Search results

“It is important to remember that Jesus is not a human person like us; He is a divine Person.” (Kenneth Baker, “The Hypostatic Union”) https://www.hprweb.com/2012/05/the-hypostatic-union/ How can we be expected to remember what we’ve not been taught? Why isn’t the trinitarian clergy teaching...

“… the real mystery, namely, that Jesus is truly human, yet he is not a human person, but a divine person, the Son of God, …” (International Catholic University, “Personhood and Incarnation”) https://icucourses.com/pages/028-11-personhood-and-incarnation

Your trinitarian source is advocating / defending orthodox trinitarianism. In orthodox trinitarianism Jesus is not a human person. ”The perfect human is not a human person.” (Henry Karlson, “God Became Man Without a Human Self (Hypostasis)”)...

It also isn’t the Trinity.

“His trinitarian teaching is inconsistent, being an amalgamation of the Roman doctrine with that of St. Justin Martyr. Tertullian has the true formula for the Holy Trinity, tres Personae, una Substantia. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are numerically distinct, and each is God; they are of one...

Have they done the same with Tertullian and his belief that there was a time when the Son did not exist??

Cp. Arius. There was a time when the Son did not exist. Own it as trinitarianism, or set Tertullian free from the defense of the Trinity.

The person (Theophilus) who used the corresponding Greek word before Tertullian used the Latin word also didn’t use it as trinitarianism does. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity

He didn’t coin the term. Someone beat him to it. Tertullian wasn’t a trinitarian. Once we find this out, why use him as a defense of the Trinity?

His non-trinitarian belief about God didn’t begin with, nor did it change, when he endorsed Montanism. There is no legitimate way to make someone who wasn’t a trinitarian a trinitarian.

Tertullian lived long before those creeds and councils.

At no time did Tertullian ever believe in orthodox trinitarianism.

What “orthodoxy” is your unidentified source referring to?

Not trinitarian doctrine. So what development of early Church doctrine is your unidentified source referring to? A term which he himself didn’t use as trinitarianism uses it. The trinitarian author’s point in post #465.

Didn’t you see the post where I documented that his ideas were rejected? What exactly was his contribution to the doctrine?

They believe the gap which doesn’t support their belief supports their belief? At best, that’s illogical. The best answer I’ve been given comes from Roman Catholicism.

The early church didn’t. Using Tertullian (and others whose writings are opposed to trinitarianism) to bolster trinitarianism is unethical.

A trinitarian who studies the history and concludes that the Trinity was not the way God is described in those early centuries does so because the writings of those early centuries which the trinitarian studied do not describe God as trinitarianism describes God. Should then a trinitarian who...

That’s right. Which of the trinitarians I quoted ”aren’t trinitarians anymore”? If we’re going to insist that Tertullian is a trinitarian then we must also insist that trinitarianism teaches that there was a time when the Son did not exist. I’m not prepared to do that. Are you?

Why would a trinitarian who studied the history conclude that the Trinity was not the way God is described in those early centuries? Remember, all trinitarians conclude that the Trinity is the right way to describe God. (They wouldn’t be trinitarians if they didn’t.)