Tertullian: What Was His Exact Theology?

[BobDylan]

What was Tertullian's theology? Do the history books have it right? Or does he give better insight into his theology from his own personal writings?

supposedly in his later years he went to a very seperated camp of very charismatic Christians...

:shrug:

my Prof in college told me that Tertullian is probably the closest of the ancient theologians to my beliefs that we actually have writings from... ("my beliefs" = that of oneness pentecostals, not necessarily my own personal beliefs (although they really aren't that different))

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

supposedly in his later years he went to a very seperated camp of very charismatic Christians...

:shrug:

my Prof in college told me that Tertullian is probably the closest of the ancient theologians to my beliefs that we actually have writings from... ("my beliefs" = that of oneness pentecostals, not necessarily my own personal beliefs (although they really aren't that different))

It sounds interesting. Praxeas seems to think he suggests a form of modalism, not Sabellian or Noetian modalism, but Tertullian modalism. For instance, his use of the Latin "personae", is the primary term used by Latin modalists to indicate the three different "manifestations" of God in His work of redemption. I think it is interesting to note that later Latin theologians commandeered the word to promote the Nicean Trinity. The "personae" indicating three distinct identities. Whereas from what I have read of Tertullian, it doesn't seem he believes in three distinct "identities", but rather three distinct "masks" of relationship.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

It sounds interesting. Praxeas seems to think he suggests a form of modalism, not Sabellian or Noetian modalism, but Tertullian modalism. For instance, his use of the Latin "personae", is the primary term used by Latin modalists to indicate the three different "manifestations" of God in His work of redemption. I think it is interesting to note that later Latin theologians commandeered the word to promote the Nicean Trinity. The "personae" indicating three distinct identities. Whereas from what I have read of Tertullian, it doesn't seem he believes in three distinct "identities", but rather three distinct "masks" of relationship.

Ok I was going to stay away a bit, but here goes.

Later Trinitarian creeds opted for the word Hypostasis instead. Hypostasis means substance or foundation, thus we have the substantial or real person verses the persona being the outward person.

My main point is that Tertullians main gripe with Praxeas is that Praxeas made no distinction between father and son, while Modalists, especially successive modalists viewed them as entirely different or distinct modes. The father is not the son and vice versa.

Tertullians opposition then was not necessarily to modalism, but to Praxeas supposed teaching that the Father Is the Son.

Look, Trinitarians say Father and Son are the same in nature. Yet they never say they believe the Father is the Son (in nature).

We say Father and the Son are the same in Person, Trinitarians then say we believe the Father is the Son. That is a gross oversimplification and really a strawman argument, because it leaves out some important details. Yes we believe the Father is the Son....but only in Person. In other words we believe the person or the hypostasis or the substance of the Father and Son is the same individual. However there are many OTHER distinctions between Father and Son so that a simplification such as "They believe the Father is the Son" is a very inaccurate representation of what we actually said.

Modalists believe Father and Son are NOT the same MODE or BEING or Manifestation or Form or whatever one wants to use. So for a modalist three has to be a distinction. Tertullian does not seem to be opposing the notion that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are modes. He is opposing his assretion that Praxeas sees no difference whatsoever between Father and Son...at all. Besides Praxeas opposition to Montanism.

Now, Jerome claimed the montanist of his days were modalists. Harnack, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia says they were modalists.

The orignal origin of the term Persona was mask or a character in a play. It's etymology is to identify that which is present or outwardly. It's greek equivelant is used to refer to the presence of God in Spirit and to the FACE Of Jesus Christ. Later theolgians chose a word that refered to something more INWARDLY, that being hypostasis

persona
1.a person. 2.personae, the characters in a play, novel, etc. 3.the narrator of or a character in a literary work, sometimes identified with the author. 4.(in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the mask or façade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment and not representing the inner personality of the individual; the public personality (contrasted with anima). 5.a person's perceived or evident personality, as that of a well-known official, actor, or celebrity; personal image; public role.

[Origin: 1905–10; < L persōna mask, character

Hypostasis
2.Theology. a.one of the three real and distinct substances in the one undivided substance or essence of God. b.a person of the Trinity. c.the one personality of Christ in which His two natures, human and divine, are united.

Origin: 1580–90; < LL < Gk hypóstasis that which settles at the bottom; substance, nature, essence

I quoted then the catholic encyclopedia talking about how Persona would not really have distinguished much from modalism.

From what I have read too, Modalism was not condemned or opposed at Nicea but it was later. Yes Nicea was mostly about Arianism, but if Tertullian and others before Nicea were all condemning Modalism as heresy and here we have the first ecumenical council, why not take that oppornity to condemn this heresy for all?

I suspect that before Nicea the idea of persons was NOT as controversial as it later became and that the real gripe between some was something else. That's not to say that I am asserting Tertullian was a rank and file Trinitarian. however what I am asserting is that he was not really a Trinitarian either, neither was Justin Martyr nor many others. They were all doctrines in development and they saw certain issues that were more important to oppose, such as the Deity of Christ or Praxeas supposed equating Father and Son and not making a distinction.

We ALL look at Tertullian in hindsight. Many of your historical works label modalism a Trinitarian heresy....that's right....Modalism was considered a form of Trinitarianism! As was many other theologies back then.

I don't think it is that clear that Tertullian had in mind by persona a real person in the modern theological sense of the word. And while TLM made some good points, I have to say I still disagree on the grammar of what Tertullian was saying regarding the Logos. He internalizes Logos and does not refer to Logos as a distinct persona before the Son is generated. He speaks of the Logos in terms many OPs would be fine with and translates pros to mean within as opposed to just with. He uses as an example us humans diliberating within ourselves as opposed to someone other than ourselves and refers to our reason. You can see other developments like that with other writers before Nicea and the other creeds. It seems to me that in hidesight Trinitarians look back and see "trinitarianism" in everything and interpret it that way.

I see shades of hypostatic trinitarianism, economic trinitarianism, modalistic Trinitarianism etc etc...I see theology and termonology being refined and changed more and more...the doctrine becoming more and more clarified and refined.

This can go on and on forever. We can say what we see and the Trinitarian will explain it and vice versa.

Shall we discuss Justin Martyr? Quote him saying more than one god or more than one Lord etc etc? I have had Trinitarians argue tooth and nail that JM was a true Trinitarian while others admin he seemed more arian.

Maybe we should examine why one feels they need a historical reference to justify their views. Especially in light of Luther's "discovery" of Sola Scriptura or Sola Gratia (is that spelled right?). Was there a visible church all those years that taught salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works and in Christ alone? Was there a church all those years that rejected baptismal regeneration or infant baptism? What biblical authority shows that the only thing necessary to be considered "the church" is a belief in the Trinity?

Also, when the Roman emperor rejected the trinity and instituted Arianism as THE theological view of the church and sent all the Trinitarians into exile for a short period of time, did the gates of hell prevail against the church for a short period of time?

Just my thoughts.

My personal view is that throughout history there have been those that have a somewhat modalistic view of the Godhead though not necessarily exact in every way to other modalists just as we find today many Trinitarians that are not exact in everyway to creedal Trinitarianism, I would not argue there was an unbroken chain of Oneness churches nor do I find it necessary

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Ok I was going to stay away a bit, but here goes.

Later Trinitarian creeds opted for the word Hypostasis instead. Hypostasis means substance or foundation, thus we have the substantial or real person verses the persona being the outward person.

My main point is that Tertullians main gripe with Praxeas is that Praxeas made no distinction between father and son, while Modalists, especially successive modalists viewed them as entirely different or distinct modes. The father is not the son and vice versa.

Tertullians opposition then was not necessarily to modalism, but to Praxeas supposed teaching that the Father Is the Son.

Look, Trinitarians say Father and Son are the same in nature. Yet they never say they believe the Father is the Son (in nature).

We say Father and the Son are the same in Person, Trinitarians then say we believe the Father is the Son. That is a gross oversimplification and really a strawman argument, because it leaves out some important details. Yes we believe the Father is the Son....but only in Person. In other words we believe the person or the hypostasis or the substance of the Father and Son is the same individual. However there are many OTHER distinctions between Father and Son so that a simplification such as "They believe the Father is the Son" is a very inaccurate representation of what we actually said.

Modalists believe Father and Son are NOT the same MODE or BEING or Manifestation or Form or whatever one wants to use. So for a modalist three has to be a distinction. Tertullian does not seem to be opposing the notion that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are modes. He is opposing his assretion that Praxeas sees no difference whatsoever between Father and Son...at all. Besides Praxeas opposition to Montanism.

Now, Jerome claimed the montanist of his days were modalists. Harnack, according to the Catholic Encyclopedia says they were modalists.

The orignal origin of the term Persona was mask or a character in a play. It's etymology is to identify that which is present or outwardly. It's greek equivelant is used to refer to the presence of God in Spirit and to the FACE Of Jesus Christ. Later theolgians chose a word that refered to something more INWARDLY, that being hypostasis

persona
1.a person. 2.personae, the characters in a play, novel, etc. 3.the narrator of or a character in a literary work, sometimes identified with the author. 4.(in the psychology of C. G. Jung) the mask or façade presented to satisfy the demands of the situation or the environment and not representing the inner personality of the individual; the public personality (contrasted with anima). 5.a person's perceived or evident personality, as that of a well-known official, actor, or celebrity; personal image; public role.

[Origin: 1905–10; < L persōna mask, character

Hypostasis
2.Theology. a.one of the three real and distinct substances in the one undivided substance or essence of God. b.a person of the Trinity. c.the one personality of Christ in which His two natures, human and divine, are united.

Origin: 1580–90; < LL < Gk hypóstasis that which settles at the bottom; substance, nature, essence

I quoted then the catholic encyclopedia talking about how Persona would not really have distinguished much from modalism.

From what I have read too, Modalism was not condemned or opposed at Nicea but it was later. Yes Nicea was mostly about Arianism, but if Tertullian and others before Nicea were all condemning Modalism as heresy and here we have the first ecumenical council, why not take that oppornity to condemn this heresy for all?

I suspect that before Nicea the idea of persons was NOT as controversial as it later became and that the real gripe between some was something else. That's not to say that I am asserting Tertullian was a rank and file Trinitarian. however what I am asserting is that he was not really a Trinitarian either, neither was Justin Martyr nor many others. They were all doctrines in development and they saw certain issues that were more important to oppose, such as the Deity of Christ or Praxeas supposed equating Father and Son and not making a distinction.

We ALL look at Tertullian in hindsight. Many of your historical works label modalism a Trinitarian heresy....that's right....Modalism was considered a form of Trinitarianism! As was many other theologies back then.

I don't think it is that clear that Tertullian had in mind by persona a real person in the modern theological sense of the word. And while TLM made some good points, I have to say I still disagree on the grammar of what Tertullian was saying regarding the Logos. He internalizes Logos and does not refer to Logos as a distinct persona before the Son is generated. He speaks of the Logos in terms many OPs would be fine with and translates pros to mean within as opposed to just with. He uses as an example us humans diliberating within ourselves as opposed to someone other than ourselves and refers to our reason. You can see other developments like that with other writers before Nicea and the other creeds. It seems to me that in hidesight Trinitarians look back and see "trinitarianism" in everything and interpret it that way.

I see shades of hypostatic trinitarianism, economic trinitarianism, modalistic Trinitarianism etc etc...I see theology and termonology being refined and changed more and more...the doctrine becoming more and more clarified and refined.

This can go on and on forever. We can say what we see and the Trinitarian will explain it and vice versa.

Shall we discuss Justin Martyr? Quote him saying more than one god or more than one Lord etc etc? I have had Trinitarians argue tooth and nail that JM was a true Trinitarian while others admin he seemed more arian.

Maybe we should examine why one feels they need a historical reference to justify their views. Especially in light of Luther's "discovery" of Sola Scriptura or Sola Gratia (is that spelled right?). Was there a visible church all those years that taught salvation by grace alone through faith alone apart from works and in Christ alone? Was there a church all those years that rejected baptismal regeneration or infant baptism? What biblical authority shows that the only thing necessary to be considered "the church" is a belief in the Trinity?

Also, when the Roman emperor rejected the trinity and instituted Arianism as THE theological view of the church and sent all the Trinitarians into exile for a short period of time, did the gates of hell prevail against the church for a short period of time?

Just my thoughts.

My personal view is that throughout history there have been those that have a somewhat modalistic view of the Godhead though not necessarily exact in every way to other modalists just as we find today many Trinitarians that are not exact in everyway to creedal Trinitarianism, I would not argue there was an unbroken chain of Oneness churches nor do I find it necessary

I have a ton of comments, but as time permits. I agree with you assessment of Tertullian's view of the logos. But I think Justin Martyr had a more personified view of the logos pre-incarnate... not like Tertullian's view of the "reason within".

What and who do you believe was the "Church" during the dark ages? Could there not have been an unbroken chain of "oneness" people throughout that period of time? I think there were, it's just that history distorts their doctrine and teachings.

Also, I think Praxeas' view of father and son is being exaggerated by Tertullian. I think probably since Tertullian wrote in Latin, and Praxeas probably spoke and wrote in Greek, that they were simply explaining their modalistic concepts in their own way of saying it. It's like two men who basically believe the same thing, using different terms, and talking past each other. For instance, on the Jesus incarnation thread in Fellowship Hall, you, I Blume, and Strange were all adhering to the oneness of God, the humanity of Jesus Christ, the end of the kenosis etc.... but one accused the other of dualism, and another made accusations back of something else. What we have during this time of apologists, is the striving for mastery of monologue and arguments. IOW, who can mount the best argument, or who can win the debate. Since Praxeas was against Montanus, and Tertullian was M.'s apologist, perhaps he intentionally set out to "defeat" Praxeas, and capture the theological prominence for himself and his movement? All the while Prax and Tert are actually believing the same, or nearly the same thing. I don't believe Tert's description of Prax's view of father and son means he didn't see or show a distinction, I think it is simply that Tert accused him of not showing a distinction. And in his eloquent writing style, which has survived through the centuries, he has "won" the debate between the two. It could be a lesson on the nature of humanity and stife among us rather than an actualy example of doctrinal treatise. Anyway, I am going to delve into "Against Praxeas" more and see what I find. Is there a interlinear copy somewhere? That would be greatly helpful!!!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I have a ton of comments, but as time permits. I agree with you assessment of Tertullian's view of the logos. But I think Justin Martyr had a more personified view of the logos pre-incarnate... not like Tertullian's view of the "reason within".

What and who do you believe was the "Church" during the dark ages? Could there not have been an unbroken chain of "oneness" people throughout that period of time? I think there were, it's just that history distorts their doctrine and teachings.

Also, I think Praxeas' view of father and son is being exaggerated by Tertullian. I think probably since Tertullian wrote in Latin, and Praxeas probably spoke and wrote in Greek, that they were simply explaining their modalistic concepts in their own way of saying it. It's like two men who basically believe the same thing, using different terms, and talking past each other. For instance, on the Jesus incarnation thread in Fellowship Hall, you, I Blume, and Strange were all adhering to the oneness of God, the humanity of Jesus Christ, the end of the kenosis etc.... but one accused the other of dualism, and another made accusations back of something else. What we have during this time of apologists, is the striving for mastery of monologue and arguments. IOW, who can mount the best argument, or who can win the debate. Since Praxeas was against Montanus, and Tertullian was M.'s apologist, perhaps he intentionally set out to "defeat" Praxeas, and capture the theological prominence for himself and his movement? All the while Prax and Tert are actually believing the same, or nearly the same thing. I don't believe Tert's description of Prax's view of father and son means he didn't see or show a distinction, I think it is simply that Tert accused him of not showing a distinction. And in his eloquent writing style, which has survived through the centuries, he has "won" the debate between the two. It could be a lesson on the nature of humanity and stife among us rather than an actualy example of doctrinal treatise. Anyway, I am going to delve into "Against Praxeas" more and see what I find. Is there a interlinear copy somewhere? That would be greatly helpful!!!

Well like I said, Tertullian was opposed to Praxeas because Praxeas was successful in converting the Bishop of Rome against Montanism...could it be his attacks were exaggerated against Praxeas for that reason?

I don't believe it can be proven an unbroken chain of people who believed in a Modalistic or Oneness view nor do I believe it is necessary. Do I believe it is possible there could have been people in each century that had a modalistic view of the Godhead and yet not been reported in the annals of history? Of course it is possible. There are many Trinitarians now that have a Modalistic view of the godhead.

JM's view of the Son makes him seem like a secondary figure that has a beginning before the creation of the world...We should start a thread on JM

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

What was Tertullian's theology? Do the history books have it right? Or does he give better insight into his theology from his own personal writings?

his personal writings.