Tertullian and the Trinity [Archive]

GodisonePerson

March 6th 2003, 11:32 AM

Dear Carl,

Your approach sounds similar to the one taken by Bernard Lonergan. He thinks it is anachronistic to call Tertullian and the other ANF subordinationists since their "subordinationist Christology," according to Lonergan, was at most "naive subordinationism."

Lonergan posits a philosophico-historical paradigm that he uses to explain the "dialectical" attempts of the church to avoid heresy and establish orthodoxy through the light of faith and reason. In essence, Lonergan is arguing that the historical consciousness of the church had to progressively develop vis-a-vis theologia viatorum.

As the ecclesia reflected on the Christ Event that took place in the first century of our common era, it sought to produce a coherent account of this "Event" by articulating a statement of faith concerning God's threefoldness. The result or "term" (to use Lonergan's nomenclature) was the Council of Nicea in 325 CE which subsequently affirmed the consubstantiality of the Son with the Father.

As for Tertullian, however, Lonergan frankly says that his articulation of God's putative trinunity is "contradictory" and Lonergan employs syllogistic language to demonstrate why Tertullian contradicts himself in Against Praxeas. Nevertheless, though Tertullian does not affirm the eternal generation of the Son and though he also believes that there was a time when the Son was not a distinct hypostasis, Lonergan thinks that one can still say Tertullian believed that the Son is fully God. The North African evidently formulated his Christology with the categories available at the time. But, were there not hypostasis theories floating about in Tertullian's day?

Cheers,
Dan

03-05-2003 @ 08:40 PM
Carl Smuda:

Maybe it is like the search for the double-helix or something. We can read all about scientists, and their hard work, about what they thought the structure of DNA was. But just because we "got it right" doesn't change what came before. We can look at their work and say, from our point of view, "O look, she was real close here." or, "See that, he didn't realize what he was looking at."

But if there wasn't any hypostasis theories when Tertullian was alive how can we possibly ask if he believed that?

Carl Smuda

March 6th 2003, 02:07 PM

Dan,
Wow. I take knowledge from you sir. I appreciate your thoughts. Maybe one day I might read Lonergan. I have no clue of everything the church fathers were hammering out. I respect that they were trying. Please help me along if I stray. My understanding from J.N.D.Kelly is that they wanted to preserve the monotheism of the parent faith. To them it was a given that Jesus (Blessed be Him) was the God of the OT? But somehow they had to try and explain the, as you say, "the Christ event." Reading about their efforts (thanks to the help of the best mentor I ever had!) helped me respect what they were trying to do. I mean, my years in unitarianism had to give room to trinitarian ideas once I recognized the mysterious relationship IN scripture between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, AND, unitarian habits of ignoring the verses that don't make sense. Does that make sense? Thank the Father that we can read the history of our most holy Faith.

Athanasian said:The scribblings of a disgruntled heretic like Tertullian When I read that I felt sad. I thought I'd read some beautiful things from his hand. One generation of Christians trying to explain this great mystery of godliness are dismissed by the next generation as 'scribblings of a heretic.' Tsk. Athanasian, compared to whom, exactly, was Tertullian a disgruntled heretic? Didn't he write some letters to different church's? Was he martyred? I can't keep these names straight. :huh:

Athanasian

March 6th 2003, 03:13 PM

Athanasian said: When I read that I felt sad. I thought I'd read some beautiful things from his hand. One generation of Christians trying to explain this great mystery of godliness are dismissed by the next generation as 'scribblings of a heretic.' Tsk.

Athanasian, compared to whom, exactly, was Tertullian a disgruntled heretic? Didn't he write some letters to different church's? Was he martyred? I can't keep these names straight. :huh: [/QUOTE]

He was fine until he went bananas. He was a heretic according to the Church. Isn't that enough for you?

Carl Smuda

March 6th 2003, 03:31 PM

No, of course not. But you task me my friend. I've a book at home that is the writings of early church fathers. And as soon as I can I'm gonna go see about Tertullian. I don't like inflammatory labels. I've been ripped off too many times by that kind of herd mentality. Although I do believe that our most holy Faith IS a herd religion. :yipee: Still, I've just in the last year been warming up to what I have access to in english from those dead guys. Until I can learn more that is not good enough for me? Was that good enough for you?

GodisonePerson

March 6th 2003, 08:33 PM

Greetings Carl,

It is a pleasure talking with you. Lonergan is awesome to read, IMO. If you read his _Way to Nicea_ please take note of the distinctions that he makes between the formal principle, material principle, the dialectic and term. Great stuff!

I believe that Tertullian, Tatian, Aristides, Justin Martyr (et al) were trying to preserve monotheism and reconcile the unicity of God with the Christ Event. If you ever get the chance, read Tertullian's Against Praxeas 13. Note how he deals with the question of whether there is one God or two Gods. It is interesting how he decides to call Jesus "Lord" in certain contexts and "God" in others, making a marked distinction between the two terms.

Another often overlooked study, in a certain respect, is Jurgen Moltmann's _The Trinity and the Kingdom of God_. Moltmann's historical review of various Trinitarian formulations is priceless. His work includes a penetrating critique of Tertullian's theology that merits careful reading.

Cheers,
Dan

[QUOTE]03-06-2003 @ 06:07 PM
Carl Smuda:

Dan,
Wow. I take knowledge from you sir. I appreciate your thoughts. Maybe one day I might read Lonergan. I have no clue of everything the church fathers were hammering out. I respect that they were trying. Please help me along if I stray. My understanding from J.N.D.Kelly is that they wanted to preserve the monotheism of the parent faith. To them it was a given that Jesus (Blessed be Him) was the God of the OT? But somehow they had to try and explain the, as you say, "the Christ event." Reading about their efforts (thanks to the help of the best mentor I ever had!) helped me respect what they were trying to do. I mean, my years in unitarianism had to give room to trinitarian ideas once I recognized the mysterious relationship IN scripture between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, AND, unitarian habits of ignoring the verses that don't make sense. Does that make sense?:eek:

undead

March 7th 2003, 12:28 AM

I will never understand why anyone needs to drag up church counsels, from hundreds of years after the bible was written to prove something that is in the bible. Neither Tertullian, the Nicene Counsel, nor anyone else had anything more to go on in respect of the nature of the trinity than people of today.

And yes, the apostle Paul does confirm that God is by definition, one person, the Father.

1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things.

So who is Christ?

Christ has the nature or form of God, and in him does the fullness of God dwell.

Col 1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;

Christ and the father are not co-equal. The Father is above all, but he has placed Christ at his right hand. Christ is eternal, or "God", simply by reason that he has the nature or form of God. But he is only God, by virtue that the fullness of the Father lives in him.

Why does it have to be so complicated?

Athanasian

March 7th 2003, 05:34 AM

03-07-2003 @ 04:28 AM
undead:

I will never understand why anyone needs to drag up church counsels, from hundreds of years after the bible was written to prove something that is in the bible. Neither Tertullian, the Nicene Counsel, nor anyone else had anything more to go on in respect of the nature of the trinity than people of today.

Yes they did. They had oral tradition, the counsel of the Church, and a clearer revelation of truth.

And yes, the apostle Paul does confirm that God is by definition, one person, the Father.

Where?

1Cr 8:6 But to us [there is but] one God, the Father, of whom [are] all things.

This says that the Father is God. I agree that the Father is God.
I agree that the Father is 'one God'. I also believe that the son is 'one God', and that the Holy Spirit is 'one God'. One God, three persons all in the one God. That's what Paul is saying here.

So who is Christ?

Christ has the nature or form of God, and in him does the fullness of God dwell.

What does this mean to you?

Col 1:19 For it pleased [the Father] that in him should all fulness dwell;

Are you a Mormon?

Christ and the father are not co-equal. The Father is above all, but he has placed Christ at his right hand. Christ is eternal, or "God", simply by reason that he has the nature or form of God. But he is only God, by virtue that the fullness of the Father lives in him.

The Church did not profess this.

Why does it have to be so complicated?

If it was simple and easy to understand, it wouldn't be a Divine revelation. The way we know that it's Divine is because it is not possible to arrive at this conclusion through human reason.

Carl Smuda

March 7th 2003, 11:38 AM

We confess that we have often lost the fullness of our Christian heritage, too readily assuming that the Scriptures and the Spirit makes us independent of the past. In so doing, we have become theologically shallow, spiritually weak, blind to the work of God in others and married to our cultures. - "The Chicago Call: An Appeal to Evangelicals" May 1977

GodisonePerson

March 7th 2003, 12:11 PM

Dear Athanasian,

May I inform you that Tertullian was more than likely not a "heretic." We're not even sure if he really joined the Montanists or Cataphrygians. But, regardless of whether Tertullian became a Montanist or not, there seems to be little to no historical proof that he ever became a heretic. Timothy Barnes, in his work entitled _Tertullian_, demonstrates that it is highly unlikely Tertullian apostatized from the faith. Cyprian of Carthage considered Tertullian "the master" and he probably read nothing but Tertullian's treatises and Scripture for an extended period of time. The one document that possibly points to heresy committed by Tertullian is the Decretum Gelasium, which is probably a forged document purporting to be a papal decretal. Anyway, I'd be interested in hearing why you think Tertullian deviated from straight doctrine.

Cheers,
Dan

03-06-2003 @ 07:13 PM
Athanasian:

He was fine until he went bananas. He was a heretic according to the Church. Isn't that enough for you?

Carl Smuda

March 7th 2003, 01:52 PM

undead,
that quote from the 'Chicago Call' (1977) was for you. Our beautiful Lord and Saviour has been relentlessly backing up His Word with signs, miracles, and wonders for 20 centuries. Sure we got the best and worst of it. But, He sat down on the Father's right hand. And, He will remain there until all His enemies are His footstool. So it is very exciting to look at all the things through history. Creeds can be beautiful things.

Athanasian,
thanks to you I took the time to read up on Tertullian. here is a great site to look at: http://www.tertullian.org/

Dan,
Okay. So what I've got is Tertullian was the first great Latin Church father. His command of latin is maybe equal to none. He is a real challenge to you latin readers. He was very intelligent and passionate. He gets credit for coining the word, "trinity." Later in his life he did get into the Montanist movement. And as you said there was Bishops after him who read his writings daily and called him, 'the master.'

More fun, historically speaking :rofl:
seriously,
Carl

undead

March 7th 2003, 02:21 PM

03-07-2003 @ 05:52 PM
Carl Smuda:

undead,
that quote from the 'Chicago Call' (1977) was for you. Our beautiful Lord and Saviour has been relentlessly backing up His Word with signs, miracles, and wonders for 20 centuries. Sure we got the best and worst of it. But, He sat down on the Father's right hand. And, He will remain there until all His enemies are His footstool. So it is very exciting to look at all the things through history. Creeds can be beautiful things".

Eh? My creed is the words of Paul and the words of Peter. I know no other creed. I find it sad that when you quote the bible you get called a heretic by Catholics. Shows how far Catholicism has strayed from the straight and narrow. Don't forget Paul's prophecy that after he had gone savage wolves would come in and destroy the flock. The Nicene Council was long after Paul had gone.

undead

March 7th 2003, 02:31 PM

03-07-2003 @ 09:34 AM
Athanasian:
This says that the Father is God. I agree that the Father is God.
I agree that the Father is 'one God'. I also believe that the son is 'one God', and that the Holy Spirit is 'one God'. One God, three persons all in the one God. That's what Paul is saying here.

No, you have just counted three Gods. You cannot count three Gods and then pretend they are one God, by a sleight of hand.

There is one God only. The Father. The Father lives in the Son and in the Holy Spirit. hence one derives the godhead (or trinity, though the bible knows of no such word to describe God).

What does this mean to you?

The nature of form of God means being in the image of God. The representation of God. To humans, Christ appears as God. That's all it means. Humans can comprehend Christ as God. But humans have no comprehension of the Father at all, apart from what is revealed by Christ. As Paul says, the Father lives in unapproachable light which no-one has seen nor can see.

Are you a Mormon?

No.

The Church did not profess this.

Very sad. The church denies the very words of Christ himself.

Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

If it was simple and easy to understand, it wouldn't be a Divine revelation. The way we know that it's Divine is because it is not possible to arrive at this conclusion through human reason.

Human reason plays a part in all things, and manifests itself in divine reason in the believer. But the godhead is a matter of revelation I'll agree and that's why I stick to the bible.

Carl Smuda

March 7th 2003, 03:20 PM

undead,
God Bless your heart in the name of Jesus Christ! What does this mean?Amillennial zero-pointer traditionalist I think I understand where you're coming from. But after 20 years I was introduced to the exciting truth that there is way way more to our most holy faith other than an AV Bible and analytical concordance. You're not the first person I've heard call their Bible their creed. But it isn't. A creed is a brief authoritative formula of religious belief. They are intended to be short and concise. And I sympathize with hostility towards the RCs. They certainly deserve it. But there were many Christian creeds hundreds of years BEFORE the New Testament was canonized in A.D.389. If nothing else, think of all your brothers and sisters in Christ who lived and died before the late fourth century. We can learn a lot of wonderful things from their writings. We can peer into the minds of our ancestors. They too had God working in them to will and to do of His good pleasure.
sincerely,
Carl :cheers:

undead

March 7th 2003, 10:04 PM

03-07-2003 @ 07:20 PM
Carl Smuda:
undead,
God Bless your heart in the name of Jesus Christ!

I reciprocate the sentiment.

What does this mean?

Amillennialist - I believe we are now living in the 1000 years of the Revelation.

Zero-pointer - I believe in predestination but entirely reject 5-point Calvinism.

Traditionalist - I believe women should be silent in church and wear hats.

I think I understand where you're coming from. But after 20 years I was introduced to the exciting truth that there is way way more to our most holy faith other than an AV Bible and analytical concordance. You're not the first person I've heard call their Bible their creed. But it isn't. A creed is a brief authoritative formula of religious belief. They are intended to be short and concise. And I sympathize with hostility towards the RCs. They certainly deserve it. But there were many Christian creeds hundreds of years BEFORE the New Testament was canonized in A.D.389. If nothing else, think of all your brothers and sisters in Christ who lived and died before the late fourth century. We can learn a lot of wonderful things from their writings. We can peer into the minds of our ancestors. They too had God working in them to will and to do of His good pleasure.

Yes, I agree we can learn a lot from them. But equally we can learn a lot of error, if we are not careful. It is my belief that Calvin was led seriously astray in undue reliance on Augustine, whose errors he blindly propagated without sufficient critical analysis.

AVmetro

March 10th 2003, 07:54 PM

Jhn 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come [again] unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

John1:1-18..cf..Phil2:6..cf..John17:5 = ^

phantaz sunlyk

March 10th 2003, 08:30 PM

**7** say hey Undead--

I find it sad that when you quote the bible you get called a heretic by Catholics.

**8** extremely vague and untrue.

The Nicene Council was long after Paul had gone.

**7** so are you.

No, you have just counted three Gods. You cannot count three Gods and then pretend they are one God, by a sleight of hand.

**8** how, if not by a sleight of hand, do we then turn three into one? :huh: ar har har.
you're collapsing the post-Nicene understanding of "God" with the conjunction of the post-Descartesian understanding of "person" with "God" in the above.

There is one God only. The Father. The Father lives in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

**7** a statement not necessarily at odds with orthodoxy. is the identity of the person of the Father distinct as in himself as opposed to as in the Son and Spirit?
if not, then what do you mean?
if yes, then how have you not, by a 'sleight of hand', turned the Son and Spirit, both of whom are individually one person, into two?
peace.

popof3

March 10th 2003, 11:19 PM

03-06-2003 @ 02:13 PM
Athanasian:

He was fine until he went bananas. He was a heretic according to the Church. Isn't that enough for you?

No and it never will be. Is this implying that the church is perfect?

phantaz sunlyk

March 11th 2003, 01:01 AM

**8** hey, PersonIsARelationalCategory!!--

Another often overlooked study, in a certain respect, is Jurgen Moltmann's _The Trinity and the Kingdom of God_. Moltmann's historical review of various Trinitarian formulations is priceless.

**7** okay, given the rather dull manner of overestimating theological works ('priceless'), alongside the extremely unnecessary habit of intermingling greek and latin into sentences, i'm wondering whether or not "Dan" is indeed Mr. Ed(gar) Foster himself? or perhaps one of his admirers who has adopted his mode of expression?
and on the side, is Mr. Ed(gar Foster) an author for Watchtower publications from time to time? the tendency to oversimplify can't help but to suggest as much to me.
anywho, regarding the above quote regarding Moltmann, it is extremely exaggerated. chapter 5 of Moltmann's work, which is what "Dan" is here referring to, dispels of the historical articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a mere 19 pages, the bulk of which focusses on Karl Barth and Karl Rahner (whom Moltmann considers too near modalism--a trumped up charge as far as Rahner goes--as he does with Tertullian as well).
Moltmann also engages the historical aspects of the Trinity earlier in his work, yet this deals only with the 'passibility' of God, and why the understanding of this doctrine needs to be modified (a correct judgement in my view, though he totally disregards the influence of liturgy on theology).

His work includes a penetrating critique of Tertullian's theology that merits careful reading.

**7** his work includes less than two pages on Tertullian! in it, he credits Tertullian with forming a Trinitarian vocabulary, but faults Tertullian with completely identifying God's triadic being with the movement of God into creation and salvation history (again, a bogus charge, as Moltmann, with his eye ever on the personhood, and i dare say, 'emotional' aspects of God, is reading into Tertullian far more than he needs to, and judging him as sub-par only in light of modern psychological presuppositions which are taken for granted). Moltmann is anachronistic as a historical theologian, but very on point when it comes to speculative theology.
the reader would do better to consult Catherine Mowry LaCugna's _God For Us_ for a critical analysis of the historical articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

But, regardless of whether Tertullian became a Montanist or not, there seems to be little to no historical proof that he ever became a heretic.

**8** six of one, half a dozen of the other. you seem to take for granted a purely "assent to intellectual propositions abstracted entirely from history" notion of what it takes to be a Christian, and this is absolutely at odds with the patristic understanding of the Church as a "Visible" and empirical reality which participated in the very person of Christ. in the ancient world the Church would have understood itself as a kinship group over against every other such.
in Tertullian's _De Pudicitia_ 21:17, he parts company entirely with this notion and gives clear evidence of an entirely pneumatic understanding of the constitution of the Church.

Timothy Barnes, in his work entitled _Tertullian_, demonstrates that it is highly unlikely Tertullian apostatized from the faith.

**7** Tertullian's purely theological ideas were basically sound, but he willingly parted company with the apostolic Church and stood over against Her.
this is, in fact, a more serious breach with the Faith than the promulgation of questionable doctrine, especially in ante-Nicene times. see John Zizioulas' _Eucharist: Bishop: Church_
Tertullian, despite all of his merits, will for this reason always remain an object less worthy of consideration than Origen, who in fact had a far more lasting influence on Trinitarian doctrine. the greatest Latin theologian after Tertullian--Augustine--was indebted to the Nicene Creed (381), Ambrose (and through him the Eastern Fathers), Marius Victorinus, and Hilary, yet Tertullian's impact on his thought is far less substantial than that of Origen on Athanasius and and the Cappadocians.

phantaz sunlyk

March 11th 2003, 01:10 AM

No and it never will be. Is this implying that the church is perfect?

**7** for the early fathers, the Church was well enough aware of its actual imperfection (and this issue came to the fore when Augustine clashed with Donatism), yet it understood itself as supernaturally constituted within the world as a visible and real entity, such that participation within it entailed participation in Christ.
hope that sheds some light on the issue for ya.
peace in Christ forever.

GodisonePerson

March 11th 2003, 03:00 PM

**8** hey, PersonIsARelationalCategory!!--

Person is not always a relational category. Read your Tommy Aquinas!

**7** okay, given the rather dull manner of overestimating theological works ('priceless'), alongside the extremely unnecessary habit of intermingling greek and latin into sentences, i'm wondering whether or not "Dan" is indeed Mr. Ed(gar) Foster himself?

Speaking of "overestimating theological works," we will now supply some quotes from the Phantazmeister himself:

"Scripture is the home base for all study of doctrine, and this Bible (NRSV) has excellent footnotes and essays. "

"This is an absolutely remarkable volume. Bauckham argues for a developed Trinitarian theology in Revelation, and it also makes a nice compliment to J. P. Holding's new article on it."

"Newman's strengths were his impeccable patristic knowledge, and his absolutely keen and sensitive mind."

Should I continue?

:or perhaps one of his admirers who has adopted his mode of expression?:

Does Edgar have admirers? Man, I'm jealous.

:and on the side, is Mr. Ed(gar Foster) an author for Watchtower publications from time to time? the tendency to oversimplify can't help but to suggest as much to me.:

Seeing that you're working with limited gray matter, I'm not surprised that you conclude I'm Edgar Foster simply cause I intermingled Latin, Greek and oversimplified (in your humble opinion) issues in my earlier correspondence. For the record, neither the Watchtower nor yours truly has a monoply on oversimplification. You trinitarians also do a pretty good job of oversimplifying church history. Kudos!

:anywho, regarding the above quote regarding [sic] Moltmann, it is extremely exaggerated. chapter 5 of Moltmann's work, which is what "Dan" is here referring to, dispels [sic] of the historical articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity in a mere 19 pages, the bulk of which focusses on Karl Barth and Karl Rahner (whom Moltmann considers too near modalism--a trumped up charge as far as Rahner goes--as he does with Tertullian as well).:

Duh! Did I not write that Moltmann supplies a neat "review" of the Trinity doctrine as it developed historically? What part of "review" did you not understand?

**7** his work includes less than two pages on Tertullian! in it, he credits Tertullian with forming a Trinitarian vocabulary,

So a critique is only a critique if it is more than two pages?

:but faults Tertullian with completely identifying God's triadic being with the movement of God into creation and salvation history (again, a bogus charge, as Moltmann, with his eye ever on the personhood, and i dare say, 'emotional' aspects of God, is reading into Tertullian far more than he needs to, and judging him as sub-par only in light of modern psychological presuppositions which are taken for granted).:

Tertullian does completely identify "God's triadic being" with the divine economy. Have you actually ever read Against Praxeas, the work in which Tertullian explains that the Monarchy is distributed into a Trinity with regard to the economy? Speaking of oversimplifying, your overview of Moltmann's critique of Tertullian is way too simplified, dude.

::Moltmann is anachronistic as a historical theologian, but very on point when it comes to speculative theology.
the reader would do better to consult Catherine Mowry LaCugna's _God For Us_ for a critical analysis of the historical articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.::

Lacugna has next to nothing on Tertullian. One would be better served by reading W.J. Hill's _The Three-Personed God_.

**8** six of one, half a dozen of the other. you seem to take for granted a purely "assent to intellectual propositions abstracted entirely from history" notion of what it takes to be a Christian, and this is absolutely at odds with the patristic understanding of the Church as a "Visible" and empirical reality which participated in the very person of Christ. in the ancient world the Church would have understood itself as a kinship group over against every other such.

I'm not sure what you mean by "every other such" but your depiction of the church in Tertullian's time is so far off-base, it ain't even funny. Are you seriously suggesting that the second-third century Church [sic] was monolithic and institutional or viewed as such by Christians of the time? I know you don't expect me to buy that anachronistic and tendentious account of Church [sic] history, do ya?

:in Tertullian's _De Pudicitia_ 21:17, he parts company entirely with this notion and gives clear evidence of an entirely pneumatic understanding of the constitution of the Church.:

The fact is that Tertullian was never deemed a heretic by the church. Only a forged document indicates otherwise.

Furthermore, what is the problem with one having a pneumatic view of the church? Does not the apostle Paul say that unless one has the spirit of Christ, one does not belong to the Lord? See Romans 8:9. I also highly recommend Wolfhart Pannenberg's "brilliant" and "awesome" _Systematic Theology_ volume 3. Pannenberg defines the church in terms of "the fellowship of believers and the body of Christ." It is the "Messianic community."

**7** Tertullian's purely theological ideas were basically sound, but he willingly parted company with the apostolic Church and stood over against Her.
this is, in fact, a more serious breach with the Faith than the promulgation of questionable doctrine, especially in ante-Nicene times. see John Zizioulas' _Eucharist: Bishop: Church_
Tertullian, despite all of his merits, will for this reason always remain an object less worthy of consideration than Origen, who in fact had a far more lasting influence on Trinitarian doctrine. the greatest Latin theologian after Tertullian--Augustine--was indebted to the Nicene Creed (381), Ambrose (and through him the Eastern Fathers), Marius Victorinus, and Hilary, yet Tertullian's impact on his thought is far less substantial than that of Origen on Athanasius and and the Cappadocians. [/QUOTE]

There is no good historical evidence that would lead us to believe Tertullian ever parted company with the church, as Christians understood it at the time. He may have viewed the church in pneumatic rather than episcopal terms. But it appears that Tertullian remained a professed follower of Christ for his entire life.

Shalom,
Dan

phantaz sunlyk

March 11th 2003, 10:36 PM

**8** wuddah homey?

Person is not always a relational category.

**7** i claim that relationality is intrinsic to personhood. prove me wrong.

Read your Tommy Aquinas!

**8** anachronistic, he has no import on the concept of personhood within this context, and to the extent to which he disagrees with me here, i'm more than confident that i'm capable of going the rounds with him, alongside not doubting that i'll lose his intercession on that account.

Speaking of "overestimating theological works," we will now supply some quotes from the Phantazmeister himself:

**7** none of the above were overestimations.

Should I continue?

**8** that's a question for the man in the mirror.

Does Edgar have admirers?

**7** yup.

Man, I'm jealous.

**8** of who? edgar or the admirers?

I'm not surprised that you conclude I'm Edgar Foster simply cause I intermingled Latin, Greek and oversimplified (in your humble opinion) issues in my earlier correspondence

**7** calling Moltmann's extremely bland "historical" review priceless immediately brought to mind the Wizard of Foz's calling Ray Brown inimitable.
the mode of expression, choice for discussion (Tertullian), and coming after me leads me to believe that you are either Mr. Ed(gar) himself or (your hasty and imprecise mind of course explains your leaving the above disjunct out in your comments) quite close to him, either by reading his work or via dialogue with him, or both.
am i wrong?

Duh!

**8** (cough), ah ha hahhhhm ...... mydaddycanbeatupyourdaddy.

Did I not write that Moltmann supplies a neat "review" of the Trinity doctrine as it developed historically?

**7** no, you did not write that.
you wrote that the author and work in question is--

Another often overlooked study, in a certain respect, is Jurgen Moltmann's _The Trinity and the Kingdom of God_. Moltmann's historical review of various Trinitarian formulations is priceless.

**8** overlooked by whom? tell me what author of a work on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity's work suffers from not including Moltmann's 9 pages on that develoment prior to Barth?
his historical review is "priceless"? the writing style lacks color, no extraordinary insights are offered that are not available somewhere else, and he doesn't even mention Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Alexander of Hales, Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventure, Gregory Palamas, not to mention moderns such as Dumitru Staniloae, Sergius Bulgakov, Hans urs von Balthasar, or Walter Kasper.
the historical review is nearly worthless, and it serves only as a backdrop against which he can emphasize the distinctiveness of his theology of the Open and Passionate God.

What part of "review" did you not understand?

**7** ...as modified by the adjective "priceless"; don't blame me for your inaccurate overstatements.
"brief synopsis of possibly modalistic tendencies" would have been much more accurate.

So a critique is only a critique if it is more than two pages?

**8** if by "penetrating" you understand something that gets underneath the surface, then yes.

Lacugna has next to nothing on Tertullian.

**7** dan dan
short and stout
find your head
and pull it out!
i didn't say to turn to her for Tertullian, i said to turn to her for "a critical analysis of the historical articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity". and in that regard, her analysis is both insightful and thorough.
do you read this carefully when you're hunting the padres and historians for prooftexts?

Tertullian does completely identify "God's triadic being" with the divine economy.

**8** Tertullian identifies the distribution as in accordance with that which subsisted within the Father prior to salvation history. for that matter, so do i; so does Karl Rahner; so does von Balthasar. the "Word" that is expressed subsists eternally within the Father.

Speaking of oversimplifying, your overview of Moltmann's critique of Tertullian is way too simplified, dude.

**7** sorry, cougino. i was afraid that another paragraph may have exceeded what Moltmann himself said (penetratingly) regarding Tertullian.

One would be better served by reading W.J. Hill's _The Three-Personed God_.

**8** given your take on Moltmann, followed by your rather shabby attempt to defend it, i'm not going to take your word for it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "every other such"

**7** i'm not surprised.

but your depiction of the church in Tertullian's time is so far off-base, it ain't even funny

**8** my "depiction"? here's what i said--
you seem to take for granted a purely "assent to intellectual propositions abstracted entirely from history" notion of what it takes to be a Christian, and this is absolutely at odds with the patristic understanding of the Church as a "Visible" and empirical reality which participated in the very person of Christ.

Are you seriously suggesting that the second-third century Church [sic] was monolithic and institutional or viewed as such by Christians of the time? I know you don't expect me to buy that anachronistic and tendentious account of Church [sic] history, do ya?

**8** as regards what i have in the italics above: jump if you're feelin' froggy.

The fact is that Tertullian was never deemed a heretic by the church. Only a forged document indicates otherwise.

**7** his theological ideas were neither controversial nor influential enough to require a council against him, nor was the sect he joined dependant in any real way on him. hence whether or not the document is forged, we have no reason to expect him to be dogmatically denounced as a heretic.

Furthermore, what is the problem with one having a pneumatic view of the church?

**8** nothing, provided you don't place it over-against a Christologically constituted Church.

Does not the apostle Paul say that unless one has the spirit of Christ, one does not belong to the Lord? See Romans 8:9.

**7** a moral context not directly related to ecclesiology. Paul never poses a dichotomy between the Pneumatic and the Christological constitution of the Church. in one Spirit we are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), and that body is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). the Spirit builds up the body of Christ and does not function independently of it in Paul's thought.

Pannenberg defines the church in terms of "the fellowship of believers and the body of Christ."

**8** too vague for me. see Karl Rahner's _Foundations of Christian Faith_, chapter 7; John Zizioulas' _Being as Communion_, chapters 3-7; Yves Congar's _I Believe in the Holy Spirit_, volume 2, and Lumen Gentium.

There is no good historical evidence that would lead us to believe Tertullian ever parted company with the church, as Christians understood it at the time.

**7** yes there is. that Tertullian, and every other heretic in history, thought himself "right" in definitely breaking ties with the catholic body doesn't automatically imply ambiguity on the actual situation as it existed.

He may have viewed the church in pneumatic rather than episcopal terms.

**8** there isn't necessarily a problem with holding such a "viewpoint". the problem comes when you consciously break communion with the ecclesial institution understood as so instituted via apostolic succesion, and knowingly join another (empirical, historical) body as over against the former. did Tertullian not jeer at the vacuous claims of the "successors" of the apostles?

But it appears that Tertullian remained a professed follower of Christ for his entire life.

**7** so too, i imagine, did Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9), atleast in his own eyes.

GodisonePerson

March 12th 2003, 11:23 AM

**8** wuddah homey?

Do all folks in Montana talk like dat?

**7** i claim that relationality is intrinsic to personhood. prove me wrong.

Read your Tommy Aquinas!

**8** anachronistic, he has no import on the concept of personhood within this context, and to the extent to which he disagrees with me here, i'm more than confident that i'm capable of going the rounds with him, alongside not doubting that i'll lose his intercession on that account.

You must be a young whipper snapper. You are capable of "going the rounds with him [Tommy]" and presumably proving that he is wrong about personhood not being a relational category for humans? Dream on, homey!

If relationality is an accident in human beings, then it is not "intrinsic to personhood," as you claim.

**7** none of the above were overestimations.

That is your humble opinion, sir Phantaz. It sounded like you were writing a blurb to me. Your ornate reviewing style is pretty easy to predict. Non trinitarians "boo!" and trinitarians "yay!"

:Does Edgar have admirers?:

**7** yup.

I better let him know. He'd never want anyone to admire his lowly work or person.

:Man, I'm jealous.:

**8** of who? edgar or the admirers?

Shouldn't that be "whom" or has all my mom's money for English lessons just gone to pot?

**7** calling Moltmann's extremely bland "historical" review priceless immediately brought to mind the Wizard of Foz's calling Ray Brown inimitable.

Brown was "inimitable."

:the mode of expression, choice for discussion (Tertullian), and coming after me leads me to believe that you are either Mr. Ed(gar) himself or (your hasty and imprecise mind of course explains your leaving the above disjunct out in your comments) quite close to him, either by reading his work or via dialogue with him, or both. am i wrong?:

Are you wrong about what, phanny?

:Did I not write that Moltmann supplies a neat "review" of the Trinity doctrine as it developed historically?:

**7** no, you did not write that.
you wrote that the author and work in question is--

Another often overlooked study, in a certain respect, is Jurgen Moltmann's _The Trinity and the Kingdom of God_. Moltmann's historical review of various Trinitarian formulations is priceless.

I know what I wrote, quoter boy. The point is that Moltmann's referenced section in The Trinity and the Kingdom of God is a "review." It was not meant to be an exhaustive articulation of how the Trinity developed throughout history.

**8** overlooked by whom? tell me what author of a work on the development of the doctrine of the Trinity's work suffers from not including Moltmann's 9 pages on that develoment prior to Barth?

Do you want me to tell you an author, who does not include Moltmann's discussion or do you want me to fill you in on who "suffers" from not including his review in their work? Don't you just hate ill formed sentences?
:smile:

:the writing style lacks color,:

You mean, like yours?

:no extraordinary insights are offered that are not available somewhere else,:

Sounds like someone else I know. Cough!

:and he doesn't even mention Origen, Athanasius, the Cappadocians, Alexander of Hales, Richard of St. Victor, Bonaventure, Gregory Palamas, not to mention moderns such as Dumitru Staniloae, Sergius Bulgakov, Hans urs von Balthasar, or Walter Kasper.:

And Moltmann was supposed to list all of these peoples in nineteen pages? Ok.

For what it be worth, you're way off of the subject, phanny mae. This thread is about Tertullian, not Athanasius or Sergius Bulgakov.

:the historical review is nearly worthless, and it serves only as a backdrop against which he can emphasize the distinctiveness of his theology of the Open and Passionate God.:

The review is priceless when it comes to helping trins understand improper formulations of their own doctrine. Moltmann also provides insight on Tertullian that few writers offer.

:So a critique is only a critique if it is more than two pages?:

**8** if by "penetrating" you understand something that gets underneath the surface, then yes.

By "penetrating," I mean "to discover the inner contents or meaning of a thing." Moltmann's critique is, in this sense, "penetrating."

:Lacugna has next to nothing on Tertullian.:

**7** dan dan
short and stout
find your head
and pull it out!
i didn't say to turn to her for Tertullian, i said to turn to her for "a critical analysis of the historical articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity". and in that regard, her analysis is both insightful and thorough. do you read this carefully when you're hunting the padres and historians for prooftexts?

Methinks you're the one who needs to read more carefully. This thread is about Tertullian, phanny boy, and not about the history of the Trinity. But, as far as Lacugna's "historical articulation" goes, she too leaves a lot of data out and is far from being as critical as she should be when detailing the significant historical events and important players in the development of the Trinity doctrine.

**8** Tertullian identifies the distribution as in accordance with that which subsisted within the Father prior to salvation history. for that matter, so do i; so does Karl Rahner; so does von Balthasar. the "Word" that is expressed subsists eternally within the Father.

Tertullian does no such thing. Apart from the economy, Tertullian believes that God is one Monarch. Prior to the inception of creation, neither the Word or Spirit are personal. When God articulates speech-sound, the Son becomes a person, but the Spirit is still not sufficiently distinct from the Son or said to be fully personal. This is a problem that has been brought out by your beloved Catholic historians.

:One would be better served by reading W.J. Hill's _The Three-Personed God_.:

**8** given your take on Moltmann, followed by your rather shabby attempt to defend it, i'm not going to take your word for it.

Don't take my word for it. I never asked you to take my word for it. Besides, with your superior and precise intellect, I'm surprised that you have not already digested Hill's book. Lyk is slipping.

:I'm not sure what you mean by "every other such":

**7** i'm not surprised.

I guess you're not surprised. You evidently have a habit of typing ill formed sentences. With such a "precise" mind, I expect better. The last few words of the sentence you typed made absolutely no sense and lacked even a semblance of intelligibility.

**8** my "depiction"? here's what i said--
you seem to take for granted a purely "assent to intellectual propositions abstracted entirely from history" notion of what it takes to be a Christian, and this is absolutely at odds with the patristic understanding of the Church as a "Visible" and empirical reality which participated in the very person of Christ.

Like I said, that's your depiction of what the church really is.

:Are you seriously suggesting that the second-third century Church [sic] was monolithic and institutional or viewed as such by Christians of the time? I know you don't expect me to buy that anachronistic and tendentious account of Church [sic] history, do ya?:

**8** as regards what i have in the italics above: jump if you're feelin' froggy.

You did not present an argument above for me to jump at, big phanny. You made a dogmatic assertion. Something you're quite skiled at, if I may say so myself.

**7** his theological ideas were neither controversial nor influential enough to require a council against him, nor was the sect he joined dependant in any real way on him. hence whether or not the document is [sic] forged, we have no reason to expect him to be dogmatically denounced as a heretic.

Not "influential enough"? You need to put down the coloring book version of church history and start running with the big boys, phan. Moreover, you have not proved that Tertullian ever joined a sect. The fact is that he was never deemed a heretic. So why do some Catholics insist on calling him one? Are you just hunting for heresy, even where it is not to be found?

:Furthermore, what is the problem with one having a pneumatic view of the church?:

**8** nothing, provided you don't place it over-against a Christologically constituted Church.

What is a "Christologically constituted Church"? You did not define your terms, brother precise phanny.

:Does not the apostle Paul say that unless one has the spirit of Christ, one does not belong to the Lord? See Romans 8:9.:

**7** a moral context not directly related to ecclesiology. Paul never poses a dichotomy between the Pneumatic and the Christological constitution of the Church. in one Spirit we are baptized into one body (1 Cor. 12:13), and that body is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27). the Spirit builds up the body of Christ and does not function independently of it in Paul's thought.

Where does Tertullian say that the Spirit [sic] functions "independently" of the Church [sic]? He apparently states the very opposite in Concerning Modesty 21.17.

:There is no good historical evidence that would lead us to believe Tertullian ever parted company with the church, as Christians understood it at the time.:

**7** yes there is. that Tertullian, and every other heretic in history, thought himself "right" in definitely breaking ties with the catholic body doesn't automatically imply ambiguity on the actual situation as it existed.

What evidence suggests that Tertullian ever left Christ's church, as it was understood at the time? There was no "catholic body" in the second-third century. That is a fiction lodged in your "precise" ahistorical mind.

But it appears that Tertullian remained a professed follower of Christ for his entire life.

**7** so too, i imagine, did Diotrephes (3 Jn. 9), atleast in his own eyes. [/QUOTE]

You missed the word "professed" Mr Precise.

Cheddar!
Dan :eek:

phantaz sunlyk

March 12th 2003, 07:35 PM

**7** 'sup dawg?

Do all folks in Montana talk like dat?

**8** nah man. just those of us caught up in the cultural melting pot. like Santana and Michelle say, "a little bit of this, a little bit of that..."

You must be a young whipper snapper.

**7** like the Chemical Brothers say, my "body is young but my mind is very ollllllllllld".

You are capable of "going the rounds with him [Tommy]" and presumably proving that he is wrong about personhood not being a relational category for humans?

**8** yup, bring it.

Dream on, homey!

**7** strawberry fields forever; meet me there.

If relationality is an accident in human beings, then it is not "intrinsic to personhood," as you claim.

**8** relationality is intrinsic to persons. the first man, Adam, was created as a person in a personal relationship with God, and as relating himself personally to the world in which he lived; the "image and likeness of God" is multi-personal, "male and female he made them."
whenever have you been alone and unrelated to anything?

Shouldn't that be "whom" or has all my mom's money for English lessons just gone to pot?

**7** as i said, Kerouac is one of my favorite authors.

Brown was "inimitable."

**8** put Brown, Fitzmeyer, and Dunn side by side by side, have a paragraph from each read out loud to ya, and then try and pick out Brown.

Are you wrong about what, phanny?

**7** vanity fair! he's all over not letting us think himself fat, yet he won't identify himself.
atleast i'll know that you're not the next fat-man i see.

I know what I wrote, quoter boy.

**8** how furiously did the wheels turn, and for how long, before you gave up and went with "quoter boy"? or was that pure wit breaking forth from the soul?
in any case, priceless!
and if you knew what you wrote, why did you change the meaning when addressing my critique thereof?

It was not meant to be an exhaustive articulation of how the Trinity developed throughout history.

**7** indeed, it didn't exhaust anything at all. hence therefore ergo my wondering what is "priceless" about it.

The review is priceless when it comes to helping trins understand improper formulations of their own doctrine.

**8** Rahner's was "improper"? says who? how so?
chances are you wouldn't know a solid articulation of the Trinity if you saw it. also, Moltmann's work is too controversial to consider it as definitely giving, or giving an orthodox critique of, an articulation of the doctrine of the Trinity.

This thread is about Tertullian, phanny boy, and not about the history of the Trinity.

**7** going uphill, backwards.
the reader you originally wrote to implied a desire for material regarding the development of the doctrine of the Trinity (or were you talking about "formal" and "material" developments and principles within the doctrine of a single person??).
also, LaCugna spends much time on the relationship between the economic and the immanent Trinity; an issue always to the fore within the context of Tertullian vis-a-vis the Trinity.

she too leaves a lot of data out and is far from being as critical as she should be when detailing the significant historical events and important players in the development of the Trinity doctrine.

**8** considering her context, which is the relationship between the immanent and the economic Trinity, she covered as much ground as she needed to.

Tertullian does no such thing. Apart from the economy, Tertullian believes that God is one Monarch.

**7** yet not alone, for the Word is always with him, and is not identical with him.

Prior to the inception of creation, neither the Word or Spirit are personal.

**8** and he says this where?
Tertullian doesn't deal with this issue specifically enough to be able to say that for certain. the Arians distinguished between the Son as Logos and the actual Logos of God; Tertullian made no such distinction.

When God articulates speech-sound, the Son becomes a person,

**7** Tertullian never says that; he says that when the Father says "Let there be light", the Word receives its perfect birth.
if you're going this route, it wouldn't be too difficult to side with the Christadelphians and argue that the Word didn't become a personal subject prior to the time that it was conjoined with a human consciousness.

This is a problem that has been brought out by your beloved Catholic historians.

**8** shrug. likewise, it is easy to build a case against Paul being the author of Ephesians using renowned Bible scholars, and easier still to argue that John is a spiritual romance that is unfaithful to the actual events of Christ's life.

The last few words of the sentence you typed made absolutely no sense and lacked even a semblance of intelligibility.

**7** lo, he cometh to the board with a pun on my name, and yet smoke cometh out his ears.
that paragraph, along with most of ya post, was pure ad hom, o righteous servant of Jehovah.
the next few paragraphs are too vague to bother dealing with.

Where does Tertullian say that the Spirit [sic] functions "independently" of the Church [sic]? He apparently states the very opposite in Concerning Modesty 21.17

**8** the "Church" understood as "the body of Christ" extended through history.
he places a disjunct between the "Church of the Spirit" and the "Church which consists of a number of bishops" in the above passage.
nice evasion of the Pauline material.

Are you just hunting for heresy, even where it is not to be found?

**7** please. Origen is my favorite ante-Nicene padre.

What evidence suggests that Tertullian ever left Christ's church, as it was understood at the time?

**8** are you of the opinion that Tertullian thought the above two Churches equally authentic?

undead

March 12th 2003, 07:54 PM

03-11-2003 @ 12:30 AM
phantaz sunlyk:
You're collapsing the post-Nicene understanding of "God" with the conjunction of the post-Descartesian understanding of "person"with "God" in the above.

What did Paul know about any of this? Please stick to the bible or explain yourself.

There is one God only. The Father. The Father lives in the Son and in the Holy Spirit.

**7 ** A statement not necessarily at odds with orthodoxy. is the identity of the person of the Father distinct as in himself as opposed to as in the Son and Spirit?

I agree. All the persons of the godhead are real persons. Separate and logically independent. Thus Christ intercedes for the saints to God in heaven. He remains entirely distinct in his function from God the Father.

if not, then what do you mean?
if yes, then how have you not, by a 'sleight of hand', turned the Son and Spirit, both of whom are individually one person, into two?

No, the father lives in the Son yet the Son remains one person. Just as The Father lives in Jesus whilst he was on earth, yet Jesus remained one person, so does the Father live in Christ in heaven, yet Christ remains one person. Just because the father lives in a person, does not cause that person to become two people.

AVmetro

March 12th 2003, 08:41 PM

I agree. All the persons of the godhead are real persons. Separate and logically independent. Thus Christ intercedes for the saints to God in heaven. He remains entirely distinct in his function from God the Father.

John 5:17-23 Are you speaking in terms of that particular function [intercession] in the above or of function as a whole?

phantaz sunlyk

March 12th 2003, 08:51 PM

**7** say hey Undead--

What did Paul know about any of this?

**8** what did Moses know of a crucified Son of God? and likewise, what did Paul know of "theology from Scripture alone"?

Separate and logically independent.

**7** what do you mean by "logically independent"?

Just because the father lives in a person, does not cause that person to become two people.

**8** what did Paul know of that?
peace.

AVmetro

March 12th 2003, 08:59 PM

Sounds like someone else I know. Cough!

Hey look, he just choked on a potato chip.

Shouldn't that be "whom" or has all my mom's money for English lessons just gone to pot?

Hey you're right! Perhaps God's "faithful and discreet slave" could make him a dontation (http://www.watchtowernews.org/money_honesty.htm).

:smile:

Where does Tertullian say that the Spirit [sic] functions "independently" of the Church [sic]? He apparently states the very opposite in Concerning Modesty 21.17.

I would count this [i.e. 'sic'] as his effort to insult you, Phantaz, but considering the JWs extreme fear of such things as "wind chimes" I'm sure it's simply his way of warding off the Catholic demons :no:

It's times like these that I miss Evangelion....

undead

March 12th 2003, 10:37 PM

03-13-2003 @ 12:41 AM
AVmetro:

John 5:17-23 Are you speaking in terms of that particular function [intercession] in the above or of function as a whole?

Well, now that you mention it, there are many other dissimilarities in function in heaven:

Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:

I believe it is true to say that Christ reigns on earth now, and that all the judgments witnessed in Revelation are brought by the Son on behalf of the father.

And it is the Father who answers prayer, and not the Son, for:

Jhn 16:23 And in that day ye shall ask me nothing. Verily, verily, I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give [it] you.

phantaz sunlyk

March 13th 2003, 12:47 AM

**7** say hey AV--

I would count this [i.e. 'sic'] as his effort to insult you, Phantaz,

**8** impossible. JW's are extremely keen on being cordial and friendly (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15), and, as just and righteous doers of the word (not just 'hearers', like you and i), they are especially concerned with valuing emotions, when they are their own, and persons, when they are themselves.

but considering the JWs extreme fear of such things as "wind chimes"

**7** hey, anybody got a link to a good Ray Franz article?

I'm sure it's simply his way of warding off the Catholic demons

**8** indeed, we must ignore the Word and seek out the word; "Catholic" isn't in the Bible, therefore it is pagan. and before any of you open your mouths in protest, i humbly advise you to first part company with your un-biblicistic presuppositions, and stop question-begging, just like me.

undead

March 13th 2003, 08:38 PM

03-13-2003 @ 04:47 AM
phantaz sunlyk:
"Catholic" isn't in the Bible, therefore it is pagan

Well, it is reasonable to assume that the several million protestants killed by Catholics down the ages probably deduced that conclusion, before they gave up their spirits.:tongue:

phantaz sunlyk

March 13th 2003, 08:48 PM

Well, it is reasonable to assume that the several million protestants killed by Catholics down the ages probably deduced that conclusion, before they gave up their spirits.

**8** dude, be cordial.
peace.

AVmetro

March 13th 2003, 10:32 PM

I've made a warning in the presense of Heinz and Phantaz, and I will do so here:

Watch the content of your posts.

***3. We recognize that the nature of spirited debate may include the use of satire, humor, and strong statements of position; however, gratuitous name-calling, bullying, stalking, or outright rudeness will not be tolerated.***

Sher

March 14th 2003, 02:56 AM

03-07-2003 @ 01:31 PM
undead:

As Paul says, the Father lives in unapproachable light which no-one has seen nor can see. Exactly, and we understand from the NT, that God refers to the Father, right? Then please explain who is Yahweh in the OT?

That both spoke to humans and was seen by them?

John 5:37 "And the Father Himself, who sent Me, has testified of Me. You have neither heard His voice at any time, nor seen His form."

Zech 12:1-14, Yahweh is speaking here ... v.1 "... Thus says the LORD, who stretches out the heavens, lays the foundation of the earth, and forms the spirit of man within him:

v. 10 of the same says "... then they will look on Me whom they have pierced..."

Who was pierced?

Yahweh here is the stone of stumbling and a rock of offense: Isa 8:13-14

"The LORD of hosts, Him you shall hallow; let Him be your fear, and let Him be your dread. He will be as a sanctuary, but a stone of stumbling and a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, as a trap and a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem."

But this is attributed to Jesus here: Acts 4:10-11

"let it be known to you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified, whom God raised from the dead, by Him this man stands here before you whole. This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.'

And here: 1 Pet 2:4-8

"Coming to Him as to a living stone, rejected indeed by men, but chosen by God and precious, you also, as living stones, are being built up a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ. Therefore it is also contained in the Scripture, "Behold, I lay in Zion a chief cornerstone, elect, precious, and he who believes on Him will by no means be put to shame." Therefore, to you who believe, He is precious; but to those who are disobedient, "The stone which the builders rejected has become the chief cornerstone," and "A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense." They stumble, being disobedient to the word, to which they also were appointed."

Who is Lord of lords? Yahweh? Jesus? How can we have two who are Lord of lords?

1 Tim 6:14-15 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing, which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords

Deut 10:17 "For the LORD your God is God of gods and Lord of lords, the great God, mighty and awesome, who shows no partiality nor takes a bribe.

Rev 17:14 "These will make war with the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, for He is Lord of lords and King of kings; and those who are with Him are called, chosen, and faithful."

Ps 136:1-3 Oh, give thanks to the LORD, for He is good! For His mercy endure. Oh, give thanks to the God of gods! For His mercy endures forever. Oh, give thanks to the Lord of lords! For His mercy endures forever

Dan 2:47 The king answered Daniel, and said, "Truly your God is the God of gods, the Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, since you could reveal this secret."

Dan 11:36 "Then the king shall do according to his own will: he shall exalt and magnify himself above every god, shall speak blasphemies against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the wrath has been accomplished; for what has been determined shall be done."

And compare Ps. 102:1-28 to Heb 1:8-12. In Psalms, the prayer is to Yahweh, but the cross-reference in Heb. shows that it refers to Jesus:

"But to the Son He says ... "

And let us not forget the very name of Jesus:

Isa 9:6 For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Only when we understand that Father, Son, and Spirit are Yahweh/God do these "contradictions" disappear.... and that's why I stick to the bible. Yup. Me too. :thumb:

John 1:9-10 That was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world did not know Him.

AVmetro

March 14th 2003, 09:13 AM

Those are all good, Sherbear. Just remember you're dealing with people who like to rationalize. If Jesus stood on a mountain and cried "I, Jesus, am God Almighty", they would simply reply "He only says that because he represents his Father on earth."
I'll be watching.

Reasonable

March 14th 2003, 12:48 PM

You're probably correct, AVmetro. However, I believe we all rationalize our beliefs. For instance, if Jesus gathered his apostles together and told them "the Father is greater than I", Trinitarians would simply reply "He only says that because he gave up some divine authority while on earth." Thus, we all rationalize. Nothing wrong with it but if we attack or degrade others for doing it, they will surely turn around and point to the rafter in our own eye.
Take care

GrayPilgrim

March 14th 2003, 12:57 PM

Welcome to the forum reasonable--

Just a quick not on your analogy. As a Trinitariona I hold to the eternal subordination of the Son that holds to ontological equality but sumbmission in roles of the Son and the Spirit to that of the Father.

But as to your main point, I would generally agree.

GP

Carl Smuda

March 14th 2003, 01:17 PM

03-07-2003 @ 06:04 PM
undead:Yes, I agree we can learn a lot from them. But equally we can learn a lot of error, if we are not careful. It is my belief that Calvin was led seriously astray in undue reliance on Augustine, whose errors he blindly propagated without sufficient critical analysis. That ain't unreasonable, undead. Calvin and Augustine are rather large projects all by themselves alone. Can you tell me a little of how you think Calvin was led astray by too much reliance on Augustine? Thank you.

Sher

March 14th 2003, 02:58 PM

03-14-2003 @ 11:48 AM
Reasonable:

You're probably correct, AVmetro. However, I believe we all rationalize our beliefs. For instance, if Jesus gathered his apostles together and told them "the Father is greater than I", Trinitarians would simply reply "He only says that because he gave up some divine authority while on earth." Thus, we all rationalize. Why would there be need for anyone to rationalize that point, when it is explicitly stated in the Bible that : (Phil 2:5-8)

Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus, who, being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant, and coming in the likeness of men. And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself and became obedient to the point of death, even the death of the cross.

Here we have Jesus making Himself of no reputation, and humbling himself to the point of obedience to the Father (who is represented by the title God in the NT). This scripture, and elsewhere, makes it obvious that He "gave up ... divine authority while on earth." No rationalizing (devising self-satisfying but incorrect reasons) needed.

BTW, welcome :hi:

phantaz sunlyk

March 14th 2003, 06:28 PM

**8** say hey SherBear--

Why would there be need for anyone to rationalize that point,

**7** another thing that strikes me as awkward is the interpretation neo-Arians give it, in light of the context. why would the Father's being (ontologically) greater than the Son be a cause to "rejoice"? i think i'd receive strange looks if i told someone, "rejoice; God is greater than i".
if anything, it seems to imply that the 'greatness' of the Father will, in some sense, be shared by the Son after he 'departs' and returns to where he was before.
that said, i hold to the Old School view on this passage--the Father truly is greater in the sense that he is the Source and Origin of the Son, and not simply in the sense that deity is greater than humanity.

Here we have Jesus making Himself of no reputation, and humbling himself to the point of obedience to the Father (who is represented by the title God in the NT).

**7** a question for ya: why do you think it was the Son, rather than the Father or Spirit, who became man? could the Father or Spirit have 'emptied' themselves, 'taking on the form of a slave'? is there, maybe, something particular about the Son which might make it especially appropriate for him to be the One who becomes Incarnate?
peace in Christ.

phantaz sunlyk

March 14th 2003, 06:32 PM

**7** say hey Dan,

i apologize for reacting with such hostility towards you. i'm hoping we can turn over a new leaf.
i posted a challenge to you in the Gym. i hope you accept it, but if i don't hear from you by tomorrow, i'm going to move on to other things.

respectfully,

Phantaz C. Sunlyck

peace.

dizzle

March 14th 2003, 07:40 PM

Dear Phantaz:

Wow, thank you for that post. :thumb:

Reasonable

March 14th 2003, 10:42 PM

Thanks for clarifying that for me, Gray Pilgrim. I see my poor analogy.

Sherbear,
I agree that Phil 2 is a good scripture to use to explain the subjection of the Son to the Father. Not all agree it is as explicit as you take it, though. And certainly John 14:28 is pretty explicit in what it says though the meaning may not be as readilly discernable. All I was doing was making a point that, while Jesus did not say "I, Jesus, am Almighty God", he did explicitly say "the Father is greater than I am."

We can attack arians as raitionalizing their response that 'Jesus was God's representative and so could claim to be God 'but they also believe they have explicit examples of such too.

Ex 4:16 in the NAB "He shall speak to the people for you: he shall be YOUR spokesman and you shall be as God to him."

Ex 7:1 in the NAB reads, "See! I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet."

John 10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside..."

The footnote in the NAB at Ps 45:6 says "O god: the king, in courtly language, is called "god," that is, more than human, representing God to his people."

To arians, these verses explicitly say others can be called "god" because the represent God. To them, they support their argument AVMetro mentioned they would theoretically use if Jesus said those words as much as Phil 2 supports the Trinitarian argument. Again, I think Phil 2 is pretty explicit but so are the scriptures arians use. I don't think it's so much rationalizing, as you define it, as simply a difference in interpretation and weighing one argument over another. The whole battle over the Trinity in the 3rd and 4th centuries suggests arians must have had dome pretty good arguments, even if the Church eventually saw them as heretic. If they were totally frivilous arguments it would have died out quickly.

Phantaz,
I like your point regarding John 14:28. I agree with you that Jesus told them to rejoice because he would obviously gain something for going to the Father. I think Matthew 28:18 is what you may have had in mind. That's why I think Jesus said for them to rejoice. He also realized that he would receive back the glory he had from the Father before he came to the earth. However, I don't think such an argument will convince an arian. They could very well understand it the same way but still see an ontological superiority in it, all the while agreeing that Jesus could tell them to rejoice.

I think Gray Pilgrim said it best in regards to the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Such does not negate the ontological equality but it does seem to fit better with Jesus' words at John 14:28 and Paul's words at 1 Cor 15:24-28 and your exxplanation of "rejoice" seems well founded. I look forward to the debate you are asking for with Dan.

GodisonePerson

March 15th 2003, 07:02 AM

Say hey Phantaz

I've already apologized to Dee Dee Warren for posting the ad hominem comments to her board and for losing my cool. I promise to show respect for you all from here on out and I too apologize to you, Phantaz for what I said earlier. I'd like to dialogue peacefully with you here on TWeb in the coming weeks. I also left a message for you in the Gym and I ask that you not take my reply personally. The reasons stated for turning down your challenge at this time are, I believe, authentic ones.

Peace
Dan

phantaz sunlyk:[/i]

**7** say hey Dan,

i apologize for reacting with such hostility towards you. i'm hoping we can turn over a new leaf.
i posted a challenge to you in the Gym. i hope you accept it, but if i don't hear from you by tomorrow, i'm going to move on to other things.

respectfully,

Phantaz C. Sunlyck

peace. [/QUOTE]

Sher

March 15th 2003, 09:59 AM

Yesterday @ 05:28 PM
phantaz sunlyk:

a question for ya: why do you think it was the Son, rather than the Father or Spirit, who became man? could the Father or Spirit have 'emptied' themselves, 'taking on the form of a slave'? is there, maybe, something particular about the Son which might make it especially appropriate for him to be the One who becomes Incarnate?My best guess would be because the Father and the Spirit are invisible. The Son being the image of God that man can see would definately be an asset :smile:

Am I to take it from your posts here (please forgive me, I am relatively new here) that you do not believe in the Trinity?

Sher

March 15th 2003, 10:06 AM

Yesterday @ 09:42 PM
Reasonable:

We can attack arians as raitionalizing their response that 'Jesus was God's representative and so could claim to be God 'but they also believe they have explicit examples of such too.

...

To arians, these verses explicitly say others can be called "god" because the represent God. To them, they support their argument AVMetro mentioned they would theoretically use if Jesus said those words as much as Phil 2 supports the Trinitarian argument. Again, I think Phil 2 is pretty explicit but so are the scriptures arians use. I don't think it's so much rationalizing, as you define it, as simply a difference in interpretation and weighing one argument over another. The whole battle over the Trinity in the 3rd and 4th centuries suggests arians must have had dome pretty good arguments, even if the Church eventually saw them as heretic. If they were totally frivilous arguments it would have died out quickly. I am assuming you are a Trinitarian (I do so hate labels, though) and not looking for a rebuttal to those points? I have spoken in the last few months on another board regarding that specific topic, but it is OT here. I might expand on it later, though, if someone raises it in another topic.

But BTW, was seeing them as heretic vs. it dying out quickly, really a yardstick? Look how many false ideas (forgive me for being blunt) are still around today. Is it because of lack of totally frivilous argument? Or immense amounts of promotion?

Either way, great talking with ya'll. I look forward to reading more. :read:

phantaz sunlyk

March 15th 2003, 02:58 PM

**7** say hey Reasonable--

I agree with you that Jesus told them to rejoice because he would obviously gain something for going to the Father. I think Matthew 28:18 is what you may have had in mind.

**8** the 'being vested with power' is actually secondary. the primary idea i had in mind comes, rather, from Jn. 1:18; "dwells in the Father's heart".

However, I don't think such an argument will convince an arian. They could very well understand it the same way but still see an ontological superiority in it, all the while agreeing that Jesus could tell them to rejoice.

**8** aye, i wouldn't use it as an argument with an arian and expect anything special to come from it. i'd start from the chiastic structure of the hymn that opens the gospel, and interpret the whole in light of that.
it begins with the Word (an absolutely loaded term) being "with/towards" God; it ends with the Son revealing the Father.
i see here the exegetical key for the whole of Christ's life--the translation of God into human being, perceived as Love (check the identification of Christ's crucifixion with his being 'glorified', and then cf. the trail of glory in deutero-Isaiah).
the sense in which the Son is subordinate is explained by the manner in which he (immanently) is related to the Father; radiance and ex-pression.

I think Gray Pilgrim said it best in regards to the eternal subordination of the Son to the Father. Such does not negate the ontological equality but it does seem to fit better with Jesus' words at John 14:28 and Paul's words at 1 Cor 15:24-28

**7** aye, i agree, so long as it isn't imagined that we're dealing with two egos over against one-another, with the fulfillment of one's will coming at the frustration of the other's.
peace in Christ. what Church ya belong to?

phantaz sunlyk

March 15th 2003, 03:02 PM

**7** say hey SherBear--

My best guess would be because the Father and the Spirit are invisible. The Son being the image of God that man can see would definately be an asset

**8** hmm, tell me what you think of this--
http://www.tektonics.org/PS_FS.html
by the way, i apologize for the high level of rhetoric in it.

Am I to take it from your posts here (please forgive me, I am relatively new here) that you do not believe in the Trinity?

**7** perish the thought! i'm Trinitarian to the core.
peace in Christ.

phantaz sunlyk

March 15th 2003, 03:12 PM

**7** say hey Dan--

I promise to show respect for you all from here on out and I too apologize to you, Phantaz for what I said earlier.

**8** its cool. i'm wildly emotional, but i started feeling pretty rubbishy after i took a moment and thought about what i was doing. a sustained use of rhetoric hurts me every time. Tertullian (truly, in this respect, the all-time master) and Jerome must have been cut from a different cloth. ...

I'd like to dialogue peacefully with you here on TWeb in the coming weeks.

**7** as i said above, i'm going to move on to other things now, hence i'm uncertain as to the amount of time i'll be spending here. i'm gonna put together a series of mini-monographs on notable Trinitarian theologians from the first-century (as i see them) to the present. right now i'm on Origen, and i'm sure you're well aware of the time it takes to go through all the material by/on him.
may the peace of Christ be with you.

AVmetro

March 15th 2003, 05:05 PM

Sherbear states:

But BTW, was seeing them as heretic vs. it dying out quickly, really a yardstick? Look how many false ideas (forgive me for being blunt) are still around today. Is it because of lack of totally frivilous argument? Or immense amounts of promotion?

E.g The Raelians[/b] (] testimony..

We can attack arians as raitionalizing their response that 'Jesus was God's representative and so could claim to be God 'but they also believe they have explicit examples of such too.

There is certainly a nuanced difference between one being "called god" and being spoken of as "our God" "their God" "my God" etc,. Especially when focusing on the use of "God" in the ontological vs titular sense. There is also quite a bit of difference between harmonizatinon and rationalization. Your point taken, however. Believe me, I'm no enemy of 'agency'. Some people, however, simply take it to a ridiculous extreme.

Ex 4:16 in the NAB "He shall speak to the people for you: he shall be YOUR spokesman and you shall be as God to him."

Ex 7:1 in the NAB reads, "See! I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall act as your prophet."

John 10:34 "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods"'? If it calls them gods to whom the word of God came, and scripture cannot be set aside..."

The footnote in the NAB at Ps 45:6 says "O god: the king, in courtly language, is called "god," that is, more than human, representing God to his people."

See above.

Robert Bowman has given some notable observations on this matter [b]here (http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/doctrinal_apologetics/bowman-trinity.html). An article addressing this specific topic can be found here (http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/bibmon.htm).

God bless--AV

Sher

March 15th 2003, 08:48 PM

Today @ 02:02 PM
phantaz sunlyk:

perish the thought! i'm Trinitarian to the core. :eek: oops! Sorry Phantaz

GodisonePerson

March 16th 2003, 12:48 PM

Say hey Phantaz

I wonder if even Jerome and Tertullian did not sometimes exceed the bounds of good taste when employing rhetoric. Tertullian definitely could be macabre when he wanted to be. But-alas!-we all stumble many times.

If you're going to read through all of Origen's material, you do have a job ahead of you. Wish you well on your endeavor.

May you experience the peace that God gives through Christ

Dan

phantaz sunlyk:[/i]

**7** say hey Dan--

I promise to show respect for you all from here on out and I too apologize to you, Phantaz for what I said earlier.

**8** its cool. i'm wildly emotional, but i started feeling pretty rubbishy after i took a moment and thought about what i was doing. a sustained use of rhetoric hurts me every time. Tertullian (truly, in this respect, the all-time master) and Jerome must have been cut from a different cloth. ...

I'd like to dialogue peacefully with you here on TWeb in the coming weeks.

**7** as i said above, i'm going to move on to other things now, hence i'm uncertain as to the amount of time i'll be spending here. i'm gonna put together a series of mini-monographs on notable Trinitarian theologians from the first-century (as i see them) to the present. right now i'm on Origen, and i'm sure you're well aware of the time it takes to go through all the material by/on him.
may the peace of Christ be with you. [/QUOTE]

roger_pearse

March 20th 2003, 07:07 PM

Thank you for the kind words about the Tertullian Project website (http://www.tertullian.org). I regret that I have little theology online. The item I need to add is the standard one, A. d'Ales, La Theologie de Tertullien, Paris (1905), and I'd have to run it into English as well. Forgive me if 300+ pages of French has not been my highest priority!

There is a 4 volume text, J. Moignt, Theologie Trinitaire de Tertullien, from the 1960's, which is good stuff, but I've not really looked into it.

I was delighted to see a reference to T.D.Barnes, Tertullian: A literary and historical study, Oxford University Press (1985). This is the best book ever written on Tertullian, and is a liberal education all by itself. It's more historical than theological, but it's very well written and Tertullian himself really comes alive in its pages.

One point where I thought posters were perhaps at cross-purposes: Was Tertullian a heretic, and did he leave the church?

1. Tertullian was not a heretic. The Montanists were a rigorist sect, and their disagreements were disciplinary, not doctrinal. In the fragment preserved by the anonymous author of 'Praedestinatus', he says outright (book 1, c. 26)

"By this alone we differ," he said, "that we do not admit second marriages, and we do not reject the prophecy of Montanus on the future judgement"

http://www.tertullian.org/tertullianistae/praedestinatus.htm

2. He may have been a schismatic. The question depends on whether or not the Montanists in Carthage formally broke with the main church or not.

At present, the fashionable opinion is that they did not, but simply formed a 'church within a church'. The idea derives from an article by D. Powell, Tertullianists and Cataphyrgians, 1975, which is online and you can read it and form your own opinion:

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/powell_tertullianists.htm

Prior to this, the standard opinion, based on the statements in Adversus Praxean, and the vita of Jerome and the statements of Augustine, is that they did and he went with them. This argument has the great merit that the evidence does not have to be reinterpreted to come to this conclusion.

I should add that I feel no obligation to share Powell's view, being an amateur! The ancient data, in my view, plainly points to formal separation. This is why Tertullian is not mentioned by name in the following decades and centuries.

Barnes wrote in 1971, prior to all this, and comments wisely that 'Tertullian did not leave the church of his own will. The church in his time was changing...'.

Tertullian is the father of western theology, and his montanist tendencies do not affect the questions of the trinity, as far as I know. On questions of penance, on the other hand, they certainly do.

I hope that is useful. It is nice to come across so interesting a discussion of Tertullian and his theology.

I do have online the English translation of Ernest Evans of Adversus Praxean, which some may find easier to read than the old ANF text.

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans_praxeas_eng.htm

Anyone who wants to see Tertullian the Rhetor in full flow, have a read of Greenslade's version of De Praescriptione Haereticorum. It's pretty stirring stuff, even now. I particularly recommend the first 7 chapters, and the last two (where he satirises the gnostic/liberal 'Christ').

http://www.tertullian.org/articles/greenslade_prae/greenslade_prae.htm

All the best,

Roger Pearse

phantaz sunlyk

March 20th 2003, 09:47 PM

**7** say hey Roger, your site is excellent.
a quick question--
you call Tertullian the Father of Western Theology. i agree that his analytical skill--his ability to give precise, systematic definitions--paved the way for future generations. yet in the areas of Christology and Trinitarian theology, i don't see his influence, as far as content is concerned, as being quite so decisive (for example, i think the influence of Origen on Alexander, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians to be far greater than the influence of Tertullian on Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine--i actually think that Origen's indirect influence on the above mentioned Westerners was greater than Tertullian's inluence, either directly or indirectly).
in line with the stated opinion above, i ask you whether or not you have any evidence that can, indirectly or directly, link Augustine's articulation of the Trinity (as regards content, and not merely form) with Tertullian's? it was the thought of Augustine which dominated the medieval landscape of Trinitarian theology in Latin Christianity (even thinkers such as Richard of St. Victor and Bonaventure, who come so near to the East, are undeniably under the direct influence of Augustine). some specific evidence showing the strong influence of Tertullian on Augustine would go some distance in vindicating the claim of Tertullian's patronage of Latin theology.
peace in Christ.
p s--this isn't an issue that i want to, at present, debate. i'm merely curious.

Socrates

March 21st 2003, 04:55 AM

Gerald Bray's book Creeds, Councils and Christ has a good discussion on Tertullian's pioneering role in the systematizing of the Trinity. He rates him higher then Origen, who could never fully loose himself from neo-Platonism.

Tertullian realised that the Bible teaches that God is an active subject, and had entered into a covenant with Israel. Under Roman law, a party to a legal action was called a persona. But on God's side there were three parties to this covenant, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore each of those was a persona.

But although the term comes from Roman Law, Tertullian used it to illustrate the Jewish concepts of Scripture, because each persona shared the personal nature of God.

Originally the term persona meant the distinguishing mask worn by a character in the theatre. But any linguist knows that meanings are decided by usage not derivation. But some of the Greek theologians misunderstood what the Romans were talking about, because they mistakenly reverted to the meaning "mask" (Greek prosopon). So they accused the Romans of belief in modalism, which was NOT true.

The Greeks referred to three hypostases, and this caused problems of its own. The Latins translated it substantia (substance), which they already used for God's divine essence. So they thought the Greeks believed in three essences.

Basil the Great reconciled them by solving the semantic confusion -- he showed that when the Latins used persona, they meant the same as what the Greeks meant by hypostasis.

roger_pearse

March 21st 2003, 12:34 PM

[**7** say hey Roger, your site is excellent.
a quick question--
you call Tertullian the Father of Western Theology. i agree that his analytical skill--his ability to give precise, systematic definitions--paved the way for future generations. yet in the areas of Christology and Trinitarian theology, i don't see his influence, as far as content is concerned, as being quite so decisive (for example, i think the influence of Origen on Alexander, Athanasius, and the Cappadocians to be far greater than the influence of Tertullian on Hilary, Ambrose, and Augustine ....

Thank you for your kind words! I'm afraid I haven't spent the time on the theological side. This means I'm not qualified to give a response. I'd have to know much more about Augustine to answer this. Sorry!

All the best,

Roger Pearse

George Blaisdell

March 21st 2003, 01:30 PM

Socrates:[/i] writes:

> Tertullian realised that the Bible teaches that God is an active subject, and had entered into a covenant with Israel. Under Roman law, a party to a legal action was called a persona.

Good grief! So it is the retrofit of Roman Law upon God's covenant with Israel that led to this whole legalistic theology from Rome to the West?

> But on God's side there were three parties to this covenant, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Therefore each of those was a persona.

Meaning a party to a legal action...

> But although the term comes from Roman Law, Tertullian used it to illustrate the Jewish concepts of Scripture, because each persona shared the personal nature of God.

"each persona shared the personal nature of God."???

I am clueless as to what this might mean... The three parties to the compact that we call the Trinity shared the personal nature of God??

What is a "personal nature of God"?

> "Originally the term persona meant the distinguishing mask worn by a character in the theatre. But any linguist knows that meanings are decided by usage not derivation.

Even today one's 'personna' is one's mask...

> But some of the Greek theologians misunderstood what the Romans were talking about, because they mistakenly reverted to the meaning "mask" (Greek prosopon). So they accused the Romans of belief in modalism, which was NOT true.

The difficulty is not this easy - For what we see is the idea of human personhood being foisted upon the Godhead, and the subsequent anthropomorphizing of God...

> The Greeks referred to three hypostases, and this caused problems of its own. The Latins translated it substantia (substance), which they already used for God's divine essence. So they thought the Greeks believed in three essences.

Amazing divide... And I think what may prove useful to our understanding the matter is indeed this term hypostasis, which in the Latin is substance, and is the basis, the 'standing under' of the Trinity. The Latin Church translated the Greek Bible into Latin. And based upon their Latinized understanding of it, sought to correct the Greek speaking rest of Christianity...

The two terms in the Greek that are germane are physis and ousia, nature and being, and this ousia is the same word we find the cognate of in John 1 for authority - ex-ousia - and the difference is not an imposition of [legal, hierarchical and/or ekklessiastical] authority, but an *ontology* of authority...

Hence the eastern fathers brought forth, in the persons of the trinity, not the mask of the personna, but the stripping away of that mask, such that from them comes the whole understanding of authentic personhood... As indeed we find fully in the incarnate Christ, for only by being fully God was He fully human, and did not have any mask at all, but only genuineness of personhood.

For it is this substance of the persons of the Trinity that makes of it the oneness of essence that it is, it's ousia... And all this by the primary agency, at least in human terms, of the Father.

> Basil the Great reconciled them by solving the semantic confusion -- he showed that when the Latins used persona, they meant the same as what the Greeks meant by hypostasis. [/QUOTE]

The resolution has far reaching implications, for we cannot say that God is an individual, but instead must say that He is a communion of Persons, a unity... A person is not an individual, but is soneone in communion with God... Individuality is a term of separation, you see...

A really great modern treatment of this matter, of the ontology of communion in the Trinity, and man's participation in it in the Body of Christ, is: "Being As Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church" (Contemporary Greek Theologians Series , No 4) by John Zizioulas. It is a very challenging read...

geo

phantaz sunlyk

March 21st 2003, 07:06 PM

**8** say hey George, peace in Christ, and bravo on the talk of communion and the Zizioulas rec.
peace in Christ Socrates--

Tertullian's pioneering role in the systematizing of the Trinity

**7** aye, the man was as sharp as a razor as regards both his wit and his analytic prowess. "shock and awe" in his polemical works, truly.
i gave him credit for his ability to define/terminology in my post to Roger Pearse.

He rates him higher then Origen, who could never fully loose himself from neo-Platonism.

**8** yikes! i respectfully disagree on both points. the initial Nicene point of departure for refuting Arians was based on the notion that Fatherhood is intrinsic to God. Alexander hints at this, and Athanasius never grows weary of repeating this point alongside Hilary in the West; the notion was also foundational for the Cappadocians.
in other words (as hinted at by George), the Nicenes, were fighting for a God who is communion. definitions and terminology are secondary to this perception.
back to the point, there is no question that Origen clearly perceived and expressed this point in his works. Peter Widdicombe in _The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius_ points out that this notion--the idea of the eternal generation of the Son from the Father in a communion of love--is the center of Origen's theology.
hence i think the common charge of 'neo-platonism' to be largely irrelevant. Origen's theology comes from the Church, Scripture, and his personal relationship (so to speak) with Christ via the Spirit toward the Father.
Dionysius of Alexandria, Gregory Thaumaturgus (whose Creed was the object of Arius' attack!), Athanasius, Dydimus, Hilary, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory of Nazianzus, Basil of Caesarea, Ambrose--all of these were directly dependant upon Origen. Augustine, though probably indirectly dependant upon Tertullian for his phraseology, proves himself a disciple of Origen as well when he makes the notion of love the hermeneutical key for interpreting the Trinity (parenthetically, Augustine was converted to Christianity in large part due to the influence of the above mentioned Ambrose, and Hilary is the only author he endorses and mentions by name in his De Trinitate).
for these reasons, and others, i'm inclined to think that Origen is the most influential ante-Nicene author for the development of the doctrine of the Trinity.
for a defense of his orthodoxy (placing it, Tekton style, within context), see Henri Crouzel's _Origen_.
peace in Christ.

George Blaisdell

March 21st 2003, 10:04 PM

phantaz sunlyk:

**8** say hey George, peace in Christ, and bravo on the talk of communion and the Zizioulas rec.

Speaking of masks of one's personna! [**8** say hey George...] But even so, I can appreciate where you are coming from to a small degree at least, and from what little I know, I am in awe... Hiding out in the open is perhaps best...

Zizioulas is the most awesome read I have ever shouldered - And the only more seminal work that has been helpful to me is the Coptic monk Matthew the Poor's "Communion of Love," from whom I learned that a Christian lives Christ... An ontology of communion in Him...

Word out of Greece is that we do not need another book on theology whatsoever, just additional translations of extant works!

I am not all that good at 'hip', but I appreciate your efforts... Turns out Zizioulas has another book translated into English now - Saw
it on Amazon... I just love his highly intellective yet utterly ontological focus of explanation and understanding.

> **8** yikes!

What means this **8**???

> i respectfully disagree on both points. the initial Nicene point of departure for refuting Arians was based on the notion that Fatherhood is intrinsic to God.

Penetrating observation - How did you come up with it?

> the Nicenes, were fighting for a God who is communion. Definitions and terminology are secondary to this perception.

Indeed theirs is a descriptive theology, and not an analytic or synthetic one. They are speaking, when they say things like "Father of Lights", of what they have experienced in their holy lives - They are not constructing paradigms of thought, but speak from a profound illumination of mind [nous] in Christ...

phantaz sunlyk

March 21st 2003, 10:26 PM

**7** say hey Geo Blaise; i gotta ask ya, do i know you from somewhere else, perhaps under a different name? i thought you hinted at this earlier, but wasn't quite certain.

I can appreciate where you are coming from to a small degree at least, and from what little I know, I am in awe... Hiding out in the open is perhaps best...

**8** over me head; i didn't "get" that. feel free to pm or email me if ya don't wanna let the cat outta the bag in broad daylight ;)

Zizioulas is the most awesome read I have ever shouldered

**7** aye, fascinating isn't he?
you mentioned that he has four books available in English. i have two: _Being as Communion_ and _Eucharist: Bishop: Church_. what are the other two?

What means this **8**???

**8** just an old habit of mine. i used to get confused, in emails, trying to tell where other's talk began, and mine ended (especially when people are inconsistent as regards spacing). so i started making it unambiguously clear with the above sets of stars surrounding my favorite two numbers.

Penetrating observation - How did you come up with it?

**7** a number of things converged. the recurring focus of the Nicenes on Wisdom texts. it was only about two years prior that the biblical identification of Jesus with Wisdom was shown me by JP Holding. it seems strange to me that this theme in the patristic era, specifically the Nicene, has yet to be fully explored; specifically, the use of Heb. 1:3 alongside Wis. 7:25f for the defense of the eternity and (specific manner of) deity of the Son.
peace.

phantaz sunlyk

March 21st 2003, 10:29 PM

**7** did you and i used to argue about Newman on a different site, along with talking about hopping up mountains, for which you were too old?

George Blaisdell

March 21st 2003, 10:56 PM

phantaz sunlyk writes:

> **7** say hey Geo Blaise; i gotta ask ya, do i know you from somewhere else, perhaps under a different name? i thought you hinted at this earlier, but wasn't quite certain.

Only if your initials are GS, and your first name is Ger'... It is the "In Praise of Glory" website that brought you home to my memory... From another O board...

> > Hiding out in the open is perhaps best...

> **8** over me head; i didn't "get" that. feel free to pm or email me if ya don't wanna let the cat outta the bag in broad daylight ;)

Just the oddyssy of faith that you have had the courage to follow... If I am full of the boolie kakah on this one, I will have to deal with a lot of red-facedness and dine on meatless Lenten crow! Your desire to enter a monastery made a lot of sense to me...

> > Zizioulas is the most awesome read I have ever shouldered

**7** aye, fascinating isn't he?
you mentioned that he has four books available in English. i have two: _Being as Communion_ and _Eucharist: Bishop: Church_. what are the other two?

There aren't - Only two - I thought I remembered two more under his name on Amazon, but they were not his - Sorry for the mislead - I didn't even know there were 2...

Penetrating observation - How did you come up with it?

> a number of things converged. the recurring focus of the Nicenes on Wisdom texts. it was only about two years prior that the biblical identification of Jesus with Wisdom was shown me by JP Holding. it seems strange to me that this theme in the patristic era, specifically the Nicene, has yet to be fully explored; specifically, the use of Heb. 1:3 alongside Wis. 7:25f for the defense of the eternity and (specific manner of) deity of the Son.
peace.

I thought the Holy Wisdom was the hagia sophia, the Theotokos... Apprehended in silence... And not all that verbal about much...

And if 'fatherhood' is of God, and of Paul, and of the God bearing fathers of the Church, even unto today, then how did you get from Holy Wisdom as Christ, rather than the Church, unto the fatherhood of God?

geo

phantaz sunlyk

March 22nd 2003, 01:11 AM

**7** say hey Geo Blaise--

From another O board...

**8** pray tell! pray tell! was it on that (by now, in a sense, somewhat legendary) thread where Dee Dee, smilax, J.P., AVMetro, me and yaself interacted with they dynamic christadelphian duo?

If I am full of the boolie kakah on this one, I will have to deal with a lot of red-facedness and dine on meatless Lenten crow!

**7** once more, over me head.

I thought the Holy Wisdom was the hagia sophia,

**8** thomas merton fan?

the Theotokos...

**7** the "seat" of Wisdom rather than Wisdom herself. "Wisdom built herself a temple..."

Apprehended in silence...

**8** indeed, and in broad daylight; viz. Bonaventure. everywhere i be, i see three.

And not all that verbal about much...

**7** in the OT and the intertestamental lit (especially Sirach), Wisdom is apprehended by its expression outward. hence between Mother Teresa and Thomas Aquinas, it is the former who would truly be the sophia-tokos.
the Word announces itself, thereby announcing (revealing) the One who prounounced It.

And if 'fatherhood' is of God, and of Paul, and of the God bearing fathers of the Church, even unto today, then how did you get from Holy Wisdom as Christ, rather than the Church, unto the fatherhood of God?

**8** by believing that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity. hence it is the Sonship of the Son that is the ground and presupposition of our participation in his sonship. in other words, i went back to the Greek roots and got in touch with another (Eastern) Orthodox idea--theosis (cf. Vladmir Lossky, _The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church_).
ya believe in the Trinity?
peace.

Athanasian

March 22nd 2003, 05:14 AM

So God is a committee meeting! Please, spare me the mysticism! :rofl:

George Blaisdell

March 22nd 2003, 11:55 AM

From another O board...

> pray tell! pray tell! was it on that (by now, in a sense, somewhat legendary) thread where Dee Dee, smilax, J.P., AVMetro, me and yaself interacted with they dynamic christadelphian duo?

I don't think so... But now I have forgotten the name of that board! Many on it were not all that nice to you...

> > If I am full of the boolie kakah on this one, I will have to deal with a lot of red-facedness and dine on meatless Lenten crow!

> once more, over me head.

If I am wrong, I will be eating a lot of crow... [but it is Lent now]

> > I thought the Holy Wisdom was the hagia sophia,

> thomas merton fan?

No.

> > the Theotokos...

> the "seat" of Wisdom rather than Wisdom herself. "Wisdom built herself a temple..."

> > Apprehended in silence...

> indeed, and in broad daylight; viz. Bonaventure. everywhere i be, i see three.

As in swinging through the trees? I thought Jesus walked... What's with the rhyming?

> > And not all that verbal about much...

> in the OT and the intertestamental lit (especially Sirach), Wisdom is apprehended by its expression outward.

In action... What we DO, and not what we say...

> hence between Mother Teresa and Thomas Aquinas, it is the former who would truly be the sophia-tokos.

Thomas got wisdom at the end, I think - At least he shut up and quit writing... Both very wise doings...

> the Word announces itself, thereby announcing (revealing) the One who prounounced It.

That one left my planetary appprehension... Git off'n them vines, put down yer b'nanner, an' walk like a normal person! :-)

> > And if 'fatherhood' is of God, and of Paul, and of the God bearing fathers of the Church, even unto today, then how did you get from Holy Wisdom as Christ, rather than the Church, unto the fatherhood of God?

> by believing that the economic Trinity is the immanent Trinity.

Everywhere I be I see three?

> hence it is the Sonship of the Son that is the ground and presupposition of our participation in his sonship.

That is true independently...

> in other words, i went back to the Greek roots and got in touch with another (Eastern) Orthodox idea--theosis (cf. Vladmir Lossky, _The Mystical Theology of the Eastern Church_).

You got in touch with the IDEA of theosis? And are now trying to inegrate it into, and thereby revise, your gifted and human structure of understanding? You need 5 years on Mt. Athos...!!

> ya believe in the Trinity?

I worship the Holy Trinity over and over each and every day...

> peace.

And peace to you, Ger... Did you know that I finally just got baptized Mar. 5th? 4 years at the gates of repentance! What a slow study moi!

geo

geo

So God is a committee meeting! Please, spare me the mysticism!

God is One...

The Son is One with the Father...

We are One with the Son...

God is Three Persons...

God is One...

Great is the Mystery of the Faith!

geo

phantaz sunlyk

March 22nd 2003, 01:50 PM

**8** say hey Athanasian--

So God is a committee meeting! Please, spare me the mysticism!

**7** it was Athanasius himself who introduced monasticism into the west with his _Life of St. Anthony_; the people (Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzus, Gregory of Nyssa) who laid the theological groundwork for Constantinople I were monks, the last of them (Gr Nyssa) is commonly referred to as the "father of mysticism".
don't like it, become a heretic. nyuk nyuk nyuk.
and nobody said anything about a "committee", see Gregory of Nyssa's _To Ablabius_ at ccel.org/fathers2. "communion" is not "community".
some future advice--know first, and then criticize. you might also consider adopting a more irenical tone.
yo Geo Blaze, this is the last message i plan on sending to ya, as i haven't really the time for happy chit-chat --

Many on it were not all that nice to you...

**8** quite common. i had it coming :)

As in swinging through the trees?

**7** haven't tried it yet, but i don't see why not.

I thought Jesus walked...

**8** taking a clumsy view of Irenaeus theology of recapitulation in light of Origen, we could, in claiming that the Savior reunited all things to God at every level of being, atleast speculate that he indeed swung through trees.

What's with the rhyming?

**7** ya don't dig old school hip-hop? De La Soul, Kool Mo Dee, Big Daddy Kane...no?

You got in touch with the IDEA of theosis?

**8** aye, ...

And are now trying to inegrate it into, and thereby revise, your gifted and human structure of understanding?

**7** of course. viz. Gregory Palamas, God saves the whole human being; the mind is included in the heart.

You need 5 years on Mt. Athos...!!

**8** and they would tell me that "to know God is to participate in him". but, yah, i'm sure it wouldn't hurt to go there.

Did you know that I finally just got baptized Mar. 5th?

**7** bravo and congrats. but i still have no idea who you are, ger...
peace.