The early church fathers were important to us for four reasons:

Johann

Well-known member
Who is Not Covered


Others early church Fathers' writings that are not covered or are only mentioned in passing are:-Link.


Clement of Rome -97 A.D.-

Writer of the Shepherd of Hermas

Writer of the Didache

Theophilus of Antioch 115-168/181 A.D.

Quadratus

Aristides of Athens

Athenagoras

Clement of Alexandria 153-217/220 A.D.

Origen 184/185-253/254 A.D.

Alexander of Alexandria

Eusebius of Caesarea

Methodius

Gregory of Nyssa 335-394 A.D.

Gregory of Nanzianzus 330-390 A.D.

Jerome the Translator 345-419/420 A.D.

Basil 329-378/379 A.D.

John Chrysostom 344/347-9/14/407 A.D.

Leo I of Rome


The Early Church Fathers

ÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜÜ

Tertullian

~145-185-220/240 A.D.


Tertullian, or Quintus Septimus Florens Tertullianus, was the second early Church Father we know of to use the word "Trinity." Many objections to the Trinity today were answered by him 1,800 years ago.



Tertullian's Time


Born ~145 A.D, Tertullian became a Christian when he was about 40 years old. He became a presbyter (elder) ~190-192 A.D. He joined the Montanist sect ~199 A.D. and died 220-240 A.D.


Tertullian was a Christian through the fourth-sixth persecutions. He became a Christian around the time Justin Martyr wrote his great apology. He was contemporary with Clement of Alexandria, Irenaeus of Lyons and Porphyry, a Greek enemy of Christianity. He lived a little before Novatian and Origen. There were an estimated 1.5-4 million Christians in a Roman Empire of 56-70 million.




Tertullian's Writing


Tertullian worked in law at Carthage and Rome before becoming a presbyter, and he had a sharp, logical mind. He also had a sharp temper. He was found of allegorical examples, yet he insisted the Bible should be taken in its plain sense. In comparing his writing to the New Testament styles, he had some of the emphases of James and the logic of Paul. If he lived on earth today, he might not be pleased with many Christians. He was against worldly amusements, immodest behavior (including unveiled women), and second marriages. Living a pure Christian life was a major theme of his teaching. Two other major themes were church sacraments and most prominently, apologetics.


Tertullian was a voluminous writer. (I guess that's what you say when someone writes more than one volume.) He wrote in Latin and his works total over 825 pages (in English). One of his cutest writings is "Antidote for the Scorpion's Sting". It starts out matter-of-factly describing cures for scorpion stings, and then goes on to talk about more serious scorpions, idolators and Gnostic cultists, who would poison our faith. He also wrote two books (ten pages) to his beloved wife.




The Montanists


Tertullian did the majority of his writing after he left the Church at Rome under the Bishop Victor and joined the Montanists. Victor was rather dogmatic; until the other Bishops severely rebuked him, he wanted to excommunicate all the eastern Christian churches because they celebrated The Lord's Resurrection the same day as the Jewish Passover and fasted differently. We know little about the Montanists, but Eusebius the writes briefly they were led by Montanus and two prophetesses Prisca and Maximilla, who were in a certain kind of frenzy, raving, and speaking in tongues. Victor accepted the Montanists, but later under the Monarchian influence of Praxeas apparently condemned them. This may be what caused Tertullian to respond with his 30 page work Against Praxeas, and discuss the Trinity.




A Trio of Heresies


The word "Trinity" is not in the Bible; however baptism in the Three is. While the verses showing both the Threeness and Oneness are in the Bible, the deep thought Christians gave to the Trinity did not come about except as a response to a trio of heresies: Ebionism, Polytheism, and Monarchianism.




Ebionism / A Low Christ


Ebion is the Hebrew word for "poor." Eusebius (Chap. 27) mentions Ebionite heretics who had a "poor" or low view of Christ. They rejected the Epistles except Hebrews, and they observed the Jewish laws and rituals.




Polytheism / Threeness Only


Polytheism has a rather simple premise. Since the Bible says the Father is God, Jesus is God, and the Spirit is divine, therefore there are three gods for Tritheism, or else two gods for Ditheism. These are united in love, spirit, purpose, and other ways, but they are united in just a slightly closer way a human family may be united. Of course, one must pay the proper honor to each one individually. There are two versions of polytheism: the different gods have equal rank and the different gods have different rank. The Gnostic Marcion was a Ditheist.


Some verses Tertullian used to point out that polytheism was wrong were John 10:30 14:9,10, Isa 45:18, and Isa 46:6,24. As Tertullian said, it (Isa 45:5) does not say, there is one God and without Him thee is none else except my Son. There cannot be separate true Gods.




Monarchianism / Oneness Only


Monarchianism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same in every way. The word come from Monarchy, or government of one. Today the Worldwide Church of God and United Pentecostals believe that. Monarchianism was most prominent in the West, and there were actually two types of Monarchianism. The first kind, called Patripassian Monarchianism, simply said that since they are the same in every way. "Patripassian" means it was the Father who suffered on the cross. The second variety is called Dynamic Monarchianism, which says the Father became the son who became the Spirit.


It was against Monarchianism that Tertullian and Novatian wrote when they elucidated the Trinity. It is interesting that most who deny the Trinity today confuse it with Monarchianism.


If there is no distinction in the Monarchy, then at his baptism Jesus was a great ventriloquist and magician. After all, if there was only one person, He was pretty clever to get people to believe there were really three.


Tertullian could not accept that the Father was born on earth, was tempted, and died on the cross. He could not see how the Father could sit at His own right hand (Mark 16:19 Rev 3:21). Neither can we.


Other verses Tertullian used to show distinct differences between The Father, Son, and Spirit are: Gen 3:22, Gen 1:27, Ps 45:6-7, John 1:1 (there was one with another), Ps 110:1, Gen 19:24, John 5:19,22, Eph 1:17, Matt 27:46, and Rom 8:32.




A "Geometry" of the Trinity


The Trinity may be thought of as the center of a triangle shown below. The three heresies are outside the triangle opposite the three points.


All Three Are God





Monar- Poly-

chians Theists

Trinity




One Three

God Persons

Ebionites




Tertullian's Tips


[In times of persecution] I had rather be one to be pitied than to be blushed for (IV p.122).


While Tertullian discussed some of the Trinity in Against Marcion Books I-V, most of what he wrote is in Against Praxeas. The Father, Son, and Spirit are three in one, a Trinity and Unity (II,III).


Tertullian said the three were "distinct", "not identical" but "inseparable" and "indivisible"(II)". Father and Son are "just as the root puts forth the tree and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray." One emanates from the other. Likewise the Spirit is "just as the fruit of the tree is third from the root or as the stream out of the river is third from the fountain or as the apex of the ray is third from the sun." (Against Praxeas VIII)


Even the words "Father and Son" show their difference. A father cannot be his own son any more than a husband can be his own wife. (A.P. X,XI)


Tertullian taught equality in: name, nature or essence, substance, honor, creating, and a difference in: person, visibility, origin, role, and rank. (A.P. IV,XIV-XIX)

Read the post
 
Can you recommend a book to sumarize the work of the early church fathers?

I have this book, didn't get around to it yet, but looks good:

 
Can you recommend a book to sumarize the work of the early church fathers?

One thing I recommend is making sure you get quotes and sources and actually look them up in context.

You really learn a lot more then just being told someone else's interpretations.
 
I would be interested in the actual evidence you have for these claims.
If you talked To.Me. instead of 'about' me, I would feel more kindly.
There is a book you could look at, about Augustine, written by Brown. He lays out, at least in the case of Augustine, the deep commitment to Plato.
In addition, you can look at De Trinitate, and Of Free Choice texts. There he directly Equates God with platonic forms. In the De Trinitate he equates God with Aristotelian substance, a pagan form which the pagans call prime mover.

My experience in the past when charity was lacking, and I don't refer to you but a different forum, is that in early days on that forum 2015 or so, I would try to talk to people And give references. What I learned is that no one cares about the references unless those fit what they Already Believe. So basically, since i was labeled, talked about when present in the room etc, on that forum, I ceased to give references. I have read every text. I worked at a university teaching this stuff....but neither was I going to spend hours getting references together when it will be thrown to swine, and again, that was what I concluded on a different forum. So therefore, I decided based on that and the fact Christ did not Debate...either. That I would not bother. The reason is pretty simple, everyone here can go find the references and if they really Cared, could honestly seek to find the same references I found.
 
Last edited:
If you talked To.Me. instead of 'about' me, I would feel more kindly.

When you mistreat me and refuse to answer my questions, you lose that right.

I'm sorry.

I don't care if you feel "kindly" or not if you give yourself to abuse.
 
There is a book you could look at, about Augustine, written by Brown. He lays out, at least in the case of Augustine, the deep commitment to Plato.
In addition, you can look at De Trinitate, and Of Free Choice texts. There he directly Equates God with platonic forms. In the De Trinitate he equates God with Aristotelian substance, a pagan form which the pagans call prime mover.

Thank you for your book recommendation.

I find those who are either unwilling or unable to summarize the arguments of what they have read, don't care very much about the point they want to make.
 
About Augustine, In Brown's book (and there are other references, along with Also Augustine's autobiographical book where he explains how and why he converted with that tolle lege nonsense), it is clear that his mentor in Rome, also was besotted with the Greeks, and Augustine states explicitly that his reason to accept christianity as his mother wished, was because now he could see how the knowledge of the greeks Explained Christianity, and functioned as a foundation, such that he could have his 'knowledge' as well as scripture, since now it made sense, framed by the greek view (he was already getting as Manichaean). As to his probably untrue mystical experience, if it was true, probably not God but a demon. In brown's book you can see how he was already into the same concept of having mystical experiences in relation to his pagan beliefs. The main thing for me is not the experience or lack of, or even that he read the greeks. So what, I have read them all too. The point is that he used platonic forms (aristotelian substance) as explanation of what God is. Aquinas who was basically sycophant to Averroes the islamicist, did the same. I mention this later one because aquinas exemplifies a pattern, in which the questions that mattered to pagans, are now repeated as if they mattered to God... and the format, diaeresis, which is the platonic division, was used, i.e., Aristotle's either other logic... if then... but God never talks that way... and all through that ugly summa, not the abridged version either but all of it, Aquinas is but parroting platonic concepts as in lockstep to his mentor Averroes, to whom he is in philosophic conversation. Ambrose, jerome, and all of them have this issue, for the medieval Education WAS Classical education and this was Greek in a thoroughgoing way. And they all pander to Plato and overlaid those concepts onto scripture. And keep in mind that augustine was in charge of the canon, made many decisions about books, the trinity etc. and at councils etc.
 
Last edited:
Yes the influence of platonism, manacheism/ Gnosticism and Greek philosophy plus paganism is what augustine married with Christianity to form his new religion that was bought hook, line and sinker and still believed by many in the church.
 

Augustine of Hippo: A Biography - Peter Brown, gives lots of footnotes and citations explaining my last two posts, easily found sources and references, lays out the entire life of augustine​


On Free Choice of the Will, Augustine - explains explicitly the connection of platonic forms to God, i.e., the forms are attributes of God.​


De Trinitate, Augustine - Explains in many places how platonic forms and aristotelian substance are God.

The Confessions, Augustine - explains why he know can be a christian thanks to the bishop Ambrose and how he weaves greek philosophy into it all so well.
 
Back
Top Bottom