Monarchians in History

[TheLayman]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

You are correct the paper is against Praxeas. That is the key. Given the context and the antecedent the simple Tertullian refers to are thoe that were "deceived" by Praxeas and who believe Tertullians version of the godhead lead to muitiple of gods.

Second what Tertullian opposes is Patripassionism and Praxeas zealous persuit of Montanus....not necessarily that Praxeas viewed Father, Son and Holy Spirit as modes. Praxeas, it is alleged, denied any distinction between Father and Son. That is not inherit to Modalism, which seems Father and Son as distinct modes.

I'm sorry Praxeas, but you are mistaken. Modalism and Sabellianism are one and the same, and there is no distinction between Father and Son. I have thought for some time that you believe Jason Dulle to be a modalist because he speaks of modes of existence. Jason Dulle is not a modalist and I'm quite sure that if you called him a modalist he'd correct you in no uncertain terms. In fact, you better read the title of perhaps his favorite treatise again:

Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism:

So perhaps you better understand what I'm saying when I say today's Oneness are actually Twoness (not binatarian). Here is that post of mine at the GNC:

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=10064

In true modalism there can not be any true interaction between the Father and the Son as they are the same person. Lastly, "Against Praxeas" deals mostly with theology/Christology but anyone who wants to read it can decidet that for themself.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

I'm sorry Praxeas, but you are mistaken. Modalism and Sabellianism are one and the same, and there is no distinction between Father and Son. I have thought for some time that you believe Jason Dulle to be a modalist because he speaks of modes of existence. Jason Dulle is not a modalist and I'm quite sure that if you called him a modalist he'd correct you in no uncertain terms.

We are talking about Tertullian and Praxeas not Sabellius. Tertullians argument against Praxeas was that Praxeas made no distinction between Father and Son. We are not discussiong Jason.

Modalists deny that Father, Son and Holy Ghost are distinct WHOs. But they DO affirm they are distinct modes of being. The mode of the Father is NOT the mode of the Son. Praxeas, which we are discussing, is alledged to have taught the Father is the Son.

Tertullian was a montanist and Jerome says they were modalists too.

In fact, you better read the title of perhaps his favorite treatise again:

Avoiding the Achilles Heels of Trinitarianism, Modalistic Monarchianism, and Nestorianism:

So perhaps you better understand what I'm saying when I say today's Oneness are actually Twoness (not binatarian). Here is that post of mine at the GNC:

Again we are discussing Praxeas and Tertullian and in particular Tertullians Opposition to Praxeas. Praxeas was a patripassionist it is alleged. He believes the Father died, it is alleged. It seems Tertullians beef is that Praxeas makes no distinction whatsoever between Father and Son

http://www.goodnewscafe.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=10064

In true modalism there can not be any true interaction between the Father and the Son as they are the same person. Lastly, "Against Praxeas" deals mostly with theology/Christology but anyone who wants to read it can decidet that for themself.

Blessings,
TheLayman

We aren't discussing interaction between Father and Son. We aren't discussing Oneness. We are discussing the fact that Tertullian was a montanist. Jerome claims they were modalists. Tertullians opposition to Praxeas was that Praxeas opposed Montanus AND that he allegedly taught the Father died because he saw no distinction whatsoever.

Modalists say there are THREE different modes of being and that it was the Son that died. Successive modalism in fact taught the Father changed modes to be the Son and then the Son changed modes into the Holy Spirit. Distinct modes.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

He is saying "the simple" are the majority of believers or followers no matter who you are talking about, Trinitarian or Oneness. Tertullian here is speaking of the those who don't slice it very thin, the followers not the scholars. He makes clear he's not calling anyone stupid, just simple as regards their faith and understanding. This particular paper is called "against Praxeas" and it is an indictment against the beliefs of Praxeas and "Praxians" if you will. Nowhere does Tertullian say that the majority of the church universal are modalists.

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).

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Tertullian states the simple (the everyday follower who believes what he is taught) among the Praxians make the accusation that the orthodox are followers of more than one God (and I'm calling the orthodox the majority). As I told Mizpeh, either Praxeas was able to prove he was not a modalist, or he recanted his heresy, and for this reason was not excommunicated. The minority does not excommunicate the majority belief and Praxeas was the one in danger of excommunication.

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

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Additionally in the early church at the time of Tertullian and well before it is documented that one litmus test for determining between heresy and truth is which one came first, Tertullian himself puts this forth as a reason modalism is heretical. So this idea that modalists were ever anywhere near the majority according to history is devoid of any evidence.

Blessings,
TheLayman

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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

Exactly, now read the part about the Logos in Tertullians view....

[TheLayman]

Praxeas, you do realize that Wiki is written by whoever wants to log and write don't you? Wiki can be a place to start but my sincere advice to you is never quote it as authoritative. Methinks someone writing in Wiki misunderstood something they read, but no matter.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

NewAdvent
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
Montanus was a recent convert when he first began to prophesy in the village of Ardabau in Phrygia. He is said by Jerome to have been previously a priest of Cybele; but this is perhaps a later invention intended to connect his ecstasies with the dervish-like behavior of the priests and devotees of the "great goddess". The same prophetic gift was believed to have descended also upon his two companions, the prophetesses Maximilla and Prisca or Priscilla. Their headquarters were in the village of Pepuza. The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches). The prophets did not speak as messengers of God: "Thus saith the Lord," but described themselves as possessed by God and spoke in His Person. "I am the Father, the Word, and the Paraclete," said Montanus (Didymus, "De Trin.", III, xli); and again: "I am the Lord God omnipotent, who have descended into to man", and "neither an angel, nor an ambassador, but I, the Lord, the Father, am come" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 11). And Maximilla said: "Hear not me, but hear Christ" (ibid.); and: "I am driven off from among the sheep like a wolf [that is, a false prophet--cf. Matt., vii, 15]; I am not a wolf, but I am speech, and spirit, and power." This possession by a spirit, which spoke while the prophet was incapable of resisting, is described by the spirit of Montanus: "Behold the man is like a lyre, and I dart like the plectrum. The man sleeps, and I am awake" (Epiphanius, "Hær.", xlviii, 4).

Prax, you just highlighted from Newadvent just what I told you, i.e. that Montanus did not claim to be the incarnation of the Holy Spirit but completely possessed by the Spirit. Here, I'll highlight the part of the article you missed:

The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches).

But this is irrelevant to me.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Im not mixing them, Im distinguishing them. Even the Roman Catholic encyclopedia admits the latin persona is too much like Sabellianism.

Well, when you say Tertullian used a Latin word instead of a Greek word, that's what I call mixing, you call it what you want. And the encyclopedia does not "admit," it instructs, okay? And you are misunderstanding what you are reading. It says that the Latin word persona led to a misunderstanding among the Greeks. Let me say that again, the Latin word persona led to a misunderstanding among the Greeks (no the Latin speaking people) because when translated into Greek the word was prosopon which did not carry with it all the meaning that the Latin word possessed. Therefore, in the translation from Latin to Greek, the Greeks believed the Latins (better this designation than East and West so there is no confusion) were teaching Sabellianism even though the Latins were not teaching Sabellianism. Again, the Latins were not teaching Sabellianism, the Greeks misunderstood because of the translation of a Latin word to Greek.

Likewise the Latins misunderstood the Greeks. The reason for this misunderstanding was the Greeks use of the Greek word hypostasis, which translated into Latin as substantia, i.e. substance. So when the Greeks said tres hypostases the Latins thought the Greeks were saying three substances which would mean three separate beings. But this is not what the Greeks were saying or believed.

In short, the Greeks misunderstood the Latins to be saying three manifestations one being (Sabellianism), and the Latins misunderstood the Greeks to be saying three separate beings(Tritheism). Neither was correct about the other, in fact, they believed the same thing, they just had to clarify their terms and words, especially when it came from going to Latin to Greek and vice versa.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

How do we know Tertullian really believes in three literal persons and not three literal masks like modalists are accused of? That is what Persona literally meant? Why did they not keep Persona or even the greek prosopon and instead change it to Hypostasis which means something underneath? Persona and the greek prosopon refer to something outwardly and hypostasis to something inwardly...the inner "self"

Again, not mixing them. Im distinguishing them. Tertullian uses the latin persona, which is the equivelent of the greek prosopon, which meant the outward visage...face...mask...the appearence... Later Trinitarians used Hypostasis to designate the REAL person, the inner ego or self as opposed to the outward "mask". I doubt any modalist back then would disagree with the use of persona TLM...

In short Praxeas, all any layperson has to do is read Tertullians writings and you understand rather quickly he isn't talking about masks. And again, I think you are applying an new and incorrect meaning to the term "modalist."

Originally Posted by Praxeas

That's where I am having a problem. I don't see Trinitarianism in most of these early writtings. I see shades of Arianism, Modalism, Adoptionism in the formation process of what became Trinitarianism. The council didn't just decide on Jesus being God, they decided on HOW He is God and the important part of that was deciding what terms to use. Latin was an emerging language. Greek was dying out as the dominant langauge.

Not true Praxeas. All of these early writers spoke of substance, essence, and so on. That is how Jesus is God. And when they speak of the Son existing before the incarnation (and they write of this existence and the speak of a real incarnation) I'm sorry but I just can night find this vagueness which you apparently believe exists. And Prax, it doesn't exist. No reputable person disputes this but if you want to debate this with people, help yourself.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

It's easy to say persona, prosopon and hypostasis all essentially mean the same thing but that is just not the case. How do we know that Tertullian means there are three individual WHOs when he uses persona? His treatment of the Logos is similar to Oneness except that he seems to have the Logos being made into the Son before creation.

I didn't say he said the logos was impersonal. He says the Logos is WITHIN that God, not merely WITH (what I have argued for years), that this Logos is His OWN Reason and Wisdom. He speaks of things he planned and ordered WITHIN Himself. They were in the mind and intelligence of God. The quote I gave refers to him as the conciousness of God. Certainly not impersonal but not either a distinct PERSON with God.

The answer to paragraph one is to simply read his writing Praxeas. A mask does not reason, a mask does not have relationships, and so on. The word "persona" had a much deeper meaning in the time of Tertullian than simply a mask.

Now you are trying to say there is some huge difference in "with" and "within" as Tertullian used it. Tertullian never called the "Word" a mere thought. And Tertullians speculations on the generation of the Son is that before creation nothing existed external to God, all that existed was God and therefore all that existed was internal to God. He says that the Word was with Him and that because of this, God was not truly alone. Further, I think you misunderstood what I quoted before so I shall do so again:

"Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances." (Against Praxeas ch. 6)

Praxeas, that which has its own "inseparable reason and wisdom" is the Word meaning the word is a person in and of itself. Tertullian is not there talking about God having reason and wisdom, or the Word being reason and wisdom, but the word having its own inseparable reason and wisdom.

Originally Posted by Praxeas

produces three coherent Personas, who are yet distinct from one another. Any Modalist can agree to that...persona corrosponds to the outward appearnece, the mask....would not a modalist view such as a mode or a manifestation? Again Tertullians opposition was not three DIFFERENT modes. His opposition was that Father and Son according to Praxeas as alleged, were NOT distinct at all. While Oneness view Father and Son as the same in ego or self, they view them as distinct in mode, form, manifestation, the outward person.

Praxeas, a mask is not coherent. I have no idea how you came by this idea that this is all that was meant by the early church writers when using the word "person" but it is quite simply incorrect.

Blessings,
TheLayman

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I see a unity with the Father and the Son because there are two wills involved but I wouldn't call the manifestations of God a unity but a Oneness or Sameness.. Semantics, that's all.

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

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Exactly, now read the part about the Logos in Tertullians view....

which chapter, I have read the first three...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

I told you Mizpeh!

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by TheLayman

Praxeas, you do realize that Wiki is written by whoever wants to log and write don't you? Wiki can be a place to start but my sincere advice to you is never quote it as authoritative. Methinks someone writing in Wiki misunderstood something they read, but no matter.

Prax, you just highlighted from Newadvent just what I told you, i.e. that Montanus did not claim to be the incarnation of the Holy Spirit but completely possessed by the Spirit. Here, I'll highlight the part of the article you missed:


<B>

The anonymous opponent of the sect describes the method of prophecy (Eusebius, V, xvii, 2-3): first the prophet appears distraught with terror (en parekstasei), then follows quiet (adeia kai aphobia, fearlessness); beginning by studied vacancy of thought or passivity of intellect (ekousios amathia), he is seized by an uncontrollable madness (akousios mania psyches).

</B>

But this is irrelevant to me.
Well, when you say Tertullian used a Latin word instead of a Greek word, that's what I call mixing, you call it what you want. And the encyclopedia does not "admit," it instructs, okay? And you are misunderstanding what you are reading. It says that the Latin word persona led to a misunderstanding among the Greeks. Let me say that again, the Latin word persona led to a misunderstanding among the Greeks (no the Latin speaking people) because when translated into Greek the word was prosopon which did not carry with it all the meaning that the Latin word possessed. Therefore, in the translation from Latin to Greek, the Greeks believed the Latins (better this designation than East and West so there is no confusion) were teaching Sabellianism even though the Latins were not teaching Sabellianism. Again, the Latins were not teaching Sabellianism, the Greeks misunderstood because of the translation of a Latin word to Greek.

Likewise the Latins misunderstood the Greeks. The reason for this misunderstanding was the Greeks use of the Greek word hypostasis, which translated into Latin as substantia, i.e. substance. So when the Greeks said tres hypostases the Latins thought the Greeks were saying three substances which would mean three separate beings. But this is not what the Greeks were saying or believed.

In short, the Greeks misunderstood the Latins to be saying three manifestations one being (Sabellianism), and the Latins misunderstood the Greeks to be saying three separate beings(Tritheism). Neither was correct about the other, in fact, they believed the same thing, they just had to clarify their terms and words, especially when it came from going to Latin to Greek and vice versa.In short Praxeas, all any layperson has to do is read Tertullians writings and you understand rather quickly he isn't talking about masks. And again, I think you are applying an new and incorrect meaning to the term "modalist."Not true Praxeas. All of these early writers spoke of substance, essence, and so on. That is how Jesus is God. And when they speak of the Son existing before the incarnation (and they write of this existence and the speak of a real incarnation) I'm sorry but I just can night find this vagueness which you apparently believe exists. And Prax, it doesn't exist. No reputable person disputes this but if you want to debate this with people, help yourself.

The answer to paragraph one is to simply read his writing Praxeas. A mask does not reason, a mask does not have relationships, and so on. The word "persona" had a much deeper meaning in the time of Tertullian than simply a mask.

Ok

Now you are trying to say there is some huge difference in "with" and "within" as Tertullian used it. Tertullian never called the "Word" a mere thought.

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.

And Tertullians speculations on the generation of the Son is that before creation nothing existed external to God, all that existed was God and therefore all that existed was internal to God. He says that the Word was with Him and that because of this, God was not truly alone.

HE says the Word was within God.

Further, I think you misunderstood what I quoted before so I shall do so again:

"Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction with His Wisdom's Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might be made through Him through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea, and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God. This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and kept permanently in their proper forms and substances." (Against Praxeas ch. 6)

Praxeas, that which has its own "inseparable reason and wisdom" is the Word meaning the word is a person in and of itself. Tertullian is not there talking about God having reason and wisdom, or the Word being reason and wisdom, but the word having its own inseparable reason and wisdom.Praxeas, a mask is not coherent. I have no idea how you came by this idea that this is all that was meant by the early church writers when using the word "person" but it is quite simply incorrect.

Let me requote this myself too...brb