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

cjab said:
Have regard for (some of) the observations of the learned Dr. Samuel Clarke:

VI. The Father is the sole origin of all power and authority, and is the author and principle of whatsoever is done by the Son or by the Spirit.

VII. The Father alone is in the highest, strict, proper, and absolute sense supreme over all.

VIII. The Father alone is, absolutely speaking, the God of the universe; the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob; the God of Israel; of Moses, of the Prophets and Apostles; and the God and Father of our I>ord Jesus Christ.

IX. The Scripture, when it mentions the one God, or the only God, always means the supreme person of the Father.

X. When the word, God, is mentioned in Scripture, with any high epithet, title, or attribute annex'd to it; it generally (I think, always) means the person of the Father.

XI. The Scripture, when it mentions God, absolutely and by way of emi-nence, always means the person of the Father.
Click to expand...
The father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are all called Yahweh in Bible, all share same essence and Omni attributes, and what is being described is a form of subordination, not saying Jesus and Holy Spirit lessor gods!
 
cjab said:
Terullian says the three are one thing, not one person. This is crucial to Tertullian's rebuttal of Praxeas's Sabellianism, but it somewhat backfires in being not scriptural. For in Deut 6:4, the text is κύριος ο θεός ημών κύριος εἷς εστί.

εἷς = masculine (not neuter)

In other words, the OT is undoubtedly "Sabellian" (God is one Person), if the Trinity is in view. A better way is to see that whenever the OT speaks of God, it means only God the Father; such that the OT doesn't refer to the "Trinity."

Deut 6:4 is a very good argument against the "Triune God" as if God was triune, then εἷς would have to be ἕν.

However despite this, it creates massive problems for Tertullian's argument, as a matter of theology, for he is stressing ἕν whereas Deut 6:4 uses εἷς for what is in heaven. So his argument is necessarily one of philosophy.

Tertullian was known for his obscurity. He seems to be misusing John 10:30 for a purpose for which it was never intended, i.e. to say something about things in heaven. Although the neuter is used in John 10:30, (ἕν), Jesus was most definitely on earth, and not in heaven, so there was no direct correlation with the Tertullian usage. The Greek also uses the neuter case in a grammatical sense, i.e. for conveying concepts. Here Jesus the man was said to be one with God the Father in heaven: so you can see why the neuter would have been used, i.e. to denote a spiritual unity only.

Tertullian could have more easily said that as Jesus never acknowledged being the same person as God his Father, Sabellianism must be wrong; or that the Word of God is plainly not the same person as God (by John 1:1). It is difficult to understand why Tertullian went down this particular route when there were much easier scriptural routes. Presumably it came from his penchant for philosophy.
Click to expand...

NOVATION OF ROME (circa. 210-280 C.E.): “There is a passage which heretics often press upon us, in which the words occur " I and the Father are one."{1} Here, too, we shall vanquish them as easily as in the last chapter. If Christ had been the Father, as the heretics suppose, He ought to have said, "I the Father am one." On the contrary, he says " I," and then mentions the Father, saying, "I and the Father." Thus He distinguishes and separates the individuality of His Own Person, as the Son, from the majesty of the Father ; not only as a matter of a name, but with regard to the order of power in the Divine dispensation.{2} He could perfectly well have said "I the Father," if He had had it in His mind that He was the Father. The Word "One" is in the Neuter Gender Heretics should note, too, that He said "one" in the neuter, not in the masculine; because "one," in the neuter gender, expresses a harmony of fellowship, not a unity of Person. The neuter rather than the masculine is used because there is no reference to number, but an assertion of the close association of the one with the other. [Page 116] And once more, He proceeds to say "We are," not "I am," making it clear by the phrase, " I and the Father are one," that the Persons are two, and that the use of the neuter "one" points to the harmony,{1} the identity of thought, the association of affection, existing between them; so that the Father and the Son are naturally one through harmony, through love, and through attachment. He is Son, because He is of the Father, with all that such relationship implies; yet there is an abiding distinction between the Two, so that He is not Father Who is Son, because He is not Son Who is Father. He would not have used the plural "We are'' if He had had it in His mind that He, the One and only Father, had been made the Son. And, in fact, the Apostle Paul recognizes this unity based on harmony, yet admitting a distinction of persons. In writing to the Corinthians he says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one"{2} (in the neuter). Who can fail to see that Apollos is one person, Paul another ; that one and the same person is not equally Paul and Apollos ? In fact, he makes a clear distinction between the respective services of the two; "he who plants" is one person, "he who waters'' is another. Yet the apostle declares that these two persons [Page 117] are " one,'' in the neuter, not in the masculine, to showthat Apollos is one person, Paul another, so far as the distinction of persons is concerned, but that the two are "one" (in the neuter) with regard to the harmony existing between them. For where between two persons there is a unity of thought, a unity of truth, a unity of faith, a unity and identity of religion, a unity in the fear of God, the two are one, for all their being two. They are the same thing, because they are of the same mind. For those whom the principle of personality divides, the principle of religion brings together again. And although they are not one and the same persons, yet so long as they are of the same mind they are the same thing ; and though they are two persons, yet they are one, provided they have fellowship in the faith, in spite of their differentiation in personality.” - (Chapter 27, “The treatise of Novatian on the Trinity”, Translations of Christian Literature, Series II, Latin Texts, by Herbert Moore M.A., Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, The Macmillan Company New York, I9I9.)
Page 115: [^ John X. 30.]
Page 115: [^ Again, "economy." [Or: “administration” “hierarchy”]]
Page 116: [1. This interpretation, with the illustration which follows, is far from expressing; the Unity of Essence existing in the Godhead. Nov. cannot have thought that this was all that the words imply.]
Page 116: [2. I Cor. Iii. 6. [1 Cor. 3:6]]
 
cjab said:
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).



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.



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.
Click to expand...

You will note the demonic connection that these writers attribute to the Montantist heresy and it's founders.
 
Interesting side note about John 10:30 in translation, is the plural "we" of both the Greek and the Latin in "are one" is often dropped (not universally, but quite often) in English translations of both the Bible and the ECW.

Which was a key point in this verse for the early writers, but often lost in English.

The "I and the Father" of the original Greek and Latin, comes across as ungrammatical in English. We would invert the word order to achieve better English, by saying "The Father and I". Just an observation.

And the sense of "are one" in English (judging by the other reference given by Jesus in John 17) might be better rendered in English "we are at one" i.e. in unity, agreement etc to convey the sense.

But of course the traditionalists will make a song and dance about it.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
This is some wacky and anachronistic mind-reading.
Click to expand...
Cyprian De Unitate

"He snatches men from the Church itself; and while they seem to themselves to have already approached to the light, and to have escaped the night of the world, he pours over them again, in their unconsciousness, new darkness; so that, although they do not stand firm with the Gospel of Christ, and with the observation and law of Christ, they still call themselves Christians, and, walking in darkness, they think that they have the light, while the adversary is flattering and deceiving, who, according to the apostle's word, transforms himself into an angel of light, and equips his ministers as if they were the ministers of righteousness, who maintain night instead of day, death for salvation, despair under the offer of hope, perfidy under the pretext of faith, antichrist under the name of Christ; so that, while they feign things like the truth, they make void the truth by their subtlety. This happens, beloved brethren, so long as we do not return to the source of truth, as we do not seek the head nor keep the teaching of the heavenly Master."

If you aren't a member of Cyprian's church......this is your status. Don't forget that when the AV was written, The Catholics were tying to undermine and destroy the English monarchy (cf. gun-powder plot), also numerous plots against Queen Elizabeth I from the Catholics on the continent.

Catholic issues with the AV: Luke 1:28

Luk 1:28 AV
And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.

Luke 1:28 Douay
And the angel being come in, said unto her: Hail, full of grace, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.
 
Last edited:
YeshuaFan said:
The father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit are all called Yahweh in Bible, all share same essence and Omni attributes, and what is being described is a form of subordination, not saying Jesus and Holy Spirit lessor gods!
Click to expand...
When you substantiate your remarks with some evidence, I may reply.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
NOVATION OF ROME (circa. 210-280 C.E.): “There is a passage which heretics often press upon us, in which the words occur " I and the Father are one."{1} Here, too, we shall vanquish them as easily as in the last chapter. If Christ had been the Father, as the heretics suppose, He ought to have said, "I the Father am one." On the contrary, he says " I," and then mentions the Father, saying, "I and the Father." Thus He distinguishes and separates the individuality of His Own Person, as the Son, from the majesty of the Father ; not only as a matter of a name, but with regard to the order of power in the Divine dispensation.{2} He could perfectly well have said "I the Father," if He had had it in His mind that He was the Father. The Word "One" is in the Neuter Gender Heretics should note, too, that He said "one" in the neuter, not in the masculine; because "one," in the neuter gender, expresses a harmony of fellowship, not a unity of Person. The neuter rather than the masculine is used because there is no reference to number, but an assertion of the close association of the one with the other. [Page 116] And once more, He proceeds to say "We are," not "I am," making it clear by the phrase, " I and the Father are one," that the Persons are two, and that the use of the neuter "one" points to the harmony,{1} the identity of thought, the association of affection, existing between them; so that the Father and the Son are naturally one through harmony, through love, and through attachment. He is Son, because He is of the Father, with all that such relationship implies; yet there is an abiding distinction between the Two, so that He is not Father Who is Son, because He is not Son Who is Father. He would not have used the plural "We are'' if He had had it in His mind that He, the One and only Father, had been made the Son. And, in fact, the Apostle Paul recognizes this unity based on harmony, yet admitting a distinction of persons. In writing to the Corinthians he says, "I have planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth anything, neither he that watereth, but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one"{2} (in the neuter). Who can fail to see that Apollos is one person, Paul another ; that one and the same person is not equally Paul and Apollos ? In fact, he makes a clear distinction between the respective services of the two; "he who plants" is one person, "he who waters'' is another. Yet the apostle declares that these two persons [Page 117] are " one,'' in the neuter, not in the masculine, to showthat Apollos is one person, Paul another, so far as the distinction of persons is concerned, but that the two are "one" (in the neuter) with regard to the harmony existing between them. For where between two persons there is a unity of thought, a unity of truth, a unity of faith, a unity and identity of religion, a unity in the fear of God, the two are one, for all their being two. They are the same thing, because they are of the same mind. For those whom the principle of personality divides, the principle of religion brings together again. And although they are not one and the same persons, yet so long as they are of the same mind they are the same thing ; and though they are two persons, yet they are one, provided they have fellowship in the faith, in spite of their differentiation in personality.” - (Chapter 27, “The treatise of Novatian on the Trinity”, Translations of Christian Literature, Series II, Latin Texts, by Herbert Moore M.A., Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London, The Macmillan Company New York, I9I9.)
Page 115: [^ John X. 30.]
Page 115: [^ Again, "economy." [Or: “administration” “hierarchy”]]
Page 116: [1. This interpretation, with the illustration which follows, is far from expressing; the Unity of Essence existing in the Godhead. Nov. cannot have thought that this was all that the words imply.]
Page 116: [2. I Cor. Iii. 6. [1 Cor. 3:6]]
Click to expand...
Novatian's refutation of Sabellius is better than Tertullian's. I especially also like his De spectaculis:

"For how is it, that what is done by the heathens in honour of any idol is resorted to in a public show by faithful Christians, and the heathen idolatry is maintained, and the true and divine religion is trampled upon in contempt of God? Shame binds me to relate their pretexts and defences in this behalf. "Where," say they, "are there such Scriptures? where are these things prohibited? On the contrary, both Elias is the charioteer of Israel, and David himself danced before the ark. We read of psalteries, horns, 1 trumpets, drums, pipes, harps, and choral dances. Moreover, the apostle, in his struggle, puts before us the contest of the Caestus, and of our wrestle against the spiritual things of wickedness. Again, when he borrows his illustrations from the racecourse, he also proposes the prize of the crown. Why, then, may not a faithful Christian man gaze upon that which the divine pen might write about?"

Could say this about many "Christians" whose lives centre around their TVs.

_________________________________

However I hold this against Novatian.

"If Christ was only man, how is it that He Himself says, "And every one that believeth in me shall not die for evermore?" 2 And yet he who believes in man by himself alone is called accursed; but he who believes on Christ is not accursed, but is said not to die for evermore. Whence, if on the one hand He is man only, as the heretics will have it, how shall not anybody who believes in Him die eternally, since he who trusts in man is held to be accursed? Or on the other, if he is not accursed, but rather, as it is read, destined for the attainment of everlasting life, Christ is not man only, but God also, in whom he who believes both lays aside all risk of curse, and attains to the fruit of righteousness."

It seems to me that Novatian erred in the opposite direction to the Sabellians, towards the polytheistic trinity.

For these are not the words of Christ, are they? This is not what Christ taught. Rather he taught that he came from the Father (God). A man who comes from God, is not himself God unless "God" is a polytheistic concept.

The words "man" and "God" are being used in an unnatural philosophical sense, to convey more than is warranted by the words themselves. Of course we know what Novatian means - he means "a man of the earth" when he says "only man" but his teaching that a man from heaven cannot be "only man" is a novel one to scripture, and easily construed as heretical, as polytheistic (i.e. if not Sabellian). Also there doesn't seem to be a logical reason for it, if as Novatian accepts, the Son is subordinate to the Father.

The resolution to the whole argument may lie in accepting that Jesus is "only man" despite originating from heaven.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
So you think he was looking ahead to the Jehovah Witnesses?
Click to expand...
No he was looking at the Novatian schism, to those who separated from each other largely because they disagreed on specific issues, even where 98% of their theology was otherwise compatible. You have to see Cyprian and Cornelius as the first budding of that persecuting spirit towards schismatics that so typified Rome.
 
cjab said:
Novatian's refutation of Sabellius is better than Tertullian's. I especially also like his De spectaculis:

"For how is it, that what is done by the heathens in honour of any idol is resorted to in a public show by faithful Christians, and the heathen idolatry is maintained, and the true and divine religion is trampled upon in contempt of God? Shame binds me to relate their pretexts and defences in this behalf. "Where," say they, "are there such Scriptures? where are these things prohibited? On the contrary, both Elias is the charioteer of Israel, and David himself danced before the ark. We read of psalteries, horns, 1 trumpets, drums, pipes, harps, and choral dances. Moreover, the apostle, in his struggle, puts before us the contest of the Caestus, and of our wrestle against the spiritual things of wickedness. Again, when he borrows his illustrations from the racecourse, he also proposes the prize of the crown. Why, then, may not a faithful Christian man gaze upon that which the divine pen might write about?"

Could say this about many "Christians" whose lives centre around their TVs.

_________________________________

However I hold this against Novatian.

"If Christ was only man, how is it that He Himself says, "And every one that believeth in me shall not die for evermore?" 2 And yet he who believes in man by himself alone is called accursed; but he who believes on Christ is not accursed, but is said not to die for evermore. Whence, if on the one hand He is man only, as the heretics will have it, how shall not anybody who believes in Him die eternally, since he who trusts in man is held to be accursed? Or on the other, if he is not accursed, but rather, as it is read, destined for the attainment of everlasting life, Christ is not man only, but God also, in whom he who believes both lays aside all risk of curse, and attains to the fruit of righteousness."

It seems to me that Novatian erred in the opposite direction to the Sabellians, towards the polytheistic trinity.

For these are not the words of Christ, are they? This is not what Christ taught. Rather he taught that he came from the Father (God). A man who comes from God, is not himself God unless "God" is a polytheistic concept.

The words "man" and "God" are being used in an unnatural philosophical sense, to convey more than is warranted by the words themselves. Of course we know what Novatian means - he means "a man of the earth" when he says "only man" but his teaching that a man from heaven cannot be "only man" is a novel one to scripture, and easily construed as heretical, as polytheistic (i.e. if not Sabellian). Also there doesn't seem to be a logical reason for it, if as Novatian accepts, the Son is subordinate to the Father.

The resolution to the whole argument may lie in accepting that Jesus is "only man" despite originating from heaven.
Click to expand...

The only manuscript for Novatian's "Rule of Faith" (a.ka. "On The Trinity") has long since been lost. There are translation issues and textual issues as well.

The focal point of my posting was meant to be, the sense of impersonal aspect of the neuter "unum" which Novatian gave, in contrast to the personal aspect of the masculine "unus".
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The only manuscript for Novatian's "Rule of Faith" (a.ka. "On The Trinity") has long since been lost. There are translation issues and textual issues as well.

The focal point of my posting was meant to be, the sense of impersonal aspect of the neuter "unum" which Novatian gave, in contrast to the personal aspect of the masculine "unus".
Click to expand...
I did gather that, which is why I suggested Novatian's theology was a lot clearer than Tertullian's theology. The Tertullian import of the neuter, in a similar sense in which Novatian has expounded it, I had already fathomed, and as I said previously, the real problem for Tertullian is what he means by applying this reasoning to things that are in heaven, as to which Deut 6:4 only admits of "one person." What is the point of saying that heavenly "persons" are "in agreement" when such is presupposed just from what Christ said about the will of the Father being (always) done in heaven.

In this sense the Comma, as denoting what is in agreement in heaven, is a unwarranted philosophical intrusion into a system of divinity that admits of nothing else but the Father's will in heaven.
_____________________________

That's not to say that Tertullian's objection to Sabellianism is misconceived. He does say many things that are of value. E.g. the following logic can hardly be faulted:

"10. Thus <one> "is" either father or son, and day is not
identical with night, nor is the Father identical with the Son
in the sense that both are one <person> and each is both <terms
of the relationship>, as those very silly monarchians will have
it. He himself, say they, made himself his own son. Nay,
but father makes son, and son makes father, and those who
become what they are by relationship with one another cannot
by any means so become by relationship with themselves, as
that a father should make himself his own son or a son cause
himself to be his own father. The rules God has made, he himself
observes. A father must have a son so as to be a father, and a
son must have a father so as to be a son. For to have is one thing,
to be is another: for example, to be a husband I must have a
wife, I shall not be my own wife. So also, that I may be a father
I have a son, I shall not be my own son: and that I may be a son
I have a father, I shall not be my own father. For if I have those
things that make me <what I am> I shall be <what I am>, a father
if I have a son, a son if I have a father. Moreover, whatever of
those I am, I have not that which I myself am, no father since
I shall be the father, no son since I shall be the son. To what
degree I must have one of these things so as to be the other, to
that degree if I am both I cease to be the one because I have not
the other. For if I am son who also am father, I already have no
son but am myself son. But as not having a son because I am
myself the son, how shall I be a father? For I must have a son
so as to be a father, and consequently I am no son, because I have
no father and father makes son. Equally, if I am father who also
am son, already I have no father but am myself father. But as not
having a father because I myself am the father, how shall I
be a son? For I must have a father so as to be a son, and
consequently I shall be no father, because I have no son and son
makes father. This will be the sum of the devil's ability, to make
the two mutually destructive, while by locking up both in one
to please the monarchy he causes neither <father nor son> to be
had, with the result that <God> is no father as not having a son,
and the Sony is no son as equally having no father: for so long
as he is the Father he will not be the Son. This is how these
maintain the monarchy, who retain neither the Father nor the Son.
"But", they says, "to God nothing is difficult." Who does
not know it? and who is not aware that things impossible with the
world are possible with God ? 1 Also God hath chosen the foolish
things of the world to confound the things that are wise.2 We have
read it all. "Consequently", they say, "it was not difficult for
God to make himself both father and son, contrary to the law,
traditional in human affairs: for it was not difficult for God,
contrary to nature, to cause the barren woman to bear - or even
the virgin." Certainly nothing is difficult for God: but if in our
assumptions we so rashly make use of this judgement, we shall
be able to invent any manner of thing concerning God, as that
he has done it, on the ground that he was able to do it. But we
must not, on the ground that he can do all things, for that reason
believe that he has done even what he has not done, but must
enquire whether he has done it"

_______________________________________

It's when Tertullian speaks of things that are in heaven, that he becomes theologically incoherent. E.g.

"If you are still offended by the plurality of the Trinity, on
the ground that it is not combined in simple unity, I ask you how
it, is that one only single <person> speaks in the plural, Let us
make man after our image and likeness, when he ought to have said,
Let me make man after my image and likeness, as being one only
single <person>."

Here Tertullian seems to be advancing a biblical argument for polytheism to rebut Sabellianism. Crazy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top