1 John 5:7-8 Johannine Comma - Tertullian Adv. Prax. 25.1 (put in context vs taken out of context)

TwoNoteableCorruptions

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Comma Advocates blind themselves to the wider context of Tertullian's heresy and theological interpretations.

What context affects/effects Adversus Praxean Chapter 25.1?
 
Jerome, said about Tertullian:

JEROME (circa.  347-420 C.E.): “Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church..." - (Paragraph 19, “Against Helvidius, on the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary” Also, W.H. Fremantle, “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary,” in NPNF2, vol. 6, New York 1912, pp. 334-46.)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm

Jerome testifies in effect that Tertullian was not a Christian, and elsewhere (as will be borne out) that he apostatized from Christianity, and became a Montantist heretic, who actively fought and wrote against the Church.

That's just a small part of the context to Tertullian's heretical "Paraclete" reference along with "qui" (note, not "et") "tres unum sunt" at Adv. Prax. 25.1.
 
The wider context of Tertullian's Adversus Praxeam 25.1 was also a mystery interpretation.

Tertullian of Carthage

"Adversus Praxeam" Chapter 2, Sections 3-4

Latin Text, Evans 1948

"...maxime haec quae se existimat meram veritatem possidere dum unicum Deum non alias putat credendum quam si ipsum eundemque et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum dicat: [4] quasi non sic quoque unus sit omnia dum ex uno omnia, per substantiae scilicet unitatem, et nihilo minus custodiatur οἰκονομία sacramentum quae unitatem in trinitatem disponit, tres dirigens Patrem et Filium et Spiritum, tres autem non statu sed gradu, nec substantia sed forma, nec potestate sed specie, unius autem substantiae et unius status et unius potestatis, quia unus Deus ex quo et gradus isti et formae et species "in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti" [Matthew 28:19] deputantur. quomodo numerum sine divisione patiuntur procedentes tractatus demonstrabunt."

Translation Holmes, 1870

"...especially in the case of this heresy [i.e. the Sabellian heresy], which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, [Latin "in"] under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" [Matthew 28:19]. How they [i.e. the Sabellian heretics] are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds."

Translation Evans, 1948

"...and in particular this one [i.e. the Sabellian heresy] which supposes itself to possess truth unadulterated while it thinks it impossible to believe in one God unless it says that both Father and Son and Holy Spirit are one and the same: as though the one <God> were not all <these things> in this way also, that they are all of the one, namely by unity of substance, while none the less is guarded the mystery of that economy which disposes the unity into trinity, setting forth Father and Son and Spirit as three, three however not in quality but in sequence, not in substance but in aspect, not in power but in <its> manifestation, yet of one substance and one quality and one power, seeing it is one God from whom those sequences and aspects and manifestations are reckoned out "in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" [Matthew 28:19]. How they [i.e. the Sabellian heretics] admit of plurality without division the discussion will show as it proceeds..."​

NOTE: English "the Mystery of" above is not a translation of Latin "mysterium", but Latin "sacramentum".
NOTE: Emphasis and Scripture reference added above, by me.
NOTE: Mr Avery's evaluations are almost always taken out of context.
 
For comparison purposes with the hypothetical Comma references.

Textus Receptus

1 John 5:6 (KJV-numbering)
[Clause-A] Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ ἐλθὼν [Clause-B] δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος Ἰησοῦς ὁ Χριστός [Clause-C] οὐκ ἐν τῷ ὕδατι μόνον ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ ὕδατι καὶ τῷ αἵματι· [Clause-D] καὶ τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν τὸ μαρτυροῦν [Clause-E] ὅτι τὸ Πνεῦμά ἐστιν ἡ ἀλήθεια

1 John 5:6 (KJV-numbering)
[Clause-A] "Hic est, qui venit [Clause-B] per aquam et sanguinem, Jesus Christus : [Clause-C] non in aqua solum, sed in aqua et sanguine. [Clause-D] Et Spiritus est, qui testificatur [Clause-E] quoniam Christus est veritas."

1 John 5:7 (KJV-numbering)
[Clause-A] ὅτι τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] εν τῷ οὐρανῷ, [Clause-C] ὁ Πατήρ, ὁ Λόγος, καὶ τὸ Ἅγιον Πνεῦμα· [Clause-D] καὶ οὗτοι οἱ τρεῖς ἕν εἰσιν

1 John 5:7 (KJV-numbering)
[Clause-A] "Quoniam tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in caelo:
[Clause-C] Pater, Verbum, et Spiritus Sanctus : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering)
[Clause-A] καὶ τρεῖς εἰσιν οἱ μαρτυροῦντες [Clause-B] ἕν τῇ γῇ, [Clause-C] τὸ Πνεῦμά καὶ τὸ ὕδωρ καὶ τὸ αἷμα [Clause-D] καὶ οἱ τρεῖς εἰς τὸ ἕν εἰσὶν

1 John 5:8 (KJV-numbering)
[Clause-A] "Et tres sunt, qui testimonium dant [Clause-B] in terra : [Clause-C] Spiritus, et aqua, et sanguis : [Clause-D] et hi tres unum sunt."
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Jerome, said about Tertullian:

JEROME (circa.  347-420 C.E.): “Now that I have cleared the rocks and shoals I must spread sail and make all speed to reach his epilogue. Feeling himself to be a smatterer, he there produces Tertullian as a witness and quotes the words of Victorinus bishop of Petavium. Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church..." - (Paragraph 19, “Against Helvidius, on the Perpetual Virginity of the Virgin Mary” Also, W.H. Fremantle, “The Perpetual Virginity of Blessed Mary,” in NPNF2, vol. 6, New York 1912, pp. 334-46.)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm
Click to expand...

Yet Jerome includes Tertullian in his Illustrious Men, so TNC is obviously not giving you the full context.

De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men)
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...before-priscillian-isaac-the-jew.6515/page-12

53. Tertullian
Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, Give me the master, meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

He composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On modesty, On persecution, On fasts, On monogamy, six books On ecstasy, and a seventh which he wrote Against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age, and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.

Steven Avery said:
That sounds like the Christian view of the Jehovah's Witnesses.

Keep in mind that Jerome put Tertullian in Illustrious Men.

The Life of Tertullian, from the writings of Jerome
A brief entry in Jerome's Latin translation and expansion of Eusebius' Chronicle, and a longer one in De Viris Illustribus.
https://www.tertullian.org/jerome_biog.htm

And I saw a recent analysis that was very good.

Tertullian: A Critical Biography
Kyle Hughes
https://kylerhughes.com/2019/02/22/tertullian-a-critical-biography/
Click to expand...

The Kyle Hughes biography adds more detail about Jerome and Tertullian.
This paragraph relates to the question of Tertullian and the church.

This brings us, finally, back to Jerome’s biography of Tertullian. Jerome seems to suggest that Tertullian made a decisive break from the catholic church, joining with a distinct Montanist sect and launching rhetorical assaults on his former co-religionists. While Tertullian’s writings do indeed show evidence of a deepening attraction to the teachings of the New Prophecy (see below), Jerome again has likely read too much into the life of Tertullian. Simply because Tertullian’s writings are heavily influenced by the New Prophecy, there is no concrete evidence that he actually left the catholic church or formally joined a schismatic group identical to that which was later termed “Montanism.” Instead, there could have been considerable diversity in the beliefs and practices of the Carthaginian Christians without there having been a formal rupture of communion.[26] Tertullian, therefore, very likely saw himself not as a member of a schismatic movement but as a loyal, “orthodox” member of the catholic church; he was, perhaps, a member of a group within the church that had some heated disagreements with others within the church who were less rigorous about their faith and practice, his so-called psychici.[27] As such, as Christine Trevett has aptly put it, “Tertullian the Montanist was Tertullian the Montanist catholic.”[28] Assuming Augustine’s claim that Tertullian later left the Montanists to form a still more rigorous sect to be apocryphal,[29] little is known about Tertullian’s later life or the date of his death, though Barnes’s suggestion that Tertullian died, potentially as a martyr, shortly after completing the last of his extant works (ca. 212 CE) seems plausible.[30]

[26] See further the thorough defense of this position in Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 27–40; cf. Dunn, Tertullian, 6–7; Trevett, Montanism, 68–69; Zilling, Tertullian, 51–53; Douglas Powell, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” VC 29 (1975): 33–54, esp. 33–38. There seems, therefore, to be little warrant for Henne’s claim that in Carthage ca. 210 “les montanistes avaient peu à peu créé leur propre liturgie, leur propre clergé, bien distincts de ceux des autres communautés” (Tertullien, 53).

[27] A modern minority position holds that Tertullian was not even a member of a sub-group within the church at Carthage, as suggested by the majority view described here; cf. David E. Wilhite, “The Spirit of Prophecy: Tertullian’s Pauline Pneumatology,” in Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite, Tertullian and Paul, vol. 1 of Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 48.

[28] Trevett, Montanism, 69.

[29] Haer. 86 (PL 42:46–47); cf. Barnes, Tertullian, 258–59; Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 37; contra Henne, Tertullien, 53. The term “Tertullianists,” used by Augustine to describe the Montanists with whom he was familiar, was likely simply the name given to African Montanists (as distinguished from those in Phrygia), and thus Augustine is perhaps “producing the confused explanation of an authentic tradition” (so Powell, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” 53; cf. Zilling, Tertullian, 54–56).

[30] Barnes, Tertullian, 59.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Yet Jerome includes Tertullian in his Illustrious Men, so TNC is obviously not giving you the full context.

De Viris Illustribus (On Illustrious Men)
https://forums.carm.org/threads/hea...before-priscillian-isaac-the-jew.6515/page-12

53. Tertullian
Tertullian the presbyter, now regarded as chief of the Latin writers after Victor and Apollonius, was from the city of Carthage in the province of Africa, and was the son of a proconsul or Centurion, a man of keen and vigorous character, he flourished chiefly in the reign of the emperor Severus and Antoninus Caracalla and wrote many volumes which we pass by because they are well known to most. I myself have seen a certain Paul an old man of Concordia, a town of Italy, who, while he himself was a very young man had been secretary to the blessed Cyprian who was already advanced in age. He said that he himself had seen how Cyprian was accustomed never to pass a day without reading Tertullian, and that he frequently said to him, Give me the master, meaning by this, Tertullian. He was presbyter of the church until middle life, afterwards driven by the envy and abuse of the clergy of the Roman church, he lapsed to the doctrine of Montanus, and mentions the new prophecy in many of his books.

He composed, moreover, directly against the church, volumes: On modesty, On persecution, On fasts, On monogamy, six books On ecstasy, and a seventh which he wrote Against Apollonius. He is said to have lived to a decrepit old age, and to have composed many small works, which are not extant.



The Kyle Hughes biography adds more detail about Jerome and Tertullian.
This paragraph relates to the question of Tertullian and the church.

This brings us, finally, back to Jerome’s biography of Tertullian. Jerome seems to suggest that Tertullian made a decisive break from the catholic church, joining with a distinct Montanist sect and launching rhetorical assaults on his former co-religionists. While Tertullian’s writings do indeed show evidence of a deepening attraction to the teachings of the New Prophecy (see below), Jerome again has likely read too much into the life of Tertullian. Simply because Tertullian’s writings are heavily influenced by the New Prophecy, there is no concrete evidence that he actually left the catholic church or formally joined a schismatic group identical to that which was later termed “Montanism.” Instead, there could have been considerable diversity in the beliefs and practices of the Carthaginian Christians without there having been a formal rupture of communion.[26] Tertullian, therefore, very likely saw himself not as a member of a schismatic movement but as a loyal, “orthodox” member of the catholic church; he was, perhaps, a member of a group within the church that had some heated disagreements with others within the church who were less rigorous about their faith and practice, his so-called psychici.[27] As such, as Christine Trevett has aptly put it, “Tertullian the Montanist was Tertullian the Montanist catholic.”[28] Assuming Augustine’s claim that Tertullian later left the Montanists to form a still more rigorous sect to be apocryphal,[29] little is known about Tertullian’s later life or the date of his death, though Barnes’s suggestion that Tertullian died, potentially as a martyr, shortly after completing the last of his extant works (ca. 212 CE) seems plausible.[30]

[26] See further the thorough defense of this position in Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 27–40; cf. Dunn, Tertullian, 6–7; Trevett, Montanism, 68–69; Zilling, Tertullian, 51–53; Douglas Powell, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” VC 29 (1975): 33–54, esp. 33–38. There seems, therefore, to be little warrant for Henne’s claim that in Carthage ca. 210 “les montanistes avaient peu à peu créé leur propre liturgie, leur propre clergé, bien distincts de ceux des autres communautés” (Tertullien, 53).

[27] A modern minority position holds that Tertullian was not even a member of a sub-group within the church at Carthage, as suggested by the majority view described here; cf. David E. Wilhite, “The Spirit of Prophecy: Tertullian’s Pauline Pneumatology,” in Todd D. Still and David E. Wilhite, Tertullian and Paul, vol. 1 of Pauline and Patristic Scholars in Debate (New York: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2013), 48.

[28] Trevett, Montanism, 69.

[29] Haer. 86 (PL 42:46–47); cf. Barnes, Tertullian, 258–59; Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, 37; contra Henne, Tertullien, 53. The term “Tertullianists,” used by Augustine to describe the Montanists with whom he was familiar, was likely simply the name given to African Montanists (as distinguished from those in Phrygia), and thus Augustine is perhaps “producing the confused explanation of an authentic tradition” (so Powell, “Tertullianists and Cataphrygians,” 53; cf. Zilling, Tertullian, 54–56).

[30] Barnes, Tertullian, 59.
Click to expand...

Are you claiming that Tertullian was not a Montantist when he wrote Adversus Praxean? That the didn't believe Montanus, Maximilla, and Prisca (or Priscilla) were prophets and prophetesses? And that Montanus was not the person of the Paraclete? Th
 
Jerome includes Tatian the Syrian in DVI, doesn't sanitize his later heresy, or change the fact that he apostacized and became a Gnostic heretic after Justin Martyr, his Christian teacher, died.

Inclusion in DVI is does not sanitize Tertullian's heresy in anyway whatsoever (which is what modern authors, and you yourself are trying to do - a very poor attempt I might add).

In fact what Jerome say's in DVI, strengthens what I've been saying about Tertullian becoming a Montantist.

You totally twisted and missed the point (even in English) of what Jerome said about Tertullian in DVI.

Try chapter 1 of Against Praxaes as your starting point. ?
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
You totally twisted and missed the point (even in English) of what Jerome said about Tertullian in DVI.
Click to expand...

Nahh.
I simply quoted Jerome and Kyle Hughes.

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

Your idea that Tertullian was thinking of Montanus when he referred to the Holy Spirit in Against Praxeas is another one of your wacky laughers.
 
The praxis of Adversus Praxeam: Tertullian's views on the Trinity (2021)
Willem H. Oliver
http://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052021000100066

Oliver goes over the couple of spots where Tertullian may be indicating Montanist teaching in his references to the Paraclete. Afaik, there are no spots where the Holy Spirit is referenced as meaning Montanist teaching, and many where Holy Spirit is in the orthodox, or quasi-orthodox, Trinity teaching of Tertullian.

And I am skeptical about how Oliver handwaves the famous quote about the simple people, the majority, being unimpressed with numericism in God.

“However, these simplices are in fact the same as the 'ethically mediocre' Catholic psychici mentioned in AP1 ('carnally minded people' - McGowan 2006:451; Migne 1844:156; ed. Schaff 1885a:1335).”

===========

It is easy for prophetic utterances “thus says the Lord God” to be misunderstood by the hearers.

===========

Nathan Horner Knorr (1905-1977)
"Jehovah God is the Founder and Organizer of the Witnesses on this earth,"

Definitely untrue, but it sounds like Knorr is speaking for God.

============
 
Last edited:
The context of the so-called allusion to the Comma Johanneum in Against Praxeas 25.1.

Tertullian was a Montantist.

Listen to his words.

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 145-225.C.E. ): “In divers ways has the Devil shown hostility to the Truth. At times he has tried to shake it by pretending to defend it. He is the champion of the one Lord, the Almighty, the creator of the world, so that he may make a heresy out of the unity. He says that the Father himself came down into the virgin, himself was born of her, himself suffered, in short himself is Jesus Christ. The serpent has forgotten himself: for when he tempted Jesus Christ after the baptism of John it was as Son of God that he attacked him, being assured that God has a son at least from those very scriptures out of which he was then constructing the temptation : "If thou art the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread" [1]: again, "If thou art the Son of God cast thyself down from hence, for it is written that he - the Father, of course – hath given his angels charge concerning thee, that in their hands they should bear thee up, lest in any place thou dash thy foot against a stone." [2] Or will he accuse the gospels of lying, and say, "Let Matthew and Luke see to it: I for my part approached God himself, I tempted the Almighty hand to hand: that was the reason for my approach, that was the reason for the temptation: otherwise, if it had been <only> God's son, perhaps I should not have demeaned myself < to tempt> him"? Nay but he himself rather is a liar from, the beginning,[3] and so is any man whom he has suborned with his own <coin>, like Praxeas. For this person was the first to import to Rome out of Asia this kind of wrong headedness a man generally of restless character, and moreover puffed up with boasting of his confessorship on account of nothing more than a mere short discomfort of imprisonment: though even if he had given his body to be burned he would have profited nothing, since he had not the love of God[4] whose spiritual gifts he also drove out by assault. For at that time the bishop of Rome was on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man, by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already issued and to desist from his project of receiving the spiritual gifts. Thus Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business: he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy: he [Latin "fugavit" ] put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father. Praxean tares [1] were sown above the wheat and had germinated here also, while many were asleep in simplicity of doctrine. Thereafter they were brought to light, by whom God would, and seemed even to have been rooted up. In fact the teacher gave security for amendment by return to his former opinions, and his bond remains in the custody of the natural men,[2] in whose presence the transaction was then carried out. After that, silence. I for my part was subsequently [Latin "disiunxit"] separated from the natural men by my acknowledgement and defence of the Paraclete. But those tares had at that time scattered their seed everywhere, and so for a time it lay hid, deceptively dissembling its life, and has now burst forth anew. But it shall also be plucked up anew, if the Lord will, in the time now at my disposal: if not, then in its due time all counterfeit grain will be gathered and, along with other offences, be burned up in unquenchable fire...” - (Chapter 1, Pages 130/131, "TERTULLIAN'S TREATISE AGAINST PRAXEAS," Translated by Canon Ernest Evans, and published by SPCK, 1948.)
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Matt. 4. 3.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: Matt. 4. 6; Ps. 91. 11,12.
[FOOTNOTE 3]: Cf. John 8. 44.
[FOOTNOTE 4]: 1 Cor. 13, 3.
[FOOTNOTE 1]: Matt. 13. 24. ff.
[FOOTNOTE 2]: 1 Cor. 2. 14.

That's the context of so-called the Comma "allusion".

Tertullian had definitely become a Montantist (his words):

"I, for my part, was subsequently separated from the natural men [the Church, i.e. Christianity] by
my acknowledgement and defense of the Paraclete [i.e. Montanus]"​

No amount of modern sanitization can change the plain and simple sense of his own words above.

As Jerome, said in Paragraph 19, “Against Helvidius”

“Of Tertullian I say no more than that he did not belong to the Church..."
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/3007.htm​


Hippolytus also points out, that some Montanists were Sabellian's (Refutation 8.19; 10.26)​

"But there are others who are themselves in nature more heretical. These are Phrygians by birth, and have been deceived through having been overcome by womenkind, called a certain Priscilla and Maximilla, whom they hold for prophetesses, saying that the Comforter Spirit dwelt in them; and they likewise glorify one Montanus before them as a prophet. So having endless books of these people they go astray, neither judging their statements by reason, nor heeding those that are able to judge, but behave without judgement in the faith they give them, saying that through them they have learned something more than from the Law and the Prophets and the Gospels. But they glorify these womenkind above Apostles and every gift, so that some of them presume to say that there was something more in them than in Christ. These confess God the Father of the universe and creator of all things like the Church, and all that the Gospel witnesses concerning Christ, but invent new fasts and feasts and meals of dry food and meals of radishes, saying that they were taught them by the womenkind. And some of them agree with the heresy of the Noëtians [originator of the Sabellian's] in saying that the Father is the same with the Son,
and that this One became subject to birth and suffering and death.​


What Hippolytus says corroborates what Pacain said about Praxaes in Chapter 2, Sections 2(B), Epistle I, [“To Sympronian”] “On the Catholic Name”:

“...Blastus the Greek [mentioned by Irenaeus] is one of them ; Theodotus also, and Praxaes were once teachers of your group, they themselves, also Phrygians [i.e. Montantists] of some notoriety”​

Eusebius of Caesarea, “Ecclesiastical History” Book 5. Chapter 14:

“...The enemy of God’s Church, who is emphatically a hater of good and a lover of evil, and leaves untried no manner of craft against men, was again active in causing strange heresies to spring up against the Church. For some persons, like venomous reptiles, crawled over Asia and Phrygia, BOASTING THAT MONTANUS WAS THE PARACLETE, and that the women that followed him,
Priscilla and Maximilla, were prophetesses of Montanus...”​

That's just a small part of the context to Tertullian's heretical "Paraclete" reference along with "qui" (note, not "et") "tres unum sunt" at Adv. Prax. 25.1.
 
Tertullian himself confirms a lot of what Hippolytus says:

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 145-225.C.E. ): "...For what kind of supposition is it, that, while the Devil is always operating and adding daily to the ingenuities of iniquity, the work of God should either have ceased, or else have desisted from advancing? whereas the reason why the Lord sent THE PARACLETE was, that, since human mediocrity was unable to take in all things at once, discipline should, little by little, be directed, and ordained, and carried on to perfection, by that Vicar of the Lord, the Holy Spirit. [7] "Still," He said, "I have many things to say to you, but ye are not yet able to bear them: when that Spirit of truth shall have come, He will conduct you into all truth, and will report to you the supervening things." But above, withal, He made a declaration concerning this His work. [8] What, then, is THE PARACLETE'S administrative office but this: the direction of discipline, THE – REVELATION OF – THE SCRIPTURES, the reformation of the intellect, THE ADVANCEMENT TOWARD THE BETTER THINGS? Nothing is without stages of growth: all things await their season. In short, the preacher says, "A time to everything." [9] Look how creation itself advances little by little to fructification. First comes the grain, and from the grain arises the shoot, and from the shoot struggles out the shrub: thereafter boughs and leaves gather strength, and the whole that we call a tree expands: then follows the swelling of the germen, and from the germen bursts the flower, and from the flower the fruit opens: that fruit itself, rude for a while, and unshapely, little by little, keeping the straight course of its development, is trained to the mellowness of its flavour. [10] So, too, righteousness--for the God of righteousness and of creation is the same--was first in a rudimentary state, having a natural fear of God: from that stage it advanced, THROUGH THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS, TO INFANCY; from that stage it passed, THROUGH THE GOSPEL, to the fervor of youth: – NOW, – THROUGH THE PARACLETE, it is settling into maturity. [11] HE will be, after Christ, THE ONLY ONE TO BE CALLED AND REVERED AS MASTER; for he speaks not from himself, but what is commanded by Christ. HE IS THE ONLY PRELATE, BECAUSE HE ALONE – SUCCEEDS – CHRIST. They who have received HIM set truth before custom. THEY WHO HAVE HEARD HIM PROPHESYING EVEN TO THE PRESENT TIME, not of old...” - (Chapter 1:6-10, “On the Veiling of Virgins,” Translated by the Rev. S. Thelwall 1870.)

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 145-225 C.E.): “...But yet Almighty God, in His most gracious providence, by: “pouring out of His Spirit in these last days, upon all flesh, upon His servants and on His handmaidens,” has checked these impostures of unbelief and perverseness, reanimated men's faltering faith in the resurrection of the flesh, and cleared from all obscurity and equivocation the ancient Scriptures of both God's Testaments by the clear light of their sacred words and meanings. Now, since it was: “needful that there should be heresies, in order that they which are approved might be made manifest;” since, however, these heresies would be unable to put on a bold front without some countenance from the Scriptures, it therefore is plain enough that the ancient Holy Writ has furnished them with sundry materials for their evil doctrine, which very materials indeed so distorted are refutable from the same Scriptures. It was fit and proper, therefore, that the holy ghost should no longer withhold THE EFFUSIONS OF HIS GRACIOUS LIGHT UPON THESE INSPIRED WRITINGS, in order that they might be able to disseminate the seeds of truth with no admixture of heretical subtleties, and pluck out from it their tares. HE has accordingly NOW DISPERSED ALL THE PERPLEXITIES OF THE PAST, and their self-chosen allegories and parables, BY THE OPEN AND PERSPICUOUS EXPLANATION OF THE ENTIRE MYSTERY, THROUGH THE NEW PROPHECY, which descends in copious streams from THE PARACLETE. If you will only draw water from HIS fountains, you will never thirst for other doctrine: no feverish craving after subtle questions will again consume you...” - (Chapter 63:7-10, “De Resurrectione Carnis,” or: “On the Resurrection of the Flesh,” Translated by Dr. Paul Holmes, 1870.)
 
Note how the Montantist revelations were recieved as described by Tertullian.

TERTULLIAN OF CARTHAGE (circa. 145-225 C.E.): “...but also from the firm conviction which divine grace impresses on us BY REVELATION. For, seeing that we acknowledge spiritual charismata, or gifts, we too have merited the attainment of the prophetic gift, although coming after John (the Baptist). We have now amongst us – A SISTER – whose lot it has been to be favored with sundry GIFTS OF REVELATION, which she experiences in the Spirit by ecstatic vision amidst the sacred rites of the Lord's day in the church: SHE CONVERSES WITH ANGELS, and sometimes even with the Lord; SHE BOTH SEES AND HEARS MYSTERIOUS COMMUNICATIONS;{57} some men's hearts she understands, and to them who are in need she distributes remedies. WHETHER IT BE IN the reading of Scriptures, or in the chanting of psalms, or in the preaching of sermons, or in the offering up of prayers, IN ALL THESE religious services matter and opportunity are afforded to her of SEEING VISIONS. It may possibly have happened to us, whilst this sister of ours was rapt in the Spirit, that we had discoursed in some ineffable way about the soul. After the people are dismissed at the conclusion of the sacred services, she is in the regular habit of reporting to us whatever things she may have SEEN IN VISION (for all her COMMUNICATIONS are examined with the most scrupulous care, in order that their truth may be probed). "Amongst other things," says she, "there has been shown to me a soul in bodily shape, AND A SPIRIT HAS BEEN IN THE HABIT OF APPEARING TO ME; not, however, a void and empty illusion, but such as would offer itself to be even grasped by the hand, soft and transparent and of an etherial colour, and in form resembling that of a human being in every respect." This was her vision, and for her witness there was God; and the apostle most assuredly foretold that there were to be "spiritual gifts" in the church.{58}...” - (Chapter 9 [ IX. ], “De Anima,” or: “On The Soul,” Translated by Peter Holmes. From Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1885.)
[FOOTNOTE 57]: Sacramenta.
[FOOTNOTE 58]: 1st Corinthians 12:1-11, a key to our author's
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0310.htm
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
The context of the so-called allusion to the Comma Johanneum in Against Praxeas 25.1.
Click to expand...

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.

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

Off topic. Take this to the Trinity Forum.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roger Pearse helps by separating the pre-Montanist writings from those after Tertullian became Montanist.

The Works of Tertullian
https://www.tertullian.org/works.htm

Roger might want to add
De virginibus velandis (On head-coverings for unmarried girls)
De resurrectione carnis (On the resurrection of the flesh)
as works after Montanism, based on the quotes above.

In Against Praxeas, there are pro-Montanist quotes in the first chapter, given above. In the 30th chapter there is a reference to the new prophecy. That seems to be it for the 31 chapters.

The idea that Tertullian's Trinitarian doctrines are radically different in Against Praxeas because of the Montanists so far has zero support.
 
Look, it is commendable that you put together some Montanist history related to Tertullian.
Love it.

However, as usual, you lose on context.

Nothing there has any effect on his “three are one” reference in Against Praxeas, which combines with Cyprian as solid heavenly witnesses evidence.

And I should take a look at the other Tertullian quotes.
 
Steven Avery said:
Look, it is commendable that you put together some Montanist history related to Tertullian.
Love it.

However, as usual, you lose on context.

Nothing there has any effect on his “three are one” reference in Against Praxeas, which combines with Cyprian as solid heavenly witnesses evidence.

And I should take a look at the other Tertullian quotes.
Click to expand...

Your twofold blind trying to lead the blind denial of the Tertullian's "acceptance" (Adv. Prax. 1) of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla as "prophets", and your projectionism of your own "heavenly witnesses" belief upon what Cyprian actually calls "heavenly mysteries" ? is neither surprising or novel.

Good night Steven.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Your twofold blind trying to lead the blind denial of the Tertullian's "acceptance" (Adv. Prax. 1) of Montanus, Maximilla, and Priscilla as "prophets", and your projectionism of your own "heavenly witnesses" belief upon what Cyprian actually calls "heavenly mysteries" ? is neither surprising or novel.
Good night Steven.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

I just checked carefully and saw that the Trinitarian exposition in Against Praxeas has nothing doctrinally connected to the Montanist issues.

You just put up a false pretense in order to separate the Tertullian “three are one” from the Cyprian references.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top