Tracing Trinitarianism

[7thangel]

I am ignorant of the history of the Trinity so I may just read the answers of trinitarians about this question.....


Are there any trace of trinitarian doctrine among other books from the first and second centuries, perhaps including those of the Dead Sea, and Nag Hammadi Scrolls?

Thanks.
7thangel

[infide]

I am ignorant of the history of the Trinity so I may just read the answers of trinitarians about this question.....


Are there any trace of trinitarian doctrine among other books from the first and second centuries, perhaps including those of the Dead Sea, and Nag Hammadi Scrolls?

Thanks.
7thangel

Hey 7thangel,

I believe that Tertullian (2nd century-early 3rd century) first used the term "Trinity", and stated that God was one in substance but of three distinct persons.

I copied the following from a translation I found on the web, not sure how good it is, but i think this will give some idea of what Tertullian argued:

(this is from Chapter 2 of Against Praxeas, entitled "personal relations in the Godhead", when Tertullian says "this heresy" he is speaking therefore of what Praxeas was teaching, which seems to be a kind of modalism)

"were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (from a translation by a Dr. Holmes, found here (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullp.htm)).

It seems Tertullian was coming from a "Logos theology" perspective, but he does, as it seems, begin to articulate a trinitarian version which seems very much like Nicea's articulation.

peace,
jd

[infide]

by the way, What do you make of Logos theology, which is the very early conception of the Trinity? At the very least it contradicts both Arianism (since the Logos was not created per se) and Modalism (since the Logos was distinct in some way from the Father).

just wondering if you have considered the Logos theology-->Trinity transition, and why it may have happenned. And perhaps why it is not that large of a leap.

peace,
jd

[7thangel]

Hey 7thangel,

I believe that Tertullian (2nd century-early 3rd century) first used the term "Trinity", and stated that God was one in substance but of three distinct persons.

I copied the following from a translation I found on the web, not sure how good it is, but i think this will give some idea of what Tertullian argued:

(this is from Chapter 2 of Against Praxeas, entitled "personal relations in the Godhead", when Tertullian says "this heresy" he is speaking therefore of what Praxeas was teaching, which seems to be a kind of modalism)

"were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons-the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." (from a translation by a Dr. Holmes, found here (http://mb-soft.com/believe/txv/tertullp.htm)).

It seems Tertullian was coming from a "Logos theology" perspective, but he does, as it seems, begin to articulate a trinitarian version which seems very much like Nicea's articulation.

peace,
jd

Wow! I guess Praxeas is the reason why Rome become trinitarians. Read what Tertullians said:

By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father. Praxeas' tares had been moreover sown, and had produced their fruit here also, while many were asleep in their simplicity of doctrine; but these tares actually seemed to have been plucked up, having been discovered and exposed by him whose agency God was pleased to employ.

Praxeas is actually spreading modalism and Tertullian condemn Praxeas' teaching! And my thought is that if Tertullian condemned the thought of Jesus crucified as same to crucifying the Father, plainly, as he said in those words, Tertullian surely do not believe the Trinity. For on those words, clearly he claims that the Son is separate from the Father.

BTW, according to some sources I have read, long time ago, Tertullian is not a Trinitarian. So was Origen. However, I believe that the RCC claims that the two were converted to Trinitarianism.

And with regards to the logos theology. I have read an article by Dale Tuggy titled "Trinitarian Dilemma." In that article we can figure out of the "homoousios" defense ineffective. The link I have was lost, but I will search it again in the web. I had a copy but it was deleted when my computer broke.

7thangel

[infide]

Wow! I guess Praxeas is the reason why Rome become trinitarians.

no, i dont think so.

Read what Tertullians said:

Praxeas is actually spreading modalism and Tertullian condemn Praxeas' teaching!

Because modalism is a heresy. I dont see your point.

And my thought is that if Tertullian condemned the thought of Jesus crucified as same to crucifying the Father, plainly, as he said in those words, Tertullian surely do not believe the Trinity. For on those words, clearly he claims that the Son is separate from the Father.

And on the Trinitarian view, there are three distinct Persons. And on a good Trinitarian view, the Father is not the same as the Son, and so no, crucifying Jesus is not the same as crucifying the Father.

BTW, according to some sources I have read, long time ago, Tertullian is not a Trinitarian. So was Origen. However, I believe that the RCC claims that the two were converted to Trinitarianism.

He is not a Trinitarian per se (I believe I said that in my above post! That He was using the Logos Christology framework), but the part I quoted does indeed demonstrate that Tertullian was approaching the Trinitarian doctrine.

And with regards to the logos theology. I have read an article by Dale Tuggy titled "Trinitarian Dilemma." In that article we can figure out of the "homoousios" defense ineffective. The link I have was lost, but I will search it again in the web. I had a copy but it was deleted when my computer broke.

7thangel

well, you have a mind, tell me why it doesnt demonstrate that Arianism and Modalism (at least) are false?

peace,
jd

[7thangel]

no, i dont think so.

Because modalism is a heresy. I dont see your point.

I am just "guessing" about Praxeas since he seemed to be preaching trinitarianism.


And on the Trinitarian view, there are three distinct Persons. And on a good Trinitarian view, the Father is not the same as the Son, and so no, crucifying Jesus is not the same as crucifying the Father.

That fact that Tertullian seem to believe that the Father and Son is separate thus I concluded that he is not trinitarian at all. I understand the Father is not the same as the Son thing, but to say, or think, that the Father is "separate" to the Son is obviously against trinitarianism. Else, what is the point of trinitarians arguing about the Father and the Son are one, or of quoting the words "that Father is IN me."

BTW, where was the Father when Christ was crucified?

He is not a Trinitarian per se (I believe I said that in my above post! That He was using the Logos Christology framework), but the part I quoted does indeed demonstrate that Tertullian was approaching the Trinitarian doctrine.

Don't get me wrong, I got what you are saying. And what I was saying that Tertullian does not believe the trinity himself.

well, you have a mind, tell me why it doesnt demonstrate that Arianism and Modalism (at least) are false?

peace,
jd

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Arianism, nor Modalism. Dale Tuggy made arguments of the impossibility of making sense of the trinity into one. And that using his arguments would cloud more the understanding of the Trinity.

[apostoli]

Hi 7thangel,

That fact that Tertullian seem to believe that the Father and Son is separate thus I concluded that he is not trinitarian at all. I understand the Father is not the same as the Son thing, but to say, or think, that the Father is "separate" to the Son is obviously against trinitarianism.I've given a lot of thought to the one but distinct idea. My thoughts are guided by scriptures such as John 17:21 "That they may be one, as you Father are in me and I in you, that they may be one in us" and 1 Cor 12:12-27. Now if we as individuals make up the one "body" of Christ, then why can't the Son participate in the one "body" of God?

[7thangel]

Hi 7thangel,

I've given a lot of thought to the one but distinct idea. My thoughts are guided by scriptures such as John 17:21 "That they may be one, as you Father are in me and I in you, that they may be one in us" and 1 Cor 12:12-27. Now if we as individuals make up the one "body" of Christ, then why can't the Son participate in the one "body" of God?

Well, the context of the word "oneness" in God is totally different for the Unitarians to that of Trinitarian context. Indeed we both speak of oneness to mean "unitedness," but given a more thought Trinitarians are not actually meaning oneness as unitedness but "singleness." The fact is, by claiming that there is "unitedness" in the Godhead is purely Tritheism.

Whenever trinitarians quote John 10:31(I and my Father are one), and John 14:10-11(Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake), they mean singleness. And that the Father is presently occupying the being/space/existence of Christ(or whatever that means to trinitarians.) There is actually no separation between the Father and the Son. So the Father and the Son is existing in Christ. And in this context is not actually a view in modalism.

Evidently, the above kind of thought is what is being condemned by Tertullian. For when he accused Praxeas of crucifying the Father, it is because that is the consequence of believing such context of "oneness."

Else, tell me, where was the Father when Christ was crucified?

But the context of "oneness" among Unitarians is about unitedness in spirit excluding the singleness in being/existence/space. This context of oneness can be easily grasped and workable in mind in aplying it to John 10:31, 14:10-11, and even to the verses you mentioned(John 17:21).

[infide]

I am just "guessing" about Praxeas since he seemed to be preaching trinitarianism.

No, he was teaching modalism (probably also called Monarchianism, or even Sabellianism), that speaking of "Jesus", "the Father", and "Holy Spirit" are just three proper names which designate the same Person who is the same one, the same identity.

If you are confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism, that is a straw man if I've ever seen one. Trinitarianism is just as concerned with the distinction of Persons in the Godhead as they are the Oneness of the Nature of Godhead.

That fact that Tertullian seem to believe that the Father and Son is separate thus I concluded that he is not trinitarian at all. I understand the Father is not the same as the Son thing, but to say, or think, that the Father is "separate" to the Son is obviously against trinitarianism. Else, what is the point of trinitarians arguing about the Father and the Son are one, or of quoting the words "that Father is IN me."

Well, Tertullian says (in the piece I quoted) that God is, "three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God".

So Tertullian, it seems, would say that what Trinitarians mean when they say the Father and Son are "one" is that they are one substance and one power, One God.

That is, though admittedly not all of Tertullian is as in accord with it, as far as i can tell, Trinitarianism.

BTW, where was the Father when Christ was crucified?

What do you mean "where"? God the Father, like the Logos (the Son), is an immaterial, Spiritual being. To ask "where was the Father", is not to ask a question, He is everywhere in a Spiritual sense, and nowhere in a material sense.

Don't get me wrong, I got what you are saying. And what I was saying that Tertullian does not believe the trinity himself.

Not the exact formulation (Nicea came after....), but he is clearly articulating the Trinitarian Principle of One substance and Three Persons.

Don't get me wrong, I am not defending Arianism, nor Modalism.

what, exactly, are you defending then? Do you believe Jesus was the divine-human God-man? Do you believe the Logos became flesh and dwelt among us? If so, then you are either a Trinitarian, or you are an Arian, or you are a Modalist or you are a Polytheist (which cannot rightfully be called a Christian position). I am not aware of any other major view (other than adoptionist, perhaps).

Dale Tuggy made arguments of the impossibility of making sense of the trinity into one. And that using his arguments would cloud more the understanding of the Trinity.

So God is not One then? IMNSHO, Tri-Theism is not an option for a Christian. God is one - and it is declared as such throughout History. Not an absolute "One" but one nonetheless.

peace,
jd

[Pythagoras]

Hi infide,


No, he was teaching modalism (probably also called Monarchianism, or even Sabellianism), that speaking of "Jesus", "the Father", and "Holy Spirit" are just three proper names which designate the same Person who is the same one, the same identity.


This is in line with Hinduism where the three aspects of the Supreme Godhead, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are simply the same one "person", with the same identity in three different modes,--eko deva trimurthi, One god, three in One..


If you are confusing Trinitarianism with Modalism, that is a straw man if I've ever seen one. Trinitarianism is just as concerned with the distinction of Persons in the Godhead as they are the Oneness of the Nature of Godhead.


In a sense I can understand the rationale of the modalists(Oneness Pentacostals, Hindus); God is one "person", a single entity, not a "compound unity" . God manifests himself in three modes. Thus Christ is the Son as well as the Father, Vishnu is simply a different mode of the Supreme Brahma(Almighty God). The trinitarians on the other hand, it seems to me, play word games, since they do not mean what they say and say what they do not mean.
Trinitarians frequently use the diagram of a triangle to explain their doctrine. The three corners represent the three members of the trinity, while the complete triangle represents God as the whole trinity. Thus, the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, neither Father, Son nor Spirit is completely God without the others.

Orthodox trinitarians claim to deny tritheism, which is the belief in three gods. However, when asked to explain how there can be three distinct persons and yet only one God, they ultimately explain that the trinity is a mystery our finite human minds cannot comprehend fully.That's the cop out.



What do you mean "where"? God the Father, like the Logos (the Son), is an immaterial, Spiritual being. To ask "where was the Father", is not to ask a question, He is everywhere in a Spiritual sense, and nowhere in a material sense.


No, it's not "immaterial" to ask where God was when Christ died since trinitarians mantain that Jesus was "Fully God" . If Jesus("Fully God") died, then there is only one posibility, that all of God died, including the Father, since it is impossible for only two "persons" of the trinity to be alive without the third. So where was "God the Father" when "God the Son" was dead? More specifically, how could "God the Father" still be alive when "God the Son" was dead? Now if you tell me only the "human hypostases of Jesus died, while his "Divine hypostases" didn't, then you're saying Jesus was two beings, and not one, which again flies in the face of logic.



Tri-Theism is not an option for a Christian. God is one - and it is declared as such throughout History. Not an absolute "One" but one nonetheless.


However it is apparent that many trinitarians interpret their doctrine to mean three personalities, three beings, three minds, three wills, or three bodies in the Godhead, even though they might outwardly deny tri-theism. They deny that by person they mean only manifestations, roles, or relationships with man. Instead, they defend an eternal threeness of essence while admitting it to be an incomprehensible mystery. They reduce the concept of God's oneness to a unity of plural persons. By their definition, they convert monotheism into a form of polytheism, differing from pagan polytheism only in that there is perfect agreement and unity among the gods. Regardless of trinitarian denials, this is polytheism - tritheism to be exact - and not the monotheism taught by the Bible and upheld by Judaism.



Well, Tertullian says (in the piece I quoted) that God is, "three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God".

While Tertullian was the first to use the word "trinity" he was hardly a bona fide trinitarian.
He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.

Here's some food for thought regarding Tertullian:

"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).

So there was a time when "neither sin nor the Son existed", something Arius, not Athanasius, would say.

Btw, Tertullian has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."




best wishes,

[infide]

This is in line with Hinduism where the three aspects of the Supreme Godhead, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are simply the same one "person", with the same identity in three different modes,--eko deva trimurthi, One god, three in One..

Good thing I am not a Hindu then. Modalism is a Heresy, and makes Christ out to be a Schizophrenic, pretending to talk to the Father in prayer and pretending to be descended upon by the Holy Spirit at His baptism.

Such "pretending" is inconsistant with who Jesus claimed to be. Since I believe Jesus is who He claimed to be, then such "pretending" must be incorrect of those actions, thus there really are three personalities in God.

In a sense I can understand the rationale of the modalists(Oneness Pentacostals, Hindus); God is one "person", a single entity, not a "compound unity" . God manifests himself in three modes. Thus Christ is the Son as well as the Father, Vishnu is simply a different mode of the Supreme Brahma(Almighty God). The trinitarians on the other hand, it seems to me, play word games, since they do not mean what they say and say what they do not mean.

Thats your opinion. I mean what I say (once I say what I mean), that God is tri-Personal, but One in Substance.

Trinitarians frequently use the diagram of a triangle to explain their doctrine. The three corners represent the three members of the trinity, while the complete triangle represents God as the whole trinity. Thus, the Father is not the Son is not the Holy Ghost. Furthermore, neither Father, Son nor Spirit is completely God without the others.

This partially represents my view. However, no such analogy will work fully, since we are talking about MINDS and PERSONALITIES and hypostasis and substance, so, since points on a triangle and boiled eggs do not have mind-components, they will run into limits as to what aspects of the Trinity they can describe.

Orthodox trinitarians claim to deny tritheism, which is the belief in three gods. However, when asked to explain how there can be three distinct persons and yet only one God, they ultimately explain that the trinity is a mystery our finite human minds cannot comprehend fully.That's the cop out.

Have I done that? Unless you are calling me unorthodox, then your sweeping generalization fails at least once. In fact(!!) someone on another thread accused me of not appealing to mystery because i was attempting to explain the doctrine of the Trinity (which is an absurd allegation in my mind...but..), so then, the Trinity is not 3 and 1 in the same sense (which would be a contradiction) but it is 3 and 1 in different senses. 3 Persons (hupostasis) and 1 nature (ousia).

No, it's not "immaterial" to ask where God was when Christ died since trinitarians mantain that Jesus was "Fully God" . If Jesus("Fully God") died, then there is only one posibility, that all of God died, including the Father, since it is impossible for only two "persons" of the trinity to be alive without the third. So where was "God the Father" when "God the Son" was dead? More specifically, how could "God the Father" still be alive when "God the Son" was dead? Now if you tell me only the "human hypostases of Jesus died, while his "Divine hypostases" didn't, then you're saying Jesus was two beings, and not one, which again flies in the face of logic.

I explained most of this in other threads. Here, I was responding to a specific objection "where is God the Father?". I objected that a question about spatial location is inappropriate for an immaterial being who lacks material location. The objection about Jesus being "fully God" was explained elsewhere, Jesus is fully Divine, but He is not *all of the Trinity* which, I agree lacks logical consistancy (especially the law of identity).

Furthermore, "God the Son" in the proper sense, did not die. Just like when humans die, their souls do not die. But death speaks of a particular seperation of soul and body. Which Jesus, the God-man, did experience.

However it is apparent that many trinitarians interpret their doctrine to mean three personalities, three beings, three minds, three wills, or three bodies in the Godhead, even though they might outwardly deny tri-theism.

Many of those categories cannot apply to God, like "three bodies" for example. God is immaterial, and thus does not have a body. "three beings" is incorrect, as God is One being, with three personalities. Three minds/wills would need clarification before I comment on them.

nonetheless, God is not three Gods, but one God. He is one instantiation of the Divine Nature (which includes three persons) not three instantiations of the Divine Nature.

They deny that by person they mean only manifestations, roles, or relationships with man.

indeed, that language reeks of modalism. Which is just as anti-Trinitarian as Tri-Theism (polytheism) is.

Instead, they defend an eternal threeness of essence while admitting it to be an incomprehensible mystery.

Wrong. WE defend an eternal ONEness of essence.

They reduce the concept of God's oneness to a unity of plural persons. By their definition, they convert monotheism into a form of polytheism, differing from pagan polytheism only in that there is perfect agreement and unity among the gods. Regardless of trinitarian denials, this is polytheism - tritheism to be exact - and not the monotheism taught by the Bible and upheld by Judaism.

Wrong! This is all rebutting tritheism, not orthodox trinitarianism. I would gladly refute those conceptions of God along with you. But I will also refute modalism.

While Tertullian was the first to use the word "trinity" he was hardly a bona fide trinitarian.

I SAID THAT SEVERAL TIMES NOW.

He was coming from a Logos Theology perspective, which is different from the Nicean conception. I was only saying that Tertullian was approaching the Trinitarian conception of 3 persons and 1 nature.

He became a follower of Montanus, an early heretic who claimed to be the Paraclete (Comforter) promised in John 14 and the last prophet before the end of the world. Tertullian eventually began to praise celibacy and condemn marriage. In the end, he was excommunicated along with the rest of the Montanists.

All a red-herring in regards to my point. I am well aware of the history of Tertullian, and his excommunication, and His Montanism. I think it is all a side issue on this point, however, since Tertullian did defend the primitive Trinity doctrine against the Modalism of Praxeas.

Here's some food for thought regarding Tertullian:

"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).


So there was a time when "neither sin nor the Son existed", something Arius, not Athanasius, would say.

I dont care. you say that because you dont understand what Logos theology taught. Its a side-issue.


Btw, Tertullian has been characterized by the statement, "I believe because it is absurd."

I dont care. That is a side-issue.

peace,
jd

[Pythagoras]

Hi infide,




I dont care. you say that because you dont understand what Logos theology taught. Its a side-issue.




jd

Tertullian wasn't a trinitarian and you "don't care"?





"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).


Neither was Origen, and the other early Church Fathers. The Nicean Creed and most modern doctrines of the trinity, including yours, was a 4th Century innovation.

Yours is not mainstream trinitarianism. What "creed" do you adhere to?

best wishes,

[infide]

Hi infide,



Tertullian wasn't a trinitarian and you "don't care"?

He defended a form of the Logos Christology that was very close to Trinitarianism in certain respects. That was my original post to 7thangel, and it is from that perspective that I do not care your insistance to the contrary.

I care that I dont believe certain aspects of His theology were incorrect, but that is a different thread.

"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).

okay, yeah, He was a Logos theologian who believed God "uttered" the Son in time. I know that. Its not pertinent to this particular discussion.

Neither was Origen, and the other early Church Fathers. The Nicean Creed and most modern doctrines of the trinity, including yours, was a 4th Century innovation.

However, that doesnt mean it is wrong. Those earlier theologians just didnt have the categories and philosophical concepts to have need for the Trintarian formulation. Many of them did profess a form of Trinitarianism (Logos Christology/Theology is similar in many ways), that only got honed and elaborated to the Nicene form.

Yours is not mainstream trinitarianism. What "creed" do you adhere to?

I adhere to most, if not all, of the major Christian Creeds. I may just interpret some of them differently than other trinitarians.

peace,
jd

[Pythagoras]

Hi infide,




However, that doesnt mean it is wrong. Those earlier theologians just didnt have the categories and philosophical concepts to have need for the Trintarian formulation. Many of them did profess a form of Trinitarianism (Logos Christology/Theology is similar in many ways), that only got honed and elaborated to the Nicene form.




jd

In other words the trinitarian formula/doctrine as we know it is a fourth century invention and doctrinal fits are possible only by a re-interpretation of the writings of the "church Fathers" with fourth century trinitarian "concepts" .

Two can play this game. Arians can(and have) proved that Tertulian, Origen, Ireneaus etc. were all tending towards Arianism.

Nice Try.

[Voice of Reason]

Hey 7thangel,

I believe that Tertullian (2nd century-early 3rd century) first used the term "Trinity", and stated that God was one in substance but of three distinct persons.

This is an innaccurate statement that is very consistently used within Trinitarian circles without knowing the explicit details. Tertullian, despite his progressive form of establishing dogma instead of remaining steadfast with scripture, was actually a subordinationist. Try reconciling this fact to the modern-day concept of the Trinity.

[Voice of Reason]

Two can play this game. Arians can(and have) proved that Tertulian, Origen, Ireneaus etc. were all tending towards Arianism.


I absolutely agree. The Apostolic Fathers and Apologists were all in some way subordinationists. Anyone who thinks otherwise are denying both the secular and Ecclesiastical records that confirm this.

To say that the modern-day concept of the Trinity is an accurate reflection of what was thought in the first few centuries of our Common Era would be a definite mistake.

[infide]

Hi infide,

In other words the trinitarian formula/doctrine as we know it is a fourth century invention and doctrinal fits are possible only by a re-interpretation of the writings of the "church Fathers" with fourth century trinitarian "concepts".

Well, i wouldnt necessarily say "re-interpretation" on every account. you like to use broad sweeping generalizations. Thoughts, theorys, ideas, systems, all develop over time. why? because each successive generation has the wisdom and discussions/resolutions that occurred in the previous generation. theres nothing wrong with that!

It is just the genetic fallacy to try to say that Trinitarianism is false simply because of where it came from or how it was formed.

Two can play this game. Arians can(and have) proved that Tertulian, Origen, Ireneaus etc. were all tending towards Arianism.

Perhaps they were in some respects. But in other VERY important respects they were not. The Logos was not considered a creation ex nihilo event, and involved aspects of God's Mind proceeding forth from Him. That is nothing like Arianism, where the Son is the first Creation.

peace,
jd

[infide]

This is an innaccurate statement that is very consistently used within Trinitarian circles without knowing the explicit details. Tertullian, despite his progressive form of establishing dogma instead of remaining steadfast with scripture, was actually a subordinationist. Try reconciling this fact to the modern-day concept of the Trinity.

And if you were paying attention to the discussion, you would have realized that I did not say I agreed with every aspect of Tertullian's theology. What IS IT with people taking one phrase someone says and twisting it out of proportion?

My post to 7thangel said that:

"but he does, as it seems, begin to articulate a trinitarian version which seems very much like Nicea's articulation." (post# 1133651)

NOTICE "begin to", which may have been a bit underdeveloped as I had said it, but I have since elaborated and defended what I meant by that.

I personally dont think subordinationism is correct in the nature of God Himself. (That is, considering God eternal without creation) But clearly, at least in the incarnation, the Son took a subordinate role to the Will and plan of God the Father. Otherwise the scence in Gethsemane is nonsense. So, dont sit there and pretend that modern Trinitarianism has no room for such obedience and willing submission (Phil 2) on the part of the Son AT LEAST in the incarnation.

peace,
jd