Hi,

I've emailed Dee Dee and told her I'd like to talk with some of you orthodox Christians on TWeb about Christian theology. I desire to start off kind of slow and pick up the pace gradually in my discussions with you.

I've been studying the ante-Nicene fathers and perusing these writings has caused me to wonder whether the ANF really believed that the Word become flesh was fully God, as church councils eventually affirmed from the fourth century onwards.

For example, Tertullian writes:

"Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father" (Against Hermogenes 3.18).

The apologist thus appears to contend that there was a time when the Son as Son did not exist. The "second person of the Trinity" does not seem to have become a personal entity or hypostasis until God brought him forth (= produced him) on day one of creation. Did Tertullian believe that the Word was fully God or an eternal hypostasis? Probably not if his argument directed against Hermogenes can be harmonized with what he writes in Against Praxeas.

Cheers,
Dan

If you continue reading Tertullian's different writings, you will quickly understand that the Word did not become "Son" until it was born. Just as the Father was not the Father until the Son appeared, so is the Son not the Son until He is begotten. Tertuallian implicitly denies eternal begetting, but not the eternality of the Word.

Dan,
I've a little of the early church fathers, and I've read a little history of early church doctrines. I've been listening to some orthodox systematic theology on my commutes. Those tapes are a one Dr. Bahnsen. Dr. Bahnsen, like so many, seem to look back at the ANF's with a fully developed trinity doctrine. But IMHO it seems better to look and study their works to see how that doctrine evolved. The orthodox seems to be saying that progressive revelation (if I can use that phrase that way) is saying that our trinity dogma has always been there. Be that as it may, it still was a process that took more years than the U.S. has even existed as a country. Right? I like what I read in J.N.D.Kelly. It took a hundred years to come up with the word "triune" and another hundred years to come up with "trinity". I fully respect the doctrine of the trinity. I listen closely when I hear something helpful about it. But if it is so important then why is it so easy for Christians to misunderstand it, and misapply it?

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?

You can't find the dogma of the Trinity in the writings of a single member of the Church. Only in the fulness of the Church counsel can the dogma be found.

It is enough to know that hundreds of years after Jesus walked the earth as a man, the Church formulated the Creeds which explained who He was, and who He had been.

The scribblings of a disgruntled heretic like Tertullian are not to be taken above the full counsel of the Church.

I agree with you about the time at which the Word became Son. Tertullian seems to make this point clear in Against Praxeas 5-7. God exclaims, "fiat lux" and the Word then experiences his nativitas perfecta.

Where we might part ways regarding Tertullian is when it comes to the status of the immanent Word (Logos endiathetos) prior to its divine expression when it becomes the Logos prophorikos.

Tertullian argues that the Word is eternal. But the Logos is not an eternal person alongside God. It appears that Logos, prior to its perfect nativity, is actually the eternal non-personal Reason of Summus Deus. It only becomes "Son" and therefore "personal" when Altissimus Deus brings forth the Word in tempo. I think both E.J. Fortman and A. Harnack posit this understanding of Tertullian's Logos doctrine. I can obtain exact quotes for you later, if you like.

Cheers,
Dan

03-05-2003 @ 07:18 PM
Jaltus:

If you continue reading Tertullian's different writings, you will quickly understand that the Word did not become "Son" until it was born. Just as the Father was not the Father until the Son appeared, so is the Son not the Son until He is begotten. Tertuallian implicitly denies eternal begetting, but not the eternality of the Word.

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?

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.

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. [/quote]

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

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. 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?

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?

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?

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.

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

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?

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
seriously,
Carl

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.