Monarchians in History

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

What??? Again, this is called "Against Praxeas" and is about Praxeas and his followers, this is not about the church universal. What I did was define simple. And here Tertullian speaks regarding the Praxians who are "simple." In fact, what immediately precedes the sentence regarding the simple is this:

That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics, much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force against all heresies whatsoever—that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date. But keeping this prescriptive rule inviolate, still some opportunity must be given for reviewing (the statements of heretics), with a view to the instruction and protection of various persons; were it only that it may not seem that each perversion of the truth is condemned without examination, and simply prejudged; especially in the case of this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in One Only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame Person. As if in this way also one were not All, in that All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. How they are susceptible of number without division, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

The title of the document is "Against Praxeas" and he is speaking about Praxeas, his followers (the simple), and their doctrines. It doesn't seem that difficult to understand so I don't know how to make it any simpler to understand.



I did not, better read again. I said no matter who you're talking about, even today, the majority of believers are "simple." And I changed nothing midstream Bob, I continued explaining. Might want to try to digest whole thoughts



"Now" I am saying. Again Bob, try digesting the whole thoughts of others. I didn't change anything. In explaining what was meant by "simple" I also pointed out that this writing was an indictment of Praxeas, his followers, and his doctrines, it was not an indictment against the church universal. I wouldn't think that this would be difficult to understand either but I can't help you out anymore.



I've misconstrued nothing, and your accusation would be called an unsupported assertion. If someone miscontrues something you should quote it, but there's nothing for you to quote.



My topic has not been monarchians, but modalists, modalist monarchians if you prefer as that is the topic of Tertullian in against Praxeas. And the idea that the groups you listed above were in fellowship with one another is simply laughable but in that I entered this thread to clarifiy some statements concerning Tertullian, I'll just be satisfied with the laugh on this one.



Well, even the heretics of the time new that would equate to two persons and what you have described is not modalism. Amazing. Look, if you have a Son who truly interacts with the Father, then you have two persons. And if that second person, the Son, did not exist before being born, then you not only have two persons, but two beings. But again, I came to clarify some comments which I have done, so you can continue in your unsupported assertions and confusion without any help from me.

Blessings,
TheLayman

Umm... let me try once again:

Here is the direct quote:

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation25 (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God;

Now, I don't have a problem if you want to identify the word "simple" as describing the followers of Praxeas. But the sentiment goes on and says the "simple followers of Praxeas" ALWAYS CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS..... There is no qualification on the term "believers". It would have been understood in Tertullian's day, that when he identified the "beleivers", that he was speaking universally... i.e. ALL BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS. Again, Tertullian makes to qualification here. The text doesn't read "his (Praxeas') believers", it doesn't say "heretical believers", it simply says "believers" (universal). Also, the treatise is not against the "simple", nor against Praxeas' followers (the doctrine was around before Prax), the treatise is against Praxeas' doctrine itself. Therefore suggesting that the "believers" are speaking only about Praxeas' followers doesn't follow the course of logic in the treatise. Good try, but not good enough. Don't deny the truth here TLM.... blessings.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Umm... let me try once again:

Here is the direct quote:

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation25 (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's plurality of gods to the one only true God;

Now, I don't have a problem if you want to identify the word "simple" as describing the followers of Praxeas. But the sentiment goes on and says the "simple followers of Praxeas" ALWAYS CONSTITUTE THE MAJORITY OF BELIEVERS..... There is no qualification on the term "believers". It would have been understood in Tertullian's day, that when he identified the "beleivers", that he was speaking universally... i.e. ALL BORN AGAIN BELIEVERS. Again, Tertullian makes to qualification here. The text doesn't read "his (Praxeas') believers", it doesn't say "heretical believers", it simply says "believers" (universal). Also, the treatise is not against the "simple", nor against Praxeas' followers (the doctrine was around before Prax), the treatise is against Praxeas' doctrine itself. Therefore suggesting that the "believers" are speaking only about Praxeas' followers doesn't follow the course of logic in the treatise. Good try, but not good enough. Don't deny the truth here TLM.... blessings.

Now I see the problem. You are committing eisegesis with the word "believer." Incidentally, I didn't say it said, "the simple followers of Praxeas constitute the majority of believers." It says the simple constitute the majority of believers (Praxeas followers). But the problem is that "believer" does not mean "orthodox Christian." He is speaking of Praxians (as opposed to Praxeas himself) in this sentence, believers in the heresy he is condemning, the majority of which are simple. Goodness people can make things hard to understand. As I pointed out and as you so completely ignored, in the previous sentence (and the entire document) Tertullian speaks of this new, very new heresy of Praxeas. Tertullian is not bringing a charge of new heresy to the leadership if the majority of the church universal believes it. But hey, if that's what you believe and you can get others to believe it, who am I to stop you? (:sshhh the document is called against Praxeas, not against the church universal)

Blessings,
TheLayman

[Admin]

Folks, we are NOT going to tolerate a debate on Oneness vs Trinity.

This is made plain in the sticky in the Deep Waters section.