ReligionDiscuss General Theology, Religions and Denominations, God's Attributes, Predestination and Free Will, Dispensationalism, Eschatology, Philosophy, Origins, Archaeology, Science, World History and other such topics.
What are you talking about? I commended CSG for using historical documents instead of opinion! Please explain how that in any way implys He and I in some way "quote each other"I was not even born when the quotes he used were written!
Seems his paper Spankedyour theology as good as my post do for you to make such comments like you did!
Wow... A "In Camp" paper... Really? A paper written as a class project has somehow been made personal by you! Again... Wow!
Your scaring me Lon!
Paul
No. You missed the points (not that you want to hijack his thread )
I was sensitive enough to pull away and allow him to continue his thread unmolested. How about you? At least don't attempt to drag me back into it.
Now to Him who is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that works in us,
to Him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, forever. Amen. -Ephesians 3:20 & 21
1Co 13:11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. But when I became an adult, I set aside childish ways. - Let's at least work at it?
*************************************
Separation of church and State is not atheism "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights..."
Slogan/motto:
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful."
2 Timothy 2:24
Reputation:
May 22nd, 2012, 10:29 PM
For what it is worth, I found your paper to be well researched and constructed. And that is in spite of not agreeing with your preference for modalism, which I understand was not the main point of the paper. Anyone who seriously studies Church History must conclude that basic Christian doctrine developed over the first 5-6 centuries. Though simply because a doctrine took time to fully develop (Trinity) does not mean that it is inherently deficient in some way, which is what some seem to feel judging by their hostile reaction to such a notion. What is now known as Orthodox Christianity is largely the compilation of the Eastern tradition which largely favored a philosophical approach, and Western tradition which was much more literary in its approach. It is not surprising that it took time for the two traditions to temper each other.
Just to give some context (since credentials seem to be a big deal to some on this thread); I am halfway through my Master's in Theological Studies. I wish you well and encourage you in your desire to pursue higher education in the field!
For what it is worth, I found your paper to be well researched and constructed. And that is in spite of not agreeing with your preference for modalism, which I understand was not the main point of the paper. Anyone who seriously studies Church History must conclude that basic Christian doctrine developed over the first 5-6 centuries. Though simply because a doctrine took time to fully develop (Trinity) does not mean that it is inherently deficient in some way, which is what some seem to feel judging by their hostile reaction to such a notion. What is now known as Orthodox Christianity is largely the compilation of the Eastern tradition which largely favored a philosophical approach, and Western tradition which was much more literary in its approach. It is not surprising that it took time for the two traditions to temper each other.
Just to give some context (since credentials seem to be a big deal to some on this thread); I am halfway through my Master's in Theological Studies. I wish you well and encourage you in your desire to pursue higher education in the field!
Thank you very much COLA76 May I ask where you are getting your degree at?
As a side note though: I actually am not a Monarchian - I disagree, to varying degrees, with each of the views that I present in the paper. I think Tertullian actually does a pretty good job of showing that Monarchianism doesn't work scripturally. At the same time, however, I disagree with his idea of "divine substance." And, of course, I must disagree with the polytheism of Justin Martyr.
I am more of an Arian, generically speaking. I hold that Jesus is the Son of God - not God Almighty. I acknowledge that in a few places he is called God - but then so are we (as Justin Martyr and Ireaneus noted) and so was Moses and even various angels were addressed and spoke as if they were God (like the one in the burning bush). Thus I feel that those who are not truly God, but rather who are representing him, may at times be addressed/speak as if they were God - being his agents. And, of course, Jesus is God's ultimate representative to us.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Slogan/motto:
"And the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful."
2 Timothy 2:24
Reputation:
May 23rd, 2012, 05:11 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
Thank you very much COLA76 May I ask where you are getting your degree at?
As a side note though: I actually am not a Monarchian - I disagree, to varying degrees, with each of the views that I present in the paper. I think Tertullian actually does a pretty good job of showing that Monarchianism doesn't work scripturally. At the same time, however, I disagree with his idea of "divine substance." And, of course, I must disagree with the polytheism of Justin Martyr.
I am more of an Arian, generically speaking. I hold that Jesus is the Son of God - not God Almighty. I acknowledge that in a few places he is called God - but then so are we (as Justin Martyr and Ireaneus noted) and so was Moses and even various angels were addressed and spoke as if they were God (like the one in the burning bush). Thus I feel that those who are not truly God, but rather who are representing him, may at times be addressed/speak as if they were God - being his agents. And, of course, Jesus is God's ultimate representative to us.
I see, sorry to put words in your mouth. I am attending Asbury Theological Seminary. The school comes out of the Wesleyan tradition and is fairly moderate as far as most faculty go. However the student population is pretty diverse theologically, and academic freedom is a high priority for the institution.
After my wife and I finish up at Asbury I plan to go on for doctoral work in philosophical theology or philosophy of religion.
I acknowledge that in a few places he is called God - but then so are we
This was in the Hebrew law "for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy." They were the chosen people from the foundation of the world. Virtually all the prophets spoke to them including Jesus. God never said this to everyone else. Just FYI. It appears many Gentiles are angels.
I see, sorry to put words in your mouth. I am attending Asbury Theological Seminary. The school comes out of the Wesleyan tradition and is fairly moderate as far as most faculty go. However the student population is pretty diverse theologically, and academic freedom is a high priority for the institution.
After my wife and I finish up at Asbury I plan to go on for doctoral work in philosophical theology or philosophy of religion.
Interesting - I'll have to keep this place in mind when I start considering where to go. While I don't really belong to any denomination, my dad is just finishing up his ordination with the Church of the Nazarene (one class left). I haven't studied Wesley too much, but he really likes him. I got him a series a while back that had all/most of Wesley's works.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Last edited by csuguy; May 23rd, 2012 at 11:07 AM.
This was in the Hebrew law "for in thee the fatherless findeth mercy." They were the chosen people from the foundation of the world. Virtually all the prophets spoke to them including Jesus. God never said this to everyone else. Just FYI. It appears many Gentiles are angels.
More specifically, its from Psalms 82 & John 10. It was applied to those to whom the word of God came; to us, his adopted children. While it was decided from the foundation of the world that such a group of people would exist, I disagree that the specific members of this group were chosen from the beginning.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Last edited by csuguy; May 23rd, 2012 at 11:09 AM.
You'll have to address the quotes I provided from Tertullian's writings where he explicitly states there was a time when the Son/Word didn't exist.
Hebrews 7:3
Without father, without mother, without genealogy, having neither beginning of days nor end of life, but made like the Son of God, he remains a priest perpetually.
I remember this thread! Good to see its still around
@Paulos - I don't feel like reading through old posts to figure out the context of your reply. Although it is clear that the quote is about Tertullian's beliefs as he wrote them down. Are you saying your Church Father's conception of the Trinity was wrong, and that the Trinity concept changed overtime from what it was then to what you believe now?
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
@Paulos - I don't feel like reading through old posts to figure out the context of your reply. Although it is clear that the quote is about Tertullian's beliefs as he wrote them down. Are you saying your Church Father's conception of the Trinity was wrong, and that the Trinity concept changed overtime from what it was then to what you believe now?
Tertullian converted to Christianity from paganism in mid-life and became a brilliant defender of Christianity, but he was never canonized by the Catholic Church because several of his later teachings directly contradicted the actions and teachings of the Apostles. Later in his life he separated from the Church for Montanism. (The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine.)
Very good I don't got the exact grade with me anymore, but it was an A.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Tertullian converted to Christianity from paganism in mid-life and became a brilliant defender of Christianity, but he was never canonized by the Catholic Church because several of his later teachings directly contradicted the actions and teachings of the Apostles. Later in his life he separated from the Church for Montanism. (The remnant of the Tertullianists was reconciled to the Church by St. Augustine.)
Most Christians during those times were converts from paganism. Hence all the Greek Philosophy in the writings of the Church Fathers.
He did come at odds with the Church at Rome - and one of the main points of contention was the Trinity. Namely: Tertullian was a Trinitarian (one of the earliest) while the Bishop of Rome supported Monarchianism.
If you have material wealth, but do not give to those in need, then the love of God is not in you. Whatever you have done for the least of these you have done for HIM. To give to the poor is to lend to the LORD.
Most Christians during those times were converts from paganism. Hence all the Greek Philosophy in the writings of the Church Fathers.
Tertullian "did not care for philosophy: the philosophers are the "patriarchs of the heretics". His notion that all things, pure spirits and even God, must be bodies, is accounted for by his ignorance of philosophical terminology" (source).
Quote:
Originally Posted by csuguy
He did come at odds with the Church at Rome - and one of the main points of contention was the Trinity. Namely: Tertullian was a Trinitarian (one of the earliest) while the Bishop of Rome supported Monarchianism.
More from the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on Tertullian:
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 substance, one state, and one power. So far the doctrine is accurately Nicene. But by the side of this appears the Greek view which was one day to develop into Arianism: that the unity is to be sought not in the Essence but in the origin of the Persons. He says that from all eternity there was reason (ratio) in God, and in reason the Word (Sermo), not distinct from God, but in vulva cordis. For the purpose of creation the Word received a perfect birth as Son. There was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge.
)
May I ask where you are getting your degree at?
Linear Mode
