how is it conceivably possible that he is not, and has somehow stopped acknowledging and defending Montanus Maximilla and Priscilla in Chapter 25?

Answer, it's not, because of his statements in following chapters (i.e. surrounding context), and in particular Chapter 31.

If you read britannica, it doesn't say Montanus was the Paraclete: just that he spoke in its name.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

If you read britannica, it doesn't say Montanus was the Paraclete: just that he spoke in its name.

I'm aware of the modern views (and contrary to what Avery may believe, I have studied them in detail) of Montantism, but a more accurate conception, historically speaking, is better derived from the contemporary historical accounts of the writer's who lived in and around that time, and from the Montantist writing's themselves, wouldn't you agree?

Avery (and modern Trinitarians) have vested interests in Tertullian's writings, and Avery particularly, in the Comma and One-ness theological aspect of this debate, and therefore he is not as objective as he should be in my opinion.

My view is based on what Tertullian himself say's (as a whole), and on what his nearest, and nearer contemporaries said, and what the early Christian historians said, and I honestly try my hardest not to base my thinking on what WE THINK he (Tertullian) should say, contrasted to what he DID say. Objectivity, in other words, is the key.

The historical and contemporary accounts are far more negative and damning than the more anachronistic view's of today, and because I tend to side with early Christian views of Montantism, this chides with and grates on the more contemporary sanitized view of Tertullian's Montantism.

As to the chronology of when Tertullian became a Montantist, Adversus Praxaen gives us a clear and definite "separat[ion]" (cf. Tertullian's words in Adv. Prax. 1 "I, for my part separated..." with Jerome's DVI, 53) from the Church and therefore Christianity. Avery is in denial of this, plane and simple. He's to stubborn to be moved on this, so I expect him to continue to disagree with me until the Lord comes, or death, whatever comes first for either of us.

 

[Steven Avery]

Obviously where Tertullian says "it was certainly of the Holy Spirit that the virgin conceived," he does mean the Holy Spirit and not Montanus.

True, but only the tip of the iceberg.

Start with reading chapter after chapter of Against Praxeas.

 

[Steven Avery]

Your view of Tertullian's Montantism can only be reached by:

What is my view?
I remember comparing Montanism to charis-mania.
What else?

 

[cjab]

I'm aware of the modern views (and contrary to what Avery may believe, I have studied them in detail) of Montantism, but a more accurate conception, historically speaking, is better derived from the contemporary historical accounts of the writer's who lived in and around that time, and from the Montantist writing's themselves, wouldn't you agree?

I have briefly checked Eusebius's history. He allows that some "venemous snakes have crept over Asia and Phrygia pretending that Montanus was the paraclete." Against this, is the matter than Montanus himself and his followers were baptized into the orthodox church, and their hearers wouldn't easily have credited him with being the Paraclete - perhaps a manifestation of the Paraclete in the flesh.

The index of my translation allows that the assumption of "the Paraclete" can be self-applied or applied by others. Here it seems to have been applied by others, although as doubtless Montanus openly aspired to misidentify the spirit behind his prophecy as the Paraclete, he at times laid claim to being the Paraclete (a common mistake / delusion in the mentally ill - cf. James Nayler - Quaker charged with blasphemy).

One problem undoubtedly is that Montanus (the ignorant fanatic) was likely incoherent in, saying different things at different times. Likely he did make himself out to be the Paraclete and even the Trinity in his more ecstatic moments - a doctrinally absurd position, although allowed in OT prophecy where prophets & angels spoke as if YHWH when acting directly under his agency. OTOH he wouldn't have always spoken so, enabling his hearers to view him as a genuine prophet accredited by the Paraclete.

Montanus is linked, as a type of deluded false prophet, with Manes (the deluded philosopher) and Mahomet (the ambitious artful voluptuary).

Avery (and modern Trinitarians) have vested interests in Tertullian's writings, and Avery particularly, in the Comma and One-ness theological aspect of this debate, and therefore he is not as objective as he should be in my opinion.

My view is based on what Tertullian himself say's (as a whole), and on what his nearest, and nearer contemporaries said, and what the early Christian historians said, and I honestly try my hardest not to base my thinking on what WE THINK he (Tertullian) should say, contrasted to what he DID say. Objectivity, in other words, is the key.

Certainly we can credit Tertullian with idolatry of Montanus. What the exact substance of his idolatry was I'm unclear on, apart from separation from the church on Montanus's account, which has always been deemed by the Catholics to be Tertullian's gravest sin.

The historical and contemporary accounts are far more negative and damning than the more anachronistic view's of today, and because I tend to side with early Christian views of Montantism, this chides with and grates on the more contemporary sanitized view of Tertullian's Montantism.

True, Eusebius is very harsh on Montanus and his whole movement: particularly as he hanged himself, with his prophetess - the similarity with Judas being noted.

As to the chronology of when Tertullian became a Montantist, Adversus Praxaen gives us a clear and definite "separat[ion]" (cf. Tertullian's words in Adv. Prax. 1 "I, for my part separated..." with Jerome's DVI, 53) from the Church and therefore Christianity. Avery is in denial of this, plane and simple. He's to stubborn to be moved on this, so I expect him to continue to disagree with me until the Lord comes, or death, whatever comes first for either of us.

 

[cjab]

True, but only the tip of the iceberg.

Start with reading chapter after chapter of Against Praxeas.

Until proven to the contrary, I can credit Tertullian as not seeing Montanus as "The" Paraclete , even if such was the evil message broadcast by others. (We can't credit every montanist with crediting this perversity.) Yet undoubtedly Tertullian did see Montanus as an exemplar of the Paraclete, yet which may have derived from a similar personal dissatisfaction with the increasingly hierarchy-bound orthodox church as Montanus himself had held (per Jerome - Tertiullian received "envy and abuse from the clergy of the Roman church").

Praxeas is especially singled out for criticism as an exponent of the Sabellian doctrine.

"After the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, [Praxeas], by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop’s predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father."
(Tertullianus – Adversus Praxeam)

So here the "Paraclete" isn't Montanus. (May be TNC is over-emphasizing Tertullian's attachment to Montanus as being "The" Paraclete - not sure there's sufficient evidence here to know what Tertullian really thought.)

Next Tertullian in effect charges Praxeas with Sabellianism and with being a Patripassian. He then procedes to expound his Trinity doctrine. From this it seems that Sabellianism would never have arisen had the Comma been in place. The fact that Patripassianism arose at all denies the Comma's existence.

So the reason for the insertion of the Comma is actually very clear; it formed a bulwark against the Sabellianism of Praxeas and others at Rome. The churches in North Africa didn't care that it crept into the bible itself from the margin, because that church in particular was very hostile to the Sabellian doctrine. It is also why the Comma wasn't accepted in Rome for a long time after the North African churches had accepted it.

__________________________

As for Tertullian's own credentials: separately Montanus maintained legalistic doctrines contrary to Christianity, which Tertullian had embraced. Linked to this, and his consequential suspected doctrinal heterodoxy, his contemporaries didn't always view Tertullian's didactic efforts in a positive light:

Lactantius (c. 250–325):

Septimius Tertullianus also was skilled in literature of every kind; but in eloquence he had little readiness, and was not sufficiently polished, and very obscure. (Divine Institutes, 5.1)
Although Tertullian fully pleaded the same cause in that treatise which is entitled the Apology, yet, inasmuch as it is one thing to answer accusers, which consists in defence or denial only, and another thing to instruct, which we do. (5.4)

All this creates problems for you:
(1) As you can't deny that Tertullian was known for being obscure, you can't rely on him as proving your Comma.
(2) Sabellianism couldn't have arisen had the Comma been in the bible.
(3) The Catholic church, the foremost embracer of the Trinitarian doctrine embraced by the Comma, didn't canonize Tertullian.

 

[Steven Avery]

All this creates problems for you:
(1) As you can't deny that Tertullian was known for being obscure, you can't rely on him as proving your Comma.
(2) Sabellianism couldn't have arisen had the Comma been in the bible.
(3) The Catholic church, the foremost embracer of the Trinitarian doctrine embraced by the Comma, didn't canonize Tertullian.

#1
I never claim that Tertullian proves the heavenly witnesses, he simply supplies a superb corroborative reference, that goes with the two later ones from Cyprian.

#2
There is evidence that the Sabellians were in favor of the heavenly witnesses verse. I have covered this from Frederick Nolan and Edward Freer Hills, and the quote from Eusebius,

Here is Edward Burton (1794-1836)

An Inquiry Into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age: In Eight Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford, in the Year MDCCXXIX., at the Lecture Founded by the Rev. John Bampton (1829)
https://books.google.com/books?id=t8MUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA525

“Though I cannot help concluding against the genuineness of this text, I may add, that the argument which is taken from the silence of Athanasius and the other Greek Fathers, is perhaps carried too far. It seems to be forgotten, that the 7th verse, which says that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one, would certainly not have silenced an Arian, who would also have quoted the text, and affixed to it his own interpretation : in the same manner as we learn from Epiphanius that the Arians explained John, xiv. 10, xvii. 23, to mean

'that the unity was not at all of nature, but of agreement:'

and so they might have said, that the unity, which is predicated of the three Persons in 1 John, v. 7, was not an unity of nature. There was also another reason why the most zealous Trinitarian might not have chosen to quote the text. He exposed himself by so doing to the charge of Sabellianism : for Eusebius informs us, that the Sabellians, when they wished to prove that the Father and the Son were one and the same, insisted particularly on John, x. 30, xiv. 10, and so in a work which has been falsely ascribed to Athanasius, when that Father is made to quote to an Arian, I and the Father are one, John, x. 30, the other replied, 'then you are a Sabellian.' Either of these reasons might have operated to hinder a controversial writer from quoting 1 John, v. 7.

#3 is irrelevant

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So here the "Paraclete" isn't Montanus. (May be TNC is over-emphasizing Tertullian's attachment to Montanus as being "The" Paraclete - not sure there's sufficient evidence here to know what Tertullian really thought.)

The historians and contemporary writers say Montanus accepted the title of "the Paraclete". Why should we disagree with those who lived at the time?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

De Viris Illustribus
(On Illustrious Men)​

Caput XXIV​ Melito Asianus, Sardensis episcopus, librum imperatori M. Antonino Vero, qui Frontonis oratoris discipulus fuit, pro Christiano dogmate dedit. Scripsit quoque et alia, de quibus ista sunt, quae subjecimus: De Pascha libros duos, de Vita Prophetarum librum unum, de Ecclesia librum unum, de Die Dominica librum unum, de Sensibus librum unum, de Fide librum unum, de Plasmate librum unum, de Anima et Corpore librum unum, de Baptismate librum unum, de Veritate librum unum, de Generatione Christi librum unum, de Prophetia sua librum unum, de Philoxenia librum unum, et alium librum qui Clavis inscribitur; de diabolo librum unum, de Apocalypsi Joannis librum unum, περὶ Ἐνσωμάτου Θεοῦ librum unum, et Ἐκλογῶν libros sex. Hujus elegans et declamatorium ingenium Tertullianus in septem libris, quos scripsit adversus Ecclesiam pro Montano, cavillatur, dicens eum a plerisque nostrorum prophetam putari.

Chapter 24. Melito of Asia​ Melito of Asia, bishop of Sardis, addressed a book to the emperor Marcus Antoninus Verus, a disciple of Fronto the orator, in behalf of the Christian doctrine. He wrote other things also, among which are the following: On the passover, two books, one book On the lives of the prophets, one book On the church, one book On the Lord's day, one book On faith, one book On the psalms one On the senses, one On the soul and body, one On baptism, one On truth. one On the generation of Christ, On His prophecy one On hospitality and another which is called the Key — one On the devil, one On the Apocalypse of John, one On the corporeality of God, and six books of Eclogues. Of his fine oratorical genius, Tertullian, IN THE SEVEN BOOKS WHICH HE WROTE AGAINST THE CHURCH ON BEHALF OF MONTANUS, satirically says that he was considered a prophet by many of us.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

De Viris Illustribus
(On Illustrious Men)​

Caput XL​ Apollonius, vir disertissimus, scripsit adversus Montanum, Priscam et Maximillam insigne et longum volumen, in quo asserit Montanum, et insanas vates ejus periisse suspendio: et multa alia, in quibus de Prisca et Maximilla refert: Si negant eas accepisse munera, confiteantur non esse Prophetas, qui accipiunt: et mille hoc testibus approbabo. Sed et ex aliis fructibus probantur Prophetae. Dic mihi, crinem fucat Prophetes? stibio oculos linit? Prophetae vestibus et gemmis ornantur? Prophetes tabula ludit et tesseris? Propheta fenus accipit? Respondeant, utrum hoc fieri liceat, an non: meum est approbare, quod fecerint. Dicit in eodem libro, quadragesimum esse annum usque ad tempus, quo ipse scribebat librum, ex quo haeresis Cataphrygarum habuerit exordium. Tertullianus sex voluminibus adversus Ecclesiam editis, quae scripsit περὶ ἐκστάσεως, septimum proprie adversus Apollonium elaboravit, in quo omnia, quae ille arguit, conatur defendere. Floruit autem Apollonius sub Commodo Severoque principibus.

Chapter 40. Apollonius​ Apollonius, an exceedingly talented man, wrote against Montanus, Prisca and Maximilla a notable and lengthy volume, in which he asserts that Montanus and his mad prophetesses died by hanging, and many other things, among which are the following concerning Prisca and Maximilla, "if they denied that they have accepted gifts, let them confess that those who do accept are not prophets and I will prove by a thousand witnesses that they have received gifts, for it is by other fruits that prophets are shown to be prophets indeed. Tell me, does a prophet dye his hair? Does a prophet stain her eyelids with antimony? Is a prophet adorned with fine garments and precious stones? Does a prophet play with dice and tables? Does he accept usury? Let them respond whether this ought to be permitted or not, it will be my task to prove that they do these things." He says in the same book, that the time when he wrote the work was the fortieth year after the beginning of the heresy of the Cataphrygians. Tertullian added to the six volumes which he wrote On ecstasy against the church a seventh, directed especially against Apollonius, in which he attempts to defend all which Apollonius refuted. Apollonius flourished in the reigns of Commodus and Severus.

 

[cjab]

#1
I never claim that Tertullian proves the heavenly witnesses, he simply supplies a superb corroborative reference, that goes with the two later ones from Cyprian

He quotes John 10:30. So what?

.

#2
There is evidence that the Sabellians were in favor of the heavenly witnesses verse. I have covered this from Frederick Nolan and Edward Freer Hills, and the quote from Eusebius,

There is no way that the Sabellians could have approved of 1 John 5:7 as they only credit one "witness in heaven" consistent with one God.

Here is Edward Burton (1794-1836)

An Inquiry Into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age: In Eight Sermons Preached Before the University of Oxford, in the Year MDCCXXIX., at the Lecture Founded by the Rev. John Bampton (1829)
https://books.google.com/books?id=t8MUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA525

He's entitled to his opinion. I deem it worthless. 3 witnesses in heaven is anti Sabellian, however you look at it.

#3 is irrelevant

 

[Steven Avery]

He's entitled to his opinion. I deem it worthless. 3 witnesses in heaven is anti Sabellian, however you look at it.

I go with Hills, Nolan and Burton. "Three are one" can be quite conformable to Sabellius doctrine, so much so that the "orthodox" might prefer to bypass our verse.

And I know you have a different set of beliefs.

 

[Steven Avery]

There is no way that the Sabellians could have approved of 1 John 5:7 as they only credit one "witness in heaven" consistent with one God.

I don't think you can support that with any actual Sabellian writings, even from their opponents.

As a simple example, you have this verse.

1 Corinthians 15:28 (AV)
And when all things shall be subdued unto him,
then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him,
that God may be all in all.