What benefit does it produce to make Jesus God
- Thread starter Peterlag
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
- Status
Yes, I don't know where they got that three persons definition.Tertullian is the father that defined the Trinity in the 200's. He left the Roman church because it was too worldly and joined the Montanists who still had the Holy Spirit and were strict on behavior.
Tertullian:
“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation . . . [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance (?) but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).
The Arian controversy: They were excommunicated from the Roman Church over this:
Arius taught, in accordance with an earlier subordinationist theological tradition, that the Son of God was a creature, made by God from nothing a finite time ago.
Sounds like the JW's liked their view.
I just finished re-reading Against Praxeas a couple of weeks ago. He believed in a Trinity but his concept is incompatible with that of later orthodox trinitarianism.
For example,
“The Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges …”
(Chapter 9)
“To make his meaning clearer he drew analogies from nature; The Father, Son and Holy Ghost are to each other as the root, shrub and tree; and as the fountain, stream, and river. This language shows that subordinationism was still in the mind of Tertullian. The Father is the whole substance, while the Son is only a derivation who participates in the divine substance in a lesser degree than the Father. And again, as with the Greek Apologists, the hypostasizing of the Son as the Logos did not take place until the time of the creation.”
(J.L. Neve, A History Of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 108)
Dr. Neve was a Lutheran scholar. I highly recommend this work to all readers, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike.
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
Jesus’ sacrifice did not redeem Adam or his wife....they were wilful and deliberate sinners who had no sin nature to explain or to excuse their defection. There is not a single word of remorse or repentance uttered by either of them. The first righteous man in biblical history was their second son, Abel. But the sin passed on genetically by our first parents took an early toll when he was murdered by his jealous older brother.
Jesus came to redeem the children who were born with the defect of sin because of the actions of one man, who the Bible says was not deceived, (1 Timothy 2:13-14) but who threw all his children under the bus because of his own disobedience and selfishness. (Romans 5:12)
Jesus’ sacrifice undid what Adam had done to his offspring. This was God’s solution embodied in the first prophesy recorded as soon as sin had entered the world. (Genesis 3:15) The meaning of that prophesy was shrouded in mystery until the coming of the seed (Jesus Christ), and the “heel” wound was inflicted in his death.....the fatal “head” wound of the devil is yet to be delivered.
Jesus has to deal with the “sheep and the goats” first. The “goats” are consigned to a place of eternal destruction, which Jesus said is “reserved” for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25:41)
So a thousand years in a “bottomless pit” is their first destination, and then after one final test, they are dispatched permanently. (Revelation 20:1-3)
Most people are not aware of the Bible’s *big picture*. It begins in Genesis and ends in Revelation....it is one story, and we are fast approaching its amazing conclusion.
Last edited:
1stCenturyLady
Well-Known Member
I like Tertullian's myself. And I like my own.
The question is are they three persons? What does your guy say about that.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Where do you think the animal skin that God clothed Adam and Eve with came from? It was the first sacrifice
Aunty Jane
Well-Known Member
People assume that but where is it written? Show me a single statement where they expressed any kind of remorse....
If Angels could materialize fully clothed, where did their garments come from?
How many beings is the Trinity? Any trinitarian worth his salt - that is, in agreement with the doctrine of the Trinity - knows the Trinity is one being.
Tertullian? No.
“Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up - and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected - must necessarily be two different Beings.”
(Against Praxeas, Chapter 4)
Tertullian? No.
“Now, from this one passage of the epistle of the inspired apostle, we have been already able to show that the Father and the Son are two separate Persons, not only by the mention of their separate names as Father and the Son, but also by the fact that He who delivered up the kingdom, and He to whom it is delivered up - and in like manner, He who subjected (all things), and He to whom they were subjected - must necessarily be two different Beings.”
(Against Praxeas, Chapter 4)
Last edited:
RLT63
Well-Known Member
How did Noah know which animals were clean and unclean? The law had not been given. God had to have taught Adam notice that Abel knew what to sacrifice.
A Catholic friend I made on the forums got me interested in reading Tertullian again. I’ve read or re-read 11 of his works now. I’m taking a short break from Tertullian to read another book. (The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible, by Scot McKnight, a 21st century trinitarian writer.)
I read Tertullian, to some extent, in college. I was working 40-50 hours per week as an engineer and carrying 15 semester hours at that time. I read only what was assigned in class - I simply didn’t have time and energy to do more than that bare minimum amount of reading.
I have enjoyed reading / re-reading Tertullian and I recommend his works to others. Trinitarians are going to be surprised if / when they do.
Yes, he does.
The bigger question, I think, is does Tertullian think the Trinity is three beings? It appears that he does. Trinitarians should reject that immediately, yet they commonly champion and parade him as a trinitarian.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
I think so. The post-biblical development / formulation of the doctrine of the Trinity isn’t the smooth ride many think it was. That it was eventually settled (in the 4th century) is beyond dispute. That it was there in the 1st and 2nd century is historically untenable, as Dr. Harold O.J. Brown acknowledges in Heresies. (Another trinitarian work which I highly recommend to all readers, trinitarian and non-trinitarian alike.)
The issue for me is not whether the Church did it or not. It did. That’s a fact. Church history proves it.
The issue for me is the one Dr. Brown poses - was it a legitimate development?
Trinitarians, of course, assert that it was. Bet you a dollar to a donut that you know or can correctly guess what I think about it.
RLT63
Well-Known Member
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
”It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity; heresy often appears more prominently, so much so that orthodoxy looks like a reaction to it. But we can document orthodoxy for all the centuries since then - in other words, for close to seventeen centuries of the church’s existence.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church. p. 5)
When a “hard core” trinitarian theologian, who appeals to Church history in order to persuade his readers that they should believe in the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, tells his readers this - the reader should pause and ask themselves why he would.
If orthodoxy could be found in those first two centuries, if it was possible to document orthodoxy there, our “hard core” trinitarian theologian never would have said that it is impossible to find it there.
He finds it documented in all centuries since. No one questions that, nor should they. It’s easy to document in Church history that it is.
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church. p. 5)
When a “hard core” trinitarian theologian, who appeals to Church history in order to persuade his readers that they should believe in the historical orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, tells his readers this - the reader should pause and ask themselves why he would.
If orthodoxy could be found in those first two centuries, if it was possible to document orthodoxy there, our “hard core” trinitarian theologian never would have said that it is impossible to find it there.
He finds it documented in all centuries since. No one questions that, nor should they. It’s easy to document in Church history that it is.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Typical. Appeal to Superman. You figure it out. You figure out how I am right! What a response. What a compelling argument.
“Today the clarity and necessity of Chalcedon, if not refuted or disproved, has been widely forgotten and ignored. Christianity took four centuries to formulate its witness to the deity and humanity of Christ in the context of the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in such a way that it preserved a coherent approach to the unity of truth. It has taken fifteen centuries more to forget Chalcedon again; as it loses touch with Chalcedon, the Christian world is in the process of losing its coherence. It is in fact losing the conviction that there is any final truth about the one who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life’ (John 14:6).”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, pp. 431-432)
Hard core. He dedicated his life to drawing wayward Christians back to Chalcedon and Nicaea. In this quote, he’s lamenting over those who have strayed from Chalcedon. We can feel the anguish and the fervent desire in his words.
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, pp. 431-432)
Hard core. He dedicated his life to drawing wayward Christians back to Chalcedon and Nicaea. In this quote, he’s lamenting over those who have strayed from Chalcedon. We can feel the anguish and the fervent desire in his words.
”It is a simple and undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian faith - such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ - were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form until the fourth or fifth centuries. If they are essential today - as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert - it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth and fifth centuries. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 20)
A “simple and undeniable historical fact that it took the early church centuries to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ,” claims our trinitarian scholar. If he’s right then we should be able to confirm it by looking at those centuries in Church history. It’s easily accessible to us.
This is why I always recommend reading Church history. It ends with the Trinity. But did it start there?
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies: Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 20)
A “simple and undeniable historical fact that it took the early church centuries to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ,” claims our trinitarian scholar. If he’s right then we should be able to confirm it by looking at those centuries in Church history. It’s easily accessible to us.
This is why I always recommend reading Church history. It ends with the Trinity. But did it start there?
“The adoption of the Nicene Creed in 325 and the Chalcedonian Creed in 451 stabilized the doctrine of the Trinity and Christ for over one thousand years. They made use of Hellenistic categories and thinking to do so. The important question to ask is not whether orthodox theology betrays Hellenistic influence. Nothing else was possible in the cultural climate of the time. The important question is whether this orthodoxy represents a proper and correct interpretation of New Testament Christology or whether it seriously distorts it.”
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 105)
Bold is mine.
Dr. Brown called it “the important question;” I would call it ”the crucial question”.
I hate to spoil a surprise but it is, or should be, no surprise that Dr. Brown holds the same official position of Christianity Board. (Perhaps even a little more so since he includes Chalcedon as a non-negotiable.)
(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, Heresy And Orthodoxy In The History Of The Church, p. 105)
Bold is mine.
Dr. Brown called it “the important question;” I would call it ”the crucial question”.
I hate to spoil a surprise but it is, or should be, no surprise that Dr. Brown holds the same official position of Christianity Board. (Perhaps even a little more so since he includes Chalcedon as a non-negotiable.)
- Status
Similar threads
