Quote:
Originally Posted by Believer
Alexander Souter 1873-1949
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.
Sorry friend, but your interpretation is invalid. Nowhere in this passages does it states that all the simple people were Modalist. The correct interpretation is saying that simple people are always the majority of the faithful or believers. It is NOT saying that all the simple people were Modalist.
http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu...0160-ca.%20230 |
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.
THEY refers to the antecedent "Simple who are always the majority"
One has to ask, in Tertullians "Against Praxeas" why is he referring to these people that are saying Tertullian preached more than one god...who are THESE people? The logical conclusion
In fact further up in the context it's clear Tertullian sees Praxeas as someone that is propagates heresy among the churches
Praxean tares 1 were sown
above the wheat and had germinated here also, while many were
asleep in
simplicity of doctrine.
Thus
Praxeas at Rome managed two pieces of the devil's business
he drove out prophecy and introduced heresy:
he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.
Note "MANY" and Simplicity of doctrine
BTW wasn't this written while Tertullian was a montanist? Montanus clamied to be the Paraclete! Praxeas OPPOSED Montanism. So Tertullian is here opposting Praxeas because Praxeas put Montanus to flight...not only that Tertullian is claiming he was lead to this truth by the Paraclete
After that, silence. I for my part was subsequently
separated from the natural men by my acknowledgement and
defence of the Paraclete.
We however as always, the more so now as
better
equipped through the Paraclete, that leader into all truth,3......
For at that time the bishop of Rome
was on the point of recognising the prophecies of Montanus and
Prisca and Maximilla, and as a result of that recognition was
offering peace to the churches of Asia and Phrygia; but this man,
by false assertions concerning the prophets themselves and their
churches, and by insistence on the decisions of the bishop's
predecessors, forced him both to recall the letters of peace already
Notice the broad generalization Tertullian makes of greeks and latins
"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
well as they pronounce it: but while Latins are intent to shout out
" monarchy ", even Greeks refuse to understand the economy.
The economy he is speaking of is his trinity..or his version of it...the three in one. Note he is also saying the others believed in a three or plurality also but with no division (the father is the son)
Note below, Tertullians beef with Praxeas was not that Praxeas believed in three modes, but his claim that Praxeas made Father and Son identical..Honestly without the word Hypostasis here it seems like Tertullian is more modalist (economies) and Praxeas is the patripassionist. Also note again "they" who does THEY refer to? Not HE but THEY.
But seeing they will have it that the two are one, so that the
Father and the Son are to be considered identical, we must also
examine the whole <question> concerning the Son, whether he is,
and who he is, and in what manner he is, and thus the fact itself
will establish its own legality by the advocacy of , the scriptures
Now read Tertullians argument below and see if this does not sound like Oneness arguments of the Logos in His mind
Against the ratification of this
I am persuaded by other
arguments from God's ordinance in which he was before the
foundation of the world until the generation of the Son.
Until the generation of the Son???
For
before all things God was alone, himself his own world and
location and everything - alone however because there was
nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone :
for he had with him that Reason which he had in himself
Reason IN HIMSELF??-
his own, of course.
His OWN reason.....hmmmm
For God is rational, and reason is primarily in
him and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his
consciousness. His reason was IN Him...that reason is his concious! I have argued this based on Jn 1:1 many times.
This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression
we also designate discourse:
Sounds like a Oneness argument? Not the second person of the Trinity, not the Son, generated later, but the Logos IN God
and consequently our people are already wont, through the artlessness of the translation,
to say
that Discourse was in the beginning with God,2
though it would be more appropriate to consider
Reason of older standing, seeing that God is [not] discursive from the beginning
but is rational even
before the beginning, and because
discourse itself, having its
ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.
Yet even so it makes no difference.
For although God had not
yet uttered his Discourse, he always had it within himself along
with and in his Reason,
while he silently thought out and ordained
with himself the things which he was shortly to say by the agency
of Discourse:
Thought out an dordained with HIMSELF the things which he was shortly to say by the agency of discourse...sounds like a Oneness view of the Logos.
for while
thinking out and ordaining them in
company of
his Reason, he
converted into Discourse that <Reason>
which
he was discussing in discourse.
Discussing in discourse with himself or someone else?
And that you may understand this the more easily, observe first from yourself, as from the image and likeness of God,3
how you also have reason within yourself, who are a rational animal not only as having been made
by a rational Creator but also as out of his substance having been
made a living soul.4
See how, when you by reason argue silently
with yourself, this same action
takes place within you, while
reason accompanied by discourse meets you at every movement
of your
thought, at every impression of your
consciousness :
your every thought is discourse, your every consciousness is
reason:
This just does NOT sound like a Trinitarian argument of the Logos or the Son pre-existing as a person. This sounds more like the Logos is the thought or reason Of God withIN God an He discoursing with HIMSELF
you must perforce speak it in your mind, and while you
speak it you experience as a partner in conversation that discourse
which has in it this very reason by which you speak when you
think in company of that <discourse> in speaking by means of which you think. So in a sort of way you have in you as a second
<person> discourse by means of which you speak by thinking
and by means of which you think by speaking: discourse itself
is another than your.
It's interesting how the translator adds the word person...is Tertullian arguing that us people are infact two persons each? Of course not. Tertullian would have to be nuts to argue that and if so I would not want him to be speaking for me as a Trinitarian. It seems that Tertullians Trinity was an economic Trinity, not a Hypostatic Trinity!
Yes...he was closer to being a modalist than he was to being what we know as Trinitarianism and his beef with Praxeas was supposdly that Praxeas equated Father and Son and opposed Montanus
There is so much more to what he wrote we can go on and on.
My soul followeth hard after thee....Love one another with a pure heart fervently. 
Linear Mode
