Monarchians in History

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

They objected TERTULLIANS Trinity. The Trinity of Nicea is not the same as the one Tertullian put forth. The word Trinity simple meant three in unity....even Modalists believe in three in unity

Three in unity? Would you explain that to me?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Mizpeh, it's part of the game plan I told you about.

What are you insinuating Praxeas?

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He is saying the simple are the majority, they say Tertullian believes in multiple gods, the antecedent of these simple are those Praxeas has influence and what Tertullian said is they are simple, but he won't call them thoughless or ignorant. Read my post where I went through the context

He is saying "the simple" are the majority of believers or followers no matter who you are talking about, Trinitarian or Oneness. Tertullian here is speaking of the those who don't slice it very thin, the followers not the scholars. He makes clear he's not calling anyone stupid, just simple as regards their faith and understanding. This particular paper is called "against Praxeas" and it is an indictment against the beliefs of Praxeas and "Praxians" if you will. Nowhere does Tertullian say that the majority of the church universal are modalists. Tertullian states the simple (the everyday follower who believes what he is taught) among the Praxians make the accusation that the orthodox are followers of more than one God (and I'm calling the orthodox the majority). As I told Mizpeh, either Praxeas was able to prove he was not a modalist, or he recanted his heresy, and for this reason was not excommunicated. The minority does not excommunicate the majority belief and Praxeas was the one in danger of excommunication.

Additionally in the early church at the time of Tertullian and well before it is documented that one litmus test for determining between heresy and truth is which one came first, Tertullian himself puts this forth as a reason modalism is heretical. So this idea that modalists were ever anywhere near the majority according to history is devoid of any evidence.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I did read it all. Now let me repeat my earlier point. Tertullian was a MONTANIST. As a MONTANIST Tertullian believed Montanus was the Paraclete. As a Montanist Tertullian believed Montanus was the Holy Spirit embodied. It was a heresy Tertullian bought hook, line and sinker and it formed part of the basis of Tertullians rants against Praxeas.

I already provided the quote for that. Read Praxeas from the beginning. When he accuses Praxeas of chasing out the Paraclete he is speaking of Montanus, the heretic that calls himself the paraclete. They were very much into the "prophetic"

Not that this is real important as I'm no defender of Montanus, but he did not claim to be the Paraclete incarnate. The claim was that during those times of shall we say, special revelation and prophesy, that he was completely possessed by God, that God took over his body and mouth.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Look, first chapter

For he was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity, a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison;

Here Praxeas makes the argument that this is a new teaching opposed to old, and on that ground alone would be heretical.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

He is not arguing against modalism really. He is arguing against the idea that the Father and Son have no difference between then. Tertullian NEVER uses the word Hypostasis. He only uses the word persona.

Praxeas, he most certainly is arguing against modalism. And you are also mixing Latin and Greek words there. Let me highlight the quote you have below to point something out:

Here is a quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia
For the constitution of a person it is required that a reality be subsistent and absolutely distinct, i.e. incommunicable. The three Divine realities are relations, each identified with the Divine Essence. A finite relation has reality only in so far as it is an accident; it has the reality of inherence. The Divine relations, however, are in the nature not by inherence but by identity. The reality they have, therefore, is not that of an accident, but that of a subsistence. They are one with ipsum esse subsistens. Again every relation, by its very nature, implies opposition and so distinction. In the finite relation this distinction is between subject and term. In the infinite relations there is no subject as distinct from the relation itself; the Paternity is the Father--and no term as distinct from the opposing relation; the Filiation is the Son. The Divine realities are therefore distinct and mutually incommunicable through this relative opposition; they are subsistent as being identified with the subsistence of the Godhead, i.e. they are persons. The use of the word persona to denote them, however, led to controversy between East and West. The precise Greek equivalent was prosopon, likewise used originally of the actor's mask and then of the character he represented, but the meaning of the word had not passed on, as had that of persona, to the general signification of individual. Consequently tres personae, tria prosopa, savoured of Sabellianism to the Greeks. On the other hand their word hypostasis, from hypo-histemi, was taken to correspond to the Latin substantia, from sub-stare. Tres hypostases therefore appeared to conflict with the Nicaean doctrine of unity of substance in the Trinity. (In other words, poltheism) This difference was a main cause of the Antiochene schism of the fourth century (see MELETIUS OF ANTIOCH). Eventually in the West, it was recognized that the true equivalent of hypostasis was not substantia but subsistentia, and in the East that to understand prosopon in the sense of the Latin persona precluded the possibility of a Sabellian interpretation. By the First Council of Constantinople, therefore, it was recognized that the words hypostasis, prosopon, and persona were equally applicable to the three Divine realities.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11726a.htm

You can't mix and match persona and hypostasis without understanding the understanding the words had at that time and misunderstanding that could arise over them back in that time.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Tertullian believes the Son came into being, not eternally existed. He believes the Word was the reason or concious OF God IN IN God. I quoted him verbatim...did you read what I posted?

That's not entirely accurate. Tertullian believes the Son was begotten at that point in time that the Father sent the Word forth to create something external to God. However, Tertullian did not believe the Word was "impersonal" to wit:

"Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances." (Against Praxeas ch. 6)

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Just because he uses the word Trinity, don't let it color you reading here. Tertullian used the word persona, not Hypostasis. Just because he believed the Son was created before the creation does not mean he really believed they were two literal PERSONS and not rather two literal personal or masks.

Just because he uses the word Trinity does not mean his trinitarian view matches that of Nicean Trinitarianism

Well, Tertullian wrote:

"What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it, to the end of John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called "another Comforter," indeed; John 14:16 but in what way He is another we have already shown, "He shall receive of mine," says Christ, John 16:14 just as Christ Himself received of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Against Praxeas, ch 25)

Hey I'm moving so those of you who know me keep me in your prayers.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Three in unity? Would you explain that to me?

Father, Son and Holy Ghost.....1,2,3
That's 3 right?
Are those three in disunity? Or are they in Unity? Are they one? lol what exactly do I need to explain sister?

Modalism always asserted three in one. They denied these three were persons but were rather modes of one person hence the unity

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

He is saying "the simple" are the majority of believers or followers no matter who you are talking about, Trinitarian or Oneness. Tertullian here is speaking of the those who don't slice it very thin, the followers not the scholars. He makes clear he's not calling anyone stupid, just simple as regards their faith and understanding. This particular paper is called "against Praxeas" and it is an indictment against the beliefs of Praxeas and "Praxians" if you will. Nowhere does Tertullian say that the majority of the church universal are modalists. Tertullian states the simple (the everyday follower who believes what he is taught) among the Praxians make the accusation that the orthodox are followers of more than one God (and I'm calling the orthodox the majority). As I told Mizpeh, either Praxeas was able to prove he was not a modalist, or he recanted his heresy, and for this reason was not excommunicated. The minority does not excommunicate the majority belief and Praxeas was the one in danger of excommunication.

Additionally in the early church at the time of Tertullian and well before it is documented that one litmus test for determining between heresy and truth is which one came first, Tertullian himself puts this forth as a reason modalism is heretical. So this idea that modalists were ever anywhere near the majority according to history is devoid of any evidence.

Blessings,
TheLayman

You are correct the paper is against Praxeas. That is the key. Given the context and the antecedent the simple Tertullian refers to are thoe that were "deceived" by Praxeas and who believe Tertullians version of the godhead lead to muitiple of gods.

Second what Tertullian opposes is Patripassionism and Praxeas zealous persuit of Montanus....not necessarily that Praxeas viewed Father, Son and Holy Spirit as modes. Praxeas, it is alleged, denied any distinction between Father and Son. That is not inherit to Modalism, which seems Father and Son as distinct modes.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Not that this is real important as I'm no defender of Montanus, but he did not claim to be the Paraclete incarnate. The claim was that during those times of shall we say, special revelation and prophesy, that he was completely possessed by God, that God took over his body and mouth.

This is what Wikipedia says

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism
He claimed not only to have received a series of direct revelations from the Holy Ghost, but personally to be the incarnation of the paraclete mentioned in the Gospel of John 14:16. Montanus was accompanied by two women, Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla, and Maximilla, who likewise claimed to be the embodiments of the Holy Spirit that moved and inspired them

NewAdvent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess". The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, a false prophet--cf. Matt., vii, 15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power." This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 4).

--
Regardless, the issue was Praxeas treatment of Montanus and his followers and Tertullians opposition to Praxeas on that one of two points. In the context of speaking of Praxeas opposition to Montanus he invokes the word Paraclete and Holy Ghost. Clearly to oppose Montanus was to personally oppose the Paraclete. And the point remains that Tertullian still seems to have been at this state an advocate for Montanism

Praxeas, he most certainly is arguing against modalism. And you are also mixing Latin and Greek words there. Let me highlight the quote you have below to point something out:

Im not mixing them, Im distinguishing them. Even the Roman Catholic encyclopedia admits the latin persona is too much like Sabellianism. How do we know Tertullian really believes in three literal persons and not three literal masks like modalists are accused of? That is what Persona literally meant? Why did they not keep Persona or even the greek prosopon and instead change it to Hypostasis which means something underneath? Persona and the greek prosopon refer to something outwardly and hypostasis to something inwardly...the inner "self"

You can't mix and match persona and hypostasis without understanding the understanding the words had at that time and misunderstanding that could arise over them back in that time.

Again, not mixing them. Im distinguishing them. Tertullian uses the latin persona, which is the equivelent of the greek prosopon, which meant the outward visage...face...mask...the appearence... Later Trinitarians used Hypostasis to designate the REAL person, the inner ego or self as opposed to the outward "mask". I doubt any modalist back then would disagree with the use of persona TLM...

That's where I am having a problem. I don't see Trinitarianism in most of these early writtings. I see shades of Arianism, Modalism, Adoptionism in the formation process of what became Trinitarianism. The council didn't just decide on Jesus being God, they decided on HOW He is God and the important part of that was deciding what terms to use. Latin was an emerging language. Greek was dying out as the dominant langauge.

It's easy to say persona, prosopon and hypostasis all essentially mean the same thing but that is just not the case. How do we know that Tertullian means there are three individual WHOs when he uses persona? His treatment of the Logos is similar to Oneness except that he seems to have the Logos being made into the Son before creation.

That's not entirely accurate. Tertullian believes the Son was begotten at that point in time that the Father sent the Word forth to create something external to God. However, Tertullian did not believe the Word was "impersonal" to wit:

"Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances." (Against Praxeas ch. 6)

I didn't say he said the logos was impersonal. He says the Logos is WITHIN that God, not merely WITH (what I have argued for years), that this Logos is His OWN Reason and Wisdom. He speaks of things he planned and ordered WITHIN Himself. They were in the mind and intelligence of God. The quote I gave refers to him as the conciousness of God. Certainly not impersonal but not either a distinct PERSON with God.

Well, Tertullian wrote:

"What follows Philip's question, and the Lord's whole treatment of it, to the end of John's Gospel, continues to furnish us with statements of the same kind, distinguishing the Father and the Son, with the properties of each. Then there is the Paraclete or Comforter, also, which He promises to pray for to the Father, and to send from heaven after He had ascended to the Father. He is called "another Comforter," indeed; John 14:16 but in what way He is another we have already shown, "He shall receive of mine," says Christ, John 16:14 just as Christ Himself received of the Father's. Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent Persons, who are yet distinct One from Another. These Three are one essence, not one Person, as it is said, "I and my Father are One," John 10:30 in respect of unity of substance not singularity of number." (Against Praxeas, ch 25)

produces three coherent Personas, who are yet distinct from one another. Any Modalist can agree to that...persona corrosponds to the outward appearnece, the mask....would not a modalist view such as a mode or a manifestation? Again Tertullians opposition was not three DIFFERENT modes. His opposition was that Father and Son according to Praxeas as alleged, were NOT distinct at all. While Oneness view Father and Son as the same in ego or self, they view them as distinct in mode, form, manifestation, the outward person.

Hey I'm moving so those of you who know me keep me in your prayers.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Hope it goes smoothly for you :-)

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Jerome and other church leaders claimed that the Montanists of their own day held the belief that the Trinity consisted of only a single person, similar to Sabellianism, as opposed to the orthodox view that the Trinity is one God of three persons which Tertullian also had held. There were some that were indeed modalistic monarchians (Sabellians) and some that were closer to the Trinitarian doctrine. It is reported that these modalists baptized mentioning the name of Jesus Christ as opposed to mentioning the Trinity. Most of the later Montanists were of the modalistic camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montanism

We are listening to Trinitarians claim Tertullian was teaching a Trinity while Jerome says the Montanists were Modalistic. Now, re-read what I quoted and the first chapter of Against Praxeas....Tertullian is upset with Praxeas for opposing Montanism.

Again Tertullian was an apologist for Montanus! lol He is upset with Praxeas because Praxeas opposed Montanus as a false prophet. Maybe Montanus was a false prophet. Maybe he was not. Maybe they were fakers...we have those today, but the irony is that Tertullian, the Trinitarian, is attacking Praxeas for opposing Montanus

BUMP. Tertullian when writing Against Praxeas includes as one issue Praxeas opposition to Montanus. We know Tertullian was a Montanist but later rejected it as heresy...why oppose Praxeas then if he was not still a Montanist? Jerome says they were modalist.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Father, Son and Holy Ghost.....1,2,3
That's 3 right?
Are those three in disunity? Or are they in Unity? Are they one? lol what exactly do I need to explain sister?

Modalism always asserted three in one. They denied these three were persons but were rather modes of one person hence the unity

I see a unity with the Father and the Son because there are two wills involved but I wouldn't call the manifestations of God a unity but a Oneness or Sameness.. Semantics, that's all.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I see a unity with the Father and the Son because there are two wills involved but I wouldn't call the manifestations of God a unity but a Oneness or Sameness.. Semantics, that's all.

Jesus said I and my Father are One.

Unity
1.the state of being one; oneness. 2.a whole or totality as combining all its parts into one. 3.the state or fact of being united or combined into one, as of the parts of a whole; unification. 4.absence of diversity; unvaried or uniform character. 5.oneness of mind, feeling, etc., as among a number of persons; concord, harmony, or agreement.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/unity

Honestly I think sometimes there is an irrational fear of using any word a Trinitarian uses, even if it is a right word or biblical.

Are there three or two separate modes or manifestation? Or are they merely DISTINCT modes or manifestations that are the same One God?

I believe in a Unity...not a Unity of PERSONS, but a Unity IN the PERSON of Yahweh