Monarchians in History

[Praxeas]

TLM do you agree that Tertullian was a Montanist? Do you see that part of this letter of opposition to Praxeas stems from Praxeas own opposition to Montanus?

[Praxeas]

My comments in Red

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 his own, of course.
Reason IN HIMSELF??-

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 (God) conciousness.

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:
If Tertullian is arguing a second person the he is here arguing you and I have two persons.

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.

He is talking about withIN the mind of God. He uses humans as an example of the reason and mind withIN us and having a discourse with ourselves. That is Tertullians view of the Logos OF God.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

what game plan? Are these guys working together to try to get someone to acquiesce? Well it ain't working!

I have no idea what he's talking about.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

The "simple" are the majority of ALL BELIEVERS, whether oneness or trinitarian. Now I agree with this statement. It also said that the simle, the majority of all believers, object to the concept of the trinity! That means that the trinity adherents at this time were the minority, and the majoiryt were either Arian or Monarchian. And since he explains their aprehension of worshipping more than one God, I would conclude that he is identifying them as Monarchian. Nowhere did I say "modalist", just monarchina (rule by ONE).

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.

Originally Posted by BD

Now you are changing midstream. First you said the simple were the majoiry of all believers...

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

Originally Posted by BD

now you are saying the "simple" are the majoirity of Praxean believers. Since the original text is worded in such a way that indicates the simple are the majority of all believers, and that majority opposes the concept of the trinity, I am going with what the original says, and not what your version says.

"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.

Originally Posted by BD

The problem is that you are misconstruing "modalism" in relation to "monarchianism".

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.

Originally Posted by BD

There were many other kinds of monarchians besides the modalist. 1. the alogi were monarchian, 2. the ebionites were monarchina, 3. the "adoptionists" were monarchina, and also the "modalists" were monarchinas. It is notable that all of the "styles" of monarchianism regarded one another, and were in "fellowship" with one another.

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.

Originally Posted by BD

The modalism concept is simlply an elementary way of explaining how the man Jesus Christ, while he was indeed a man, was still God. Because he IS that same person who was God before the incarnation. Modalistic terms of that time period are misconstrued by their detractors (primarily the trinitarians), to implicate them as not viewing a difference between the "father" and the "son". This is just not the case! The modalists did indeed believe in the distinction between father and son, but understood that the same person who was the father, took on human flesh and became the "son". Same person, two different forms. And during the incarnation, the exact same person existed as both father and son simultaneously. "Patripassionsm" is an accusation from their detractors, not a belief that they actually held!

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

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Again....I never said Tertullian called the Word a "mere thought"...you are putting words in my mouth. He said the word was REASON that was IN God and not merely WITH God and yes there is a huge difference, particularly when Trinitarians today make an argument regarding pros tonTheon..the Logos is with God...as opposed to withIN God.

Well Prax, I never said you said the Word was a "mere thought." You ever think I might write something so there is no confusion especially considering the wording of Tertullian? And with regard to the word being with God, Trinitarians make that argument because the Apostle John madet that argument in John 1:1.

HE says the Word was within God.

Praxeas, again, I explained that Tertullian asserted that before God created, nothing existed external to God, so the Word was internal to God. But when God created the universe, the Word went forth (this was like a birth) to create the universe external to God. But the Word was personal before and after being begotten.

Originally Posted by Prax

Let me requote this myself too...brb

Okay.

TheLayman

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

TLM do you agree that Tertullian was a Montanist? Do you see that part of this letter of opposition to Praxeas stems from Praxeas own opposition to Montanus?

Question 1, answer yes.

Question 2, answer: 99.9% of "Against Praxeas" regards theology/Christology and the fact that Modalism was a heresy and it was on these grounds that Tertullian brought charges against Praxeas to the leadership. (and yes, Praxeas was opposed to Montanus).

TheLayman

[mizpeh]

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.

Where's the quote?

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"

To drive out prophecy doesn't mean to drive out the prophet. It means to drive out the Holy Spirit who gives the prophecy.

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.

Why would Tertullian buy into Montanist being called the Paraclete? It would be evident in Tertullian's writing in Against Praxeas if he believed such a thing. Tertullian refers to the Spirit many times and NEVER calls him by the name Montanus.

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.

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.

See chapt 2 in Against Praxeashttp://www.christiandefense.org/Tertullian.Prax.htm#2

What do you believe Tertullian is saying in the above quote?

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.

I didn't understand a thing in a first reading of the above and I'm not going to read this again without a Catholic philosophical dictionary.

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.

I understand this.

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.

Yeah, I thought it should be translated substance as well. Three substances instead of three persons. Tritheism.

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,

What is the difference between substance and subsistence?

and in the East that to understand prosopon in the sense of the Latin persona precluded the possibility of a Sabellian interpretation.

I'm not sure how this follows from what was previously said. What exactly does the Latin word, persona, mean? Where is Chan? I guess I should read his book.

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

Did they redefine these words to suit their doctrine? Praxeas, what point are you trying to make in posting the above? I'm confused.

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?

No, can you supply the link? The point I was making is that when the Son came into being according to Tertullian before his actual birth, the Son had a personality apart from the Father. Tertullian uses OT text to try to prove it.

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

I need the link.

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 Trinitarianis

Oh, I realize Tertullian's view is not a typical or classical Trinitarian view. It's the doctrine of the Trinity in the developmental stages.

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

My comments in Red

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???

Come on Prax, don't make be keep repeating this, and Tertullian is clear regarding his own thoughts as well. The generation, begetting, birthing of the Son is the Word (which was personal in Tertullians view) creating external to God. Before creation, existence only internal to God, there is nothing else. Creation, the Word goes forth to create externally to God, and this going forth is the generation of the Word becoming the Son (I'm explaining Tertullian here).

Originally Posted by Praxeas

ll things God was alone[/B], 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 his own, of course.
Reason IN HIMSELF??-

The Word which was personal. The personal Word existed internally to God for there was nothing external to God before creation.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

For God is rational, and reason is primarily in[/B]
him and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his
consciousness. His reason was IN Him...
That reason IS HIS (God) conciousness.

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

Doesn't sound Oneness to me, sounds very Trinitarian. I have now quoted several times that Tertullian saying the Word possessed His own inseparable reason and wisdom without comment, so I'm not going to keep going over it.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

It doesn't to me, sounds Trinitarian as in the counsels of the Father, or God taking counsel within Himself to me. I can't believe you have read Tertullian and you are either wasting my time or you are actually trying to argue that he was Oneness. To which I would sincerely ask, you can't really be serious?

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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?

I really and truly do not understand why you are not reading not only what Tertullian wrote, but what I keep writing. Tertullian is speaking of personal, rational elements (i.e. persons) within God, the counsels of God.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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:
If Tertullian is arguing a second person the he is here arguing you and I have two persons.

He is making an analogy to help people understand. And he is no more arguing that we are two persons than he is arguing that God is one. In fact, I wrote something very similar when defining the difference between Trinitarianism and Tritheism at GNC:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=10364

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

He is talking about withIN the mind of God. He uses humans as an example of the reason and mind withIN us and having a discourse with ourselves. That is Tertullians view of the Logos OF God.

No, now you have taken Tertullian analogy out of context and ignored that fact that the Word had His own inseperable wisdom and reason, the Word did.

But still the tree is not severed from the root, nor the river from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun; nor, indeed, is the Word separated from God. Following, therefore, the form of these analogies, I confess that I call God and His Word—the Father and His Son—two. For the root and the tree are distinctly two things, but correlatively joined; the fountain and the river are also two forms, but indivisible; so likewise the sun and the ray are two forms

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.

I'm not even sure what you are doing here Praxeas. Tertullian is clear regarding his beliefs. Again, I can't believe a Oneness person would actually read against Praxeas and claim Tertullian is teaching Oneness Pentecostals theology/Christology. Come now, let's be serious and not argue absurd things.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Now this is rich .... arguing about semantics. oloroid

Your point, Dan?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

This is a side issue. Do you want to discuss it in pm's? I think there are two modes or modes of existence but three manifestations or types of relationships God has revealed himself to us. I also think the word, one, in John 10:30 and John 17:22 have different meanings in their context. In John 10:30 it means one in the same or the same. In John 17:22 it means unity.

I've had a long day, maybe we can discuss this tomorrow or by pms. I don't want to get into this with Trinitarians right now.