Monarchians in History

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Jaroslav Pelikan,? The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600).? Vol. 1 in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.? (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 177.



I don't have a problem with this statement. The person who is the father (i.e. YHWH), came to earth and was manifest in human flesh. This human being, Jesus Christ, was the exact same person (i.e. YHWH) in real humanity. Thus ineffect, YHWH came to earth as a man, and died on a cross, and as a man was resurrected by the eternal spirit (again, the same YHWH). Tertullian didn't understand and is misrepresenting, or rather not fully representing, the modalist view here. The singular person who is the father from all eternity, took on flesh and became the son, lived, died, and resurrected, not as the father, but as the son. Irregardless, it is the same singular identity (YHWH)that was God from all creation and eternity.



I do not believe it the way it was misreprenten here. But the fundamental theology behind "patripassionism" I have no problem with. The majority didn't believe the "father suffered". The majority believed that the father came to earth as a man, and as a man (i.e. the son) he suffered... Tertullian, in his efforts to disparage and disregard Prax. Noetus, and Sabellian theologies misrepresented their teaching. He was promoting his trinitarian concept to the disregard of the truth!

one of the main problem I see with you is that your only argument is inserting what you THINK, rather than what is there. The only evidence you have is your opinions. That doesn't work...

You said:

The majority didn't believe the "father suffered".

This simply is not true and is unfounded. But, if this is the way you operate, well good luck.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

200 AD....PRAXEAS...(the following are Tertullian's words about what Praxeas believed) ...."As in respect to the O.T., they hold to nothing else but "I am God and there is none other beside me, so in respect to the gospel they defend the response of the Lord to Phillip.."I and the Father are one, he who seeth me seeth also the Father" and again "I am in the Father and the Father in me". He (Praxeas) asserts that Jesus Christ is God and Father Almighty....so that all in one person they (the Praxeans) distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be the flesh , that is man, that is Jesus, and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ."....Praxeas views were said to be those of the majority of the Christians of that day.

200 AD. TERTULLIAN ..... "The Son I derive from no other source but from the substance of the Father. The Spirit is third from God and the Son." (a disciple of Justin Martyr's) Even Tertullian admitted that the "simple people..who always are a majority of the faithful..shy at the economy (ie..distinction of persons)......"and indeed it (immersion) is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names.


Tertullian, the first real trinitarian, affirmed that the monarchians were the "majority" of the believers in his time.

Let me help you with grammar and context.

First, Tertullian is speaking against Praxeas and those that followed His teachings. He is not saying that these were the majority. He called these people "the Simple," then he said that the majority of the (KEY WORD DON'T MISS THIS) believers are simple. The break in the sentence is between, "The Simple," and "are startled at the dispensation.... He would have not called them believers if he was still speaking of the ones he was addressing.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (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; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

one of the main problem I see with you is that your only argument is inserting what you THINK, rather than what is there. The only evidence you have is your opinions. That doesn't work...

You said:

This simply is not true and is unfounded. But, if this is the way you operate, well good luck.

The only proof that that modalists taught "the father suffered" was from that of the primary nemesis of modalist theology. Tertullian stated "the majority do not hold to the economy (i.e. trinity). In other words, the majority of believers at the time do not agree with Terrullian. This is from his own mouth and is corroborated in his own writings. "Patripassionism" is tertullians take on the modalists theology, not their own!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Let me help you with grammar and context.

First, Tertullian is speaking against Praxeas and those that followed His teachings. He is not saying that these were the majority. He called these people "the Simple," then he said that the majority of the (KEY WORD DON'T MISS THIS) believers are simple. The break in the sentence is between, "The Simple," and "are startled at the dispensation.... He would have not called them believers if he was still speaking of the ones he was addressing.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (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; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia.

Let me help you out there a little Beleiver...

"the simple... who are always the majority of the faithful..."

The simple (monarchians) were the majority of the faithful (all believers), were startled at the "economy" (i.e. the three in one concept). Let's look grammatically at this. Who was "startled"? The subject of the sentence is "the simply". And then there is adjective clause that describes the simple as the majority of the believers. That means that the majority of believers at that time were startled at the concept of the "trinity".


It also seems that Tertullians "rule of faith" inclines him toward to world of a plurality of Gods. I don't even understand why trinitarians would appeal to Tertullian, he was a Montanists and was excommunicated from fellowship with the church.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is a interesting bit of info.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monarchi.htm

Originally Posted by Believer

Let me help you with grammar and context.

First, Tertullian is speaking against Praxeas and those that followed His teachings. He is not saying that these were the majority. He called these people "the Simple," then he said that the majority of the (KEY WORD DON'T MISS THIS) believers are simple. The break in the sentence is between, "The Simple," and "are startled at the dispensation.... He would have not called them believers if he was still speaking of the ones he was addressing.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (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; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia.

3. For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful), since the
Rule of the Faith itself brings <us> over from the many gods of
the world to the one only true God, not understanding that while
they must believe in one only <God> yet they must believe in
him along with his economy, shy at the economy. They claim
that the plurality and ordinance of trinity is a division of unity -
although a unity which derives from itself a trinity is not destroyed
but administered by it. And so <people> put it about that by
us two or even three <gods> are preached, while they, they claim,
are worshippers of one God - as though unity irrationally summed
up did not make heresy and trinity rationally counted out
constitute truth. "We hold", they say, "to the monarchy": and
even Latins so expressively frame the sound, and in so masterly
a fashion, that you would think they understood monarchy as

Evans' Translation (1948)

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/index.htm

[Praxeas]

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (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; not understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in with His own oikonomia.



The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being destroyed, that it is actually supported by it.

They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth.



It sounds grammatically as though the simple are the majority and they view Tertullians theology as polytheistic.

I'd like to see though this document in greek. I want to know what word they are translating into persons....is it Hypostasis or prosopon or persona? Is it greek or latin?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Believer

3. For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful), since the
Rule of the Faith itself brings <us> over from the many gods of
the world to the one only true God, not understanding that while
they must believe in one only <God> yet they must believe in
him along with his economy, shy at the economy. They claim
that the plurality and ordinance of trinity is a division of unity -
although a unity which derives from itself a trinity is not destroyed
but administered by it. And so <people> put it about that by
us two or even three <gods> are preached, while they, they claim,
are worshippers of one God - as though unity irrationally summed
up did not make heresy and trinity rationally counted out
constitute truth. "We hold", they say, "to the monarchy": and
even Latins so expressively frame the sound, and in so masterly
a fashion, that you would think they understood monarchy as

Evans' Translation (1948)

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/index.htm

Are you trying to say the simple are NOT the thoughtless and ignorant? But the majority who are Trinitarian are?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

3.For all the simple people, that I say not the thoughtless and
ignorant (who are always the majority of the faithful), Evans' Translation (1948)

http://www.tertullian.org/anf/index.htm

So you believe Tertullian is saying the majority of the faithful are thoughtless and ignorant but not simple? That makes perfect sense. Thanks for clarifying.

The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (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;

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

I'd like to see though this document in greek. I want to know what word they are translating into persons....is it Hypostasis or prosopon or persona? Is it greek or latin?

Tertullian was the first Christian writer to write in Latin 5, and was described three centuries later as writing 'first, and best, and incomparably', of all the writers to do so. (by the unknown author of 'Praedestinatus'). His writing is aggressive, sarcastic and brilliant6, and at points very funny even after 2000 years7. He was deeply conscious of his own failings8, and had a burning desire for truth and integrity9. He was described by Jerome as celebrated in all the churches as a speaker10; and his works bear the marks of the need to keep an audience awake!11 His erudition was immense. Much of what he read is lost, but what remains gives a picture of wide reading12, which was celebrated even in antiquity12a.

http://www.tertullian.org/readfirst.htm