Monarchians in History

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

He didn't say that. He didn't mention how many people, or who. He simply made a vague statement directed at a group of people. He was probably talking about those that had followed Parx, but no one really knows for sure. Again, Tertullian would not call these people the faithful or believers.

ummmm..... he DID in fact call them the "faithful" AND the "believers". Are you going to argue with Tertullian?

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;

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I tend to agree with Believer on this. Tertillian is not saying that all simple people were modalist. What he is saying is that ones that do believe, are the simple people. There isn't anything in the text that would imply that "ALL" simple believe one way and the educated believe another way. Also, Tertillian would not have called them "the faithful" if he did.

if you read the entire quote, which I provided, it is clear the subject was Praxeas and those He was influencing. In the context of the direct quote Tertullian even says that THEY (the simple) accuse Tertullian and others like him of believing in gods plural...One need only read the letter from the beginning. It's simple grammar. There is no change of subject initiated by Tertullian, so they must refer to the antecedent subjects. Why introduce subjects here that have nothing to do with the point of the letter against Praxeas heresies?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

This translation is NOT saying that the thoughtless and ignorant are the majority, which Believer tried to tell you. It clearly states the subject "the simple", that I say NOT the thoughtless and ignorant. He is clearly saying that the simple are not thoughtless and ignorant.

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I would like to say farewell. I see too much hostility on this forum. I'm not learning.

Believer... its been real. I'll stay in contact. Thanks for all the encouragement and the wonderful answers to my questions. You are a God sent. I personally don’t know how you handle the attacks against you!

What attacks against him? We are just addressing his posts. He is addressing ours. LOL....Im not surprised.

I tried to dialog with you but you ignored nearly every post of mine. I answered your questions.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Willie, can you show where we personally attacked Believer or were we attacking his doctrine?

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

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

You have to understand the entire context in order to understand this. The same with scripture.

I have read Against Praxeas this year. I read some of the chapters 2-3 times for understanding and I plan on reading it again but not this year. I read the first 3 chapters again last night. Have you read it?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

He didn't say that. He didn't mention how many people, or who. He simply made a vague statement directed at a group of people. He was probably talking about those that had followed Parx, but no one really knows for sure. Again, Tertullian would not call these people the faithful or believers.

Tertullian said the majority of faithful believers were SIMPLE and believed in one God. He also said they took offense with the teaching of the Trinity because it smacked of polytheism (my own paraphrase) and he blamed their misunderstanding of the Trinity (economy) on their simpleness. Do you want to go over it in context again with your favorite translation?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It sounds like the Montanists believed in the baptism of the Holy Spirit with the manifestation of the gifts.

Paraclete, Comforter (L. Consolator; Greek parakletos), an appellation of the Holy Ghost. The Greek word which, as a designation of the Holy Ghost at least, occurs only in St. John (14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7), has been variously translated "advocate", "intercessor", "teacher, "helper", "comforter". This last rendering, though at variance with the passive form of the Greek, is justified by the Hellenistic usage, a number of ancient versions, patristic and liturgical authority, and the evident needs of the Johannine context. According to St. John the mission of the Paraclete is to abide with the disciples after Jesus has withdrawn His visible presence from them; to inwardly bring home to them the teaching externally given by Christ and thus to stand as a witness to the doctrine and work of the Saviour. There is no reason for limiting to the Apostles themselves the comforting influence of the Paraclete as promised in the Gospel (Matthew 10:19; Mark 13:11; Luke 12:11, 21:14) and described in Acts 2

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11469a.htm

I suggest you read all of Against Praxeas. It's interesting reading his arguments against Modalism which are exactly the same arguments that Trinitarians today use against Oneness. Tertullian is not a Modalist and he refers to the Son as eternal or at least proceeding from the Father from before the worlds were created. After proceeding from the Father the Son/ Word has a personality all his own SEPARATE from the Father.

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"

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; on which occasion, even "if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profited him nothing," not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. For after the Bishop of Rome had acknowledged the prophetic gifts of Montanus, Prisca, and Maximilla, and, in consequence of the acknowledgment, had bestowed his peace on the churches of Asia and Phrygia, he, (meaning Praxeas) by importunately urging false accusations against the prophets themselves and their churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see, compelled him to recall the pacific letter which he had issued, as well as to desist from his purpose of acknowledging the said gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father. Praxeas' tares had been moreover sown, and had produced their fruit here also, while many were asleep in their simplicity of doctrine; but these tares actually seemed to have been plucked up, having been discovered and exposed by him whose agency God was pleased to employ.

See? The TWO BEEFS or ISSUES Tertullian has with Praxeas is his claim that Praxeas claims the Father died AND AND AND that Praxeas opposed Montanist and his two prophets. Wikipedia says Montanist was called the Paraclete.

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.

Persona

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. 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

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?

I also quote verbatim the encyclopedia saying Montanist was called Paraclete and believed to be the Holy Spirit embodied.

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

That's interesting. If Tertullian was a modalist (I don't think he was, but I am entertaining the thought), and if he was a Montanist (perhaps they believed in modalism as well), and if the Montanists believed in the Holy Ghost and tongues etc... perhaps in the Montanists, we have a Holy Ghost filled, fire baptized, group of oneness believers in the 3rd century AD... Yes, they say Montanist beleived Montanus was the "paraclete", but perhaps this is a distortion of what they really believed... perhaps he simply was "filled" with the paraclete (you know, Holy Ghost filled)?

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You're right, Tertullian mentioned nothing about modalist. What he said was that the majority of believers objected to the idea of the trinity. This indicates that they were monarchian!

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