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.
Totton, I will seek all his truth till I take my last breath. For we never know enough about our God and his son. Your problem is you quit learning, I assume you think you know it all. I every you if you do.
Peace Totton
Imparted faith is a higher science, the word of truth James says is ingrafted...Jesus IS the truth, if He dwells in us we are in the truth...this is how we know you are in error.
You should read the paper before commenting on it. The paper was written using historical documentation. The paper contained no propoganda lies because it showed at the time the docterine was in development.
The fact is Lon, your Church fathers who supported and even formed the foundation of the Trinity doctrine, wrote and documented in history what I and now even you would reject as truth! They were working out their beliefs... not confirming what was believed!
Tertullian will intensely argue that the Father and Son are separate persons, unlike Modalism which argues that they are all the same person. It is an excellent Unitarian argument. He uses almost all the same verses that a Unitarian would use to show you that Jesus is not God. He argues that the Father and Jesus are not the same person, but when he comes across 1 Corinthians 8:6, "Yet for us there is one God, the Father," he says that in this case the Son is included in the term "Father."What reason does he give for this exception? None whatsoever. He just dismisses it so that he can justify his arguments. Just consider this, only God = Father, and then listen to his arguments.They are fantastically Unitarian! (J. Baxeras)
Chap. III. vv. 1. "The majority of believers, are STARTLED at the Dispensation (of the Three in One)...They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods...While the Greeks actually REFUSE to understand the oikonomia, or Dispensation (of the Three in One)."
These are incredible statements! Tertullian is acknowledging that the majority of believers did not agree with the Doctrine of the Trinity. They accused him of being a polytheist. The Greeks refused altogether to believe him. These statements are probably the best proofs that the Doctrine of the Trinity was not taught by the Apostles.
Study your History!
Paul
Paul, as I told csg, you can't selectively quote and then post what you believe a ECF believed. Any such attempt is ed to me and every other trinitarian (which is why I said it is very much an 'in-camp' paper).
As long as you guys just want to back-pat and quote each other rather than reaching a wider audience, I have no problem with what you all want to believe. Go for it. If you want to convince me and others, you'll have to do much much better.
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..."
I am sure it is all very interesting, but I have never quite been interested in the early church fathers, nor their opinions.
Researching and getting familiar with the early church fathers and prevailing schools of thought in that era and particularly the first 6 centuries and on, gives one greater insight into the 'mechanics' involved in the development of the Trinity, a 'formulation' defined and made 'orthodox' thru a process of time and deliberation.
Quote:
I am very intereted, however, in the Scriptures, which show clearly that Jesus is God, who was made man, who has always existed and is the fist and the last.
The theologians of those times also drew from scripture and the prevailing schools of influence of their times, naturally. Again, the statement "Jesus is God" is debatable on many levels,....which all the controversies and debate over unitarian/trinitarian issues clearly show.
Quote:
Really isn't up for debate.
Its been debated for centuries, and still is today
Quote:
i submit that if you want to disprove the deity of Christ, you are much better doing so extra biblically, so I can see your point there.
Of course anyone can tout something as being 'biblical' or 'non-biblical'. The fact remains that there was no clear or uniform conclusion among the early church era among the fathers and other professors of the 'christian faith' on 'Christology',..there being a diversity of views and perspectives. Doctrines underwent fine-tuning and development until they were concluded among certain councils as being officially 'accepted' or made 'orthodox'. These were determinations of men, influenced by so many factors of the time.
Researching and getting familiar with the early church fathers and prevailing schools of thought in that era and particularly the first 6 centuries and on, gives one greater insight into the 'mechanics' involved in the development of the Trinity, a 'formulation' defined and made 'orthodox' thru a process of time and deliberation.
I disagree. I have read the early fathers (still working on the latter early fathers...er...early latter fathers...fathers of the latter early...nevermind).
Though not 'coined' I see it very much supported. Rather I see the topic as simply not dealt with in depth. The first unit-arians died out by accounts from infighting. We see the same on TOL and other places. I'm a little shocked the JW and Mormons haven't splintered more yet but I think comraderie against the mammoth is a working factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelight
The theologians of those times also drew from scripture and the prevailing schools of influence of their times, naturally. Again, the statement "Jesus is God" is debatable on many levels,....which all the controversies and debate over unitarian/trinitarian issues clearly show.
This surprises me a bit coming from you. You've pos repped me before talking about these things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelight
Its been debated for centuries, and still is today
Agree. It is like France invading every nation of the world though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelight
Of course anyone can tout something as being 'biblical' or 'non-biblical'. The fact remains that there was no clear or uniform conclusion among the early church era among the fathers and other professors of the 'christian faith' on 'Christology',..there being a diversity of views and perspectives. Doctrines underwent fine-tuning and development until they were concluded among certain councils as being officially 'accepted' or made 'orthodox'. These were determinations of men, influenced by so many factors of the time.
pj
"Can" but there is still the issue of credibility for most which cannot be ignored.
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..."
Wile E. Coyote: that quote is talking about Justin Martyr, not Tertullian.
I unintentionally copied and pasted from the wrong section of that page. I failed to scroll down far enough when copying. Here is the statement about Tertullian's acceptance of the "two stages" doctrine.
Quote:
Tertullian was also the first Christian to deal specifically with the relation of the two natures in Christ. How, he asked, could the divine Word "become" flesh (Adv. Prax. 27)? Not, he asserted, by transforming himself into flesh, because then he would no longer be divine. Rather, he put on flesh; thus, the divine "substance" and the human "substance" both constitute the one "person" of Christ.
Like the Apologists, Tertullian posited a two-stage existence in the Word: First as immanent within the Father, then as expressed at the Son's generation:
There are some who allege that even Genesis opens thus in Hebrew: "In the beginning God made for Himself a Son." As there is no ground for this, I am led to other arguments derived from God's own dispensation, in which He existed before the creation of the world, up to the generation of the Son. For before all things God was alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things. Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or Consciousness) which the Greeks call logos, by which term we also designate Word or Discourse and therefore it is now usual with our people, owing to the mere simple interpretation of the term, to say that the Word was in the beginning with God; although it would be more suitable to regard Reason as the more ancient; because God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even BEFORE the beginning; because also Word itself consists of Reason, which it thus proves to have been the PRIOR existence as being its own substance.... He BECAME also the Son of God, and was begotten when He proceeded forth from Him (from chs. 5,7).
Tertullian CLEARLY taught that the Word preexisted His becoming Son. Tertullian said that the Word was "MORE ANCIENT" and that He had "PRIOR existence" and that He "BECAME ALSO the Son of God."
I apologize for any confusion that was caused by my oversight.
Tertullian CLEARLY taught that the Word preexisted His becoming Son. Tertullian said that the Word was "MORE ANCIENT" and that He had "PRIOR existence" and that He "BECAME ALSO the Son of God."
Exactly. It has to be dealt with in any substantial paper or it ...er...isn't.
CS, you can listen to those with experience in these papers or you can get back-pats from those who haven't written one (no slam, just the options that I deem you have). It doesn't require an in-thread rebuttal, it is your choice alone.
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..."
I unintentionally copied and pasted from the wrong section of that page. I failed to scroll down far enough when copying. Here is the statement about Tertullian's acceptance of the "two stages" doctrine.
Tertullian CLEARLY taught that the Word preexisted His becoming Son. Tertullian said that the Word was "MORE ANCIENT" and that He had "PRIOR existence" and that He "BECAME ALSO the Son of God."
I apologize for any confusion that was caused by my oversight.
We've noted such earlier, since there is the 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' logos (bearing an 'eternal' and 'temporal' aspect). This understanding allows for a versatility on the matter of Jesus nature, for his 'human' and 'divine' nature-aspects include both features.
Which further begs why any one position is any better than another, but for a certain dimensional perspective. The role and function of Jesus as 'Messiah' and 'Savior' (and other roles) still remains for the 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God', holding Jesus as the Unique and Special Son of God. All else are theological deductions/assumptions added.
I welcome corrections (*I know there's some spelling issues I have to go through and fix*) and any constructive criticisms you may have. If anyone knows of some good sources on Modalistic Monarchianism during the Ante-Nicene period I would greatful as well
Most of the spelling errors were in the quotations. Probably because they were scanned in with OCR software. Don't assume that a site such as CCEL is accurate at that level, I'm fairly sure it is not.
Generally, I'm sympathetic to your endeavour and the paper was an interesting read from a historical perspective and seemed well researched. It sort of whetted the appetite for more.
However, I feel that the overall project may be a little light-footed for this reason: I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that the trinity was already believed in as orthodox from the time of the apostles. Proving (as you have obviously done very well) that it was not an orthodox doctrine or at least had any significant following in the early centuries does not mean that it is a false doctrine. All it means is that the church was groping for a solution and it took a certain amount of time to find it. All of the strands you discuss had elements of that final solution but none of them were complete. Indeed, the obvious weaknesses of each of the stances taken by these early fathers almost demand a better doctrine.
Personally, I think the trinity doctrine is also weak and I try not to teach it if I can but that's an issue to be looked at separately. In the meantime, if your point is that the trinity is weak for the very reason that it is unfounded historically, then that's an argument that will not work because it was founded not on the authority of the fathers or on the strength of their teachings but on the lack of authority of the fathers and the obvious errors of their teachings.
What we see is the church looking for a solution and finding one, even if that solution was not agreed on by everybody or was perfect in every way.
Total Misanthropy. Uncertain salvation. Luck of the draw. Irresistible damnation. Persecution of the saints.
Last edited by Desert Reign; May 21st, 2012 at 02:56 PM.
Exactly. It has to be dealt with in any substantial paper or it ...er...isn't.
CS, you can listen to those with experience in these papers or you can get back-pats from those who haven't written one (no slam, just the options that I deem you have). It doesn't require an in-thread rebuttal, it is your choice alone.
Lon,
I am just as surprised as you that a poster who claims to have credentials could omit important information. It just goes to show you that the anti-trins must revise history as they do the scriptures.
We've noted such earlier, since there is the 'unmanifest' and 'manifest' logos (bearing an 'eternal' and 'temporal' aspect). This understanding allows for a versatility on the matter of Jesus nature, for his 'human' and 'divine' nature-aspects include both features.
Which further begs why any one position is any better than another, but for a certain dimensional perspective. The role and function of Jesus as 'Messiah' and 'Savior' (and other roles) still remains for the 'Son of Man' and 'Son of God', holding Jesus as the Unique and Special Son of God. All else are theological deductions/assumptions added.
There is another related point: The Bible itself is a result of a process. Calling it "the Word of God" doesn't change that fact.
Between us, let's just consider the OT. Was it man's revelation or God's primarily (was it developed (processed) by God or man)? I view the ECFs differently than scripture.
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..."
Most of the spelling errors were in the quotations. Probably because they were scanned in with OCR software. Don't assume that a site such as CCEL is accurate at that level, I'm farily sure it is not.
Generally, I'm sympathetic to your endeavour and the paper was an interesting read from a historical perspective and seemed well researched. It sort of whetted the appetite for more.
However, I feel that the overall project may be a little light-footed for this reason: I wasn't aware that anyone was saying that the trinity was already believed in as orthodox from the time of the apostles. Proving (as you have obviously done very well) that it was not an orthodox doctrine or at least had any significant following in the early centuries does not mean that it is a false doctrine. All it means is that the church was groping for a solution and it took a certain amount of time to find it. All of the strands you discuss had elements of that final solution but none of them were complete. Indeed, the obvious weaknesses of each of the stances taken by these early fathers almost demand a better doctrine.
Personally, I think the trinity doctrine is also weak and I try not to teach it if I can but that's an issue to be looked at separately. In the meantime, if your point is that the trinity is weak for the very reason that it is unfounded historically, then that's an argument that will not work because it was founded not on the authority of the fathers or on the strength of their teachings but on the lack of authority of the fathers and the obvious errors of their teachings.
What we see is the church looking for a solution and finding one, even if that solution was not agreed on by everybody or was perfect in every way.
CS, there is a good unbiased feedback▲. Whatever DS and I have in common would most likely be a good indication▲ (there is a bit of constructive overlap).
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..."
Between us, let's just consider the OT. Was it man's revelation or God's primarily (was it developed (processed) by God or man)? I view the ECFs differently than scripture.
It is man-made. It includes divine revelations ("and God said to Moses"), and was mostly written with religious goals in mind, but it remains overall a work of man.
I unintentionally copied and pasted from the wrong section of that page. I failed to scroll down far enough when copying. Here is the statement about Tertullian's acceptance of the "two stages" doctrine.
ah - that explains it. :P
Quote:
Tertullian CLEARLY taught that the Word preexisted His becoming Son. Tertullian said that the Word was "MORE ANCIENT" and that He had "PRIOR existence" and that He "BECAME ALSO the Son of God."
You aren't reading that quote thoroughly (which is just a short version of what I posted): he says that Reason is more ancient than the Word, that the Word wasn't with him in the beginning but rather his own Reason (Consciousness) was with him. He distinguishes between the two and points out that while others do believe that logos in John 1:1 should be rendered "Word" - this is actually incorrect.
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.
ed to me and every other trinitarian (which is why I said it is very much an 'in-camp' paper).
"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..."
facts...... -
May 21st, 2012, 12:59 PM
points to note..... -
May 21st, 2012, 02:07 PM
Linear Mode
