Worshipping The Son

“It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity; heresy often appears more prominently, so much so that orthodoxy looks like a reaction to it. But we can document orthodoxy for all the centuries since then - in other words, for close to seventeen centuries of the church’s existence.”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 5)
 
The deal was only between you and I. I wish we could get everyone to join us. A day is coming when the word will never again be found on the lips of anyone. That day has not yet arrived.




I didn’t address my post to you. Had I done so, I would have broken our deal.

I had promised @synergy that I would provide a few excerpts from Dr. Brown’s book for him. Dr. Brown was a trinitarian. His great mission in life was to draw everyone who has strayed from trinitarianism back to it. It’s very difficult to quote from a trinitarian source and not have it include the word which you and I have agreed to mention again in conversation between the two of us - the deal didn’t stipulate that we can never say the T word in conversation with others. You can say it as many times as your heart desires in conversation with others. So can I.



Secondary sources, if having anything to do with the word which we agreed we wouldn’t mention in conversation with one another, is going to contain the T word. Per our agreement, neither you nor I will include it in our conversation with one another.



Excellent. The T word is nowhere mentioned in scripture. That should not be any problem at all for us.




That’s a secondary source and it will, at times, mention the word which you and I have agreed we will not use in conversation with one another.

I regret that you used the word that we agreed we would not use in conversation between us in the post you directed to me, but I will wink at it this time. In other words, I’m not going to consider it a violation of our agreement.

I appreciate that this deal will be harder for you than it will be for me.
No worries it was a simple misunderstanding on my part. Between us would you agree with my last post :)
 
Warning! Warning! Warning!

The following quotation contains the word which @civic and I have agreed we will not use in conversation between the two of us. I was remiss in not issuing a warning in my prior quotation of Dr. Brown where the ”forbidden” word is included. My apologies to @civic for that oversight on my part.

”It is a simple and undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian faith - such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ - were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form until the fourth or fifth centuries. If they are essential today - as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert - it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth or fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 20)
 
Warning! Warning! Warning!

The following quotation contains the word which @civic and I have agreed we will not use in conversation between the two of us. I was remiss in not issuing a warning in my prior quotation of Dr. Brown where the ”forbidden” word is included. My apologies to @civic for that oversight on my part.

”It is a simple and undeniable historical fact that several major doctrines that now seem central to the Christian faith - such as the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the deity of Christ - were not present in a full and well-defined, generally accepted form until the fourth or fifth centuries. If they are essential today - as all of the orthodox creeds and confessions assert - it must be because they are true. If they are true, then they must always have been true; they cannot have become true in the fourth or fifth century. But if they are both true and essential, how can it be that the early church took centuries to formulate them?”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, p. 20)
That is just historically wrong on every level. We can begin with the Deity of Christ.

I get 1 free get out of jail free card i get to use right now 🤣

Early Church Fathers Believe that Jesus is God?​


Note: Words and phrases within curly braces { } within quotations are furnished by the author to explain such quotations. Words and phrases within square brackets [ ]within quotations are part of the quoted text.

Words have meanings relative to place and time. A word can have one meaning in one region and a different meaning in another region; and its meaning can change as time goes on, depending on how it is used: on how it is applied. The early Church fathers were close in understanding the meanings of the New Testament words and phrases because they were close in time, in locality, and in culture to the New Testament writers.Their writings help us understand the meanings of various New Testament words and phrases, and are invaluable in tracing the evolution of the historical Jesus from a mere man to God. Here are some examples:

The Shepherd of Hermas was a Christian book written between 100 and 160 CE. In the second century it was part of the New Testament. It reflects the beliefs of the early Gentile Christians. It says that God is one (person) and that Jesus is his son: “First of all, believe that God is One {person}, even He {He: refers to one person} who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being ... God ... created the people, and delivered them over to His Son. And the Son placed the angels in charge of them {the people} ... He {Jesus} showed them {the people} the paths of life, giving them the law {Jesus is the angel, who gave the law to Moses}, which He received from his Father. ... He {Jesus} Himself is Lord of the people, having received all power from his Father. ... The Son of God is older than all His {God’s} creation, so that He became the Father's advisor {i.e. assistant} in His creation. ... no one will enter into the kingdom of God, unless he receives the name of His Son.” (The Shepherd of Hermas 1:1, 6:2, 6:3, 12:2, 12:4) According to this book, God is one person: the Father. Jesus is another person. Jesus is the Son of God, not God. The expression “having received all power from his Father” implies that there was a time when Jesus did not have this power. He who gives is greater than him who receives. The comparison of the age of Jesus to the age of God’s creation (“the Son of God is older than all His {God’s} creation”) implies that Jesus is not eternal and that is a creature of God. The phrase “He became the Father's advisor” implies that there was a time when Jesus was not the Father’s advisor.

The Shepherd of Hermas indicates that the early Gentile Christians did not believe that Jesus is God.

St. Clement of Rome is believed to have been the fourth bishop of Rome, during the last decade of the 1st century. He believed that the Father is God Almighty, while Jesus is Lord (master) and Christ (the chosen one or the anointed one). Clement, never called Jesus “God” or “a god.” He wrote, “0:1 {From} the Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth, to them who are called and sanctified in the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ: {God is God and Jesus is Lord Christ. Clement repeatedly made a clear distinction between these two persons}. Grace and peace be multiplied to you from Almighty God through Jesus Christ. 42:1 The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God. 42:2 Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; and both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God {the Father}. 46:6 Have we not one God and one Christ? (One of each: one God: the Father, and one Christ: Jesus} 49:6 ... Jesus Christ our Lord has given his blood for us, by the will of God ... 50:7 This blessedness comes to them who are elect by God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ... 58:2 ... For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit {the emanating Power of God} 59:4 ... let all the nations know that you {the Father} are God alone and Jesus Christ {is} your Son ... 64:1 Finally, my God {the Father} ... who has chosen our Lord {master} Jesus Christ ... ...{God, please} give to every soul ... faith, fear, peace, patience ... through our high priest and protector, Jesus Christ ...” (Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians) Jesus is the “high priest of God,” like Philo’s Word of God. St. Clement of Rome represents the mainstream beliefs of Gentile Christianity of the 1st century. He stated clearly their beliefs. The phrase “one God and one Christ” differentiates God from Jesus. The phrase, “you {the Father} are God alone and Jesus Christ {is} your Son ...” indicates that Jesus is not God. The word “alone” refers to God, the Father.

Justin Martyr was a prominent apologist of Christianity in the first half of the second century CE. He affirmed the superiority of God over Jesus: “... we know no ruler more kingly or just than He {Jesus} except God {the Father} who begot Him.” In other words, “God is more kingly than Jesus.” He also wrote that God begat Jesus, before he created the world, and that Jesus was the captain of God’s army (i.e. the Archangel): “... God begat, before all creatures, a Beginning {Jesus} ... who is called by the Holy Spirit {in the Holy Scriptures}, now {heis called} the Glory of the Lord, now {he is called} the Son, again Wisdom, again {he is called} an Angel, then a god, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave {Nun}.” Justin Martyr did not mix God with Jesus. His phrase “again an Angel, then a god” indicates that the titles “angel” and “god” were synonymous. Justin Martyr also wrote that God is the cause of all things: “ ‘But what do you call God?’ said he. ‘That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things--that, indeed, is God.’ So I answered him.’ ” He believed that God is the cause of all things. He is the cause of Jesus. He begat Jesus. Justin Martyr believed that God “always maintains the same nature.” This implies that Jesus is not God. Jesus did not maintain the same nature. He assumed the human nature. He considered Jesus “an improperly called god”: an angel. Here is a quotation from Justin Martyr that is of great theological importance: “{we believe that:} ... He is the Son of the living God Himself, and believe Him to be in the second place, and the Prophetic Spirit in the third.” The Father God comes first, Jesus comes second, and the Holy Spirit comes third.

Clement of Alexandria (born ca. 150 CE, died between 211 and 215 CE) called the Father “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.”

Irenaeus (died ca. 200 CE) was the one who introduced the four gospels in the canon of the New Testament. He was a central figure in early Gentile Christianity. He believed that the only true God is the Father. He wrote, “... that we may learn through Him {Jesus} that the Father is above all things {i.e. including Jesus}. For ‘the Father,’ says he {says Jesus}, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore has been declared by our Lord to excel {above Jesus} with respect to knowledge ...” He wrote that there is “one God” and “one Christ”: “... that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ {Jesus} the son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions {disciples} of the Lord {Jesus}.” Irenaeus said that this is what the Jewish Christians, “the companions of the Lord,” believed: “one God” and “one Christ {Jesus}.” He also wrote, “... God of Abraham ... who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, {you are} the only true God ... grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, {and} the governing power of the Holy Spirit, give to every reader of this book to know You, that You are God alone ...” Irenaeus made it clear that Jesus was not God. Irenaeus also wrote, “... that this Being alone is truly God and Father, who both formed this world, fashioned man ...” Irenaeus believed that God created the world through Jesus, as he explains here: “ ‘For He {God} commanded and they were created; He spoke, and they were made’ Whom, therefore did He command? The Word {Jesus}.” Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus was “a god”: “But he {Jesus} is himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, a god {Gr. theos, without the article} and Lord, and King eternal, and the incarnate Word.” He called Jesus “a god” in the same sense as Philo called the Word “a god,” or as Paul and John called Jesus “a god.” He considered Jesus the Archangel: an “improperly called god.”

When Irenaeus wrote “God” he meant the Father. When he wrote “Master” he meant Jesus: “For faith, which has respect to our Master {Jesus}, endures unchangeably, assuring that there is one true God {the Father}, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing the He alone is our Father ...” Irenaeus wrote “he {God} alone is our Father” because Jesus said, “And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father--the one in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9 NRSV) Irenaeus wrote that the Father alone is the true God: “... the Father Himself is alone called God ... the Scripture acknowledge Him alone God; and yet again the Lord {Jesus} confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I will show from His very words ... consider the terrible blasphemy [you are guilty of] against Him {the Father} who truly is God.”

Theophilus of Antioch (a late second century apologist of Christianity) expressed the “orthodox” Gentile Christian beliefs of his time. He wrote that God is greater than Jesus because God cannot be contained in a place (as the Old Testament says ), whereas Jesus is locally present (he is contained): “Indeed the God {Gr. “o VoeQ,” with the definite article} and Father of the universe is unconfined and is not present in a place ... he generated this Logos ... as the firstborn of all creation. ... The Word being therefore a god {Gr. Voeq - without the definite article}, and born of God, the Father of the universe, when he wills, sends him into a place. When he appears there, men hear him, and see him, sent as he is from God, and he is there locally present.” According to Theophilus, the Father is God (Gr. “o VoeQ”) and Jesus is a god (Gr. “Voeq” - without the definite article). Theophilus never calls Jesus “o VoeQ.” He reserves the article “o” for the Father, which is in accordance with Philo’s grammatical rule. He believed that Jesus came into existence after God because he was “born of God.” God “generated this Logos.” He believed that God is superior to Jesus because he orders Jesus to go (he sends him). He believed that Jesus is visible, while God is invisible (as explained earlier in 1 Timothy).

Philo, Jeremiah, Paul, Jesus, the Jews, the Jewish Christians, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus claimed that the Father is “the true God.” This was the understanding of the early Church fathers, before the Synod of Nicaea.
 
No worries it was a simple misunderstanding on my part.

It’s very early in our arrangement. When I posted a quotation which contained the word which we agreed we wouldn’t mention in discussions between the two of us, addressed to no particular person, it hadn’t occurred to me that the post could be understood to mean that it was addressed to a wide audience which includes you. That was a mistake on my part. You had every right to bring it to my attention and I’m glad that you did.

Between us would you agree with my last post :)

It‘ll be tricky but I think you and I can pull it off.

I just want to reiterate that the deal is only between you and I. Others can mention the word to anyone whom they please, as often they please, including you and I. You and I can mention it to anyone that we please, as often as we please.

I invited @praise_yeshua to join in on our agreement. He didn’t respond to my invitation. Per our arrangement, you can freely use the word in discussion with him and he with you. If for some reason you wanted to use the word a hundred times in a conversation with someone else, or they to you, that wouldn’t be a violation of the deal we made with one another. It would be entirely unreasonable for me to expect you never to use the word in conversation with others. I think it also unreasonable for me to be able to mention the word in conversation with others.

I think of our deal as an experiment between two friends. We can end the experiment, our arrangement, our deal, any time that we want to.
 
That is just historically wrong on every level. We can begin with the Deity of Christ.

I get 1 free get out of jail free card i get to use right now 🤣

Early Church Fathers Believe that Jesus is God?​


Note: Words and phrases within curly braces { } within quotations are furnished by the author to explain such quotations. Words and phrases within square brackets [ ]within quotations are part of the quoted text.

Words have meanings relative to place and time. A word can have one meaning in one region and a different meaning in another region; and its meaning can change as time goes on, depending on how it is used: on how it is applied. The early Church fathers were close in understanding the meanings of the New Testament words and phrases because they were close in time, in locality, and in culture to the New Testament writers.Their writings help us understand the meanings of various New Testament words and phrases, and are invaluable in tracing the evolution of the historical Jesus from a mere man to God. Here are some examples:

The Shepherd of Hermas was a Christian book written between 100 and 160 CE. In the second century it was part of the New Testament. It reflects the beliefs of the early Gentile Christians. It says that God is one (person) and that Jesus is his son: “First of all, believe that God is One {person}, even He {He: refers to one person} who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being ... God ... created the people, and delivered them over to His Son. And the Son placed the angels in charge of them {the people} ... He {Jesus} showed them {the people} the paths of life, giving them the law {Jesus is the angel, who gave the law to Moses}, which He received from his Father. ... He {Jesus} Himself is Lord of the people, having received all power from his Father. ... The Son of God is older than all His {God’s} creation, so that He became the Father's advisor {i.e. assistant} in His creation. ... no one will enter into the kingdom of God, unless he receives the name of His Son.” (The Shepherd of Hermas 1:1, 6:2, 6:3, 12:2, 12:4) According to this book, God is one person: the Father. Jesus is another person. Jesus is the Son of God, not God. The expression “having received all power from his Father” implies that there was a time when Jesus did not have this power. He who gives is greater than him who receives. The comparison of the age of Jesus to the age of God’s creation (“the Son of God is older than all His {God’s} creation”) implies that Jesus is not eternal and that is a creature of God. The phrase “He became the Father's advisor” implies that there was a time when Jesus was not the Father’s advisor.

The Shepherd of Hermas indicates that the early Gentile Christians did not believe that Jesus is God.

St. Clement of Rome is believed to have been the fourth bishop of Rome, during the last decade of the 1st century. He believed that the Father is God Almighty, while Jesus is Lord (master) and Christ (the chosen one or the anointed one). Clement, never called Jesus “God” or “a god.” He wrote, “0:1 {From} the Church of God which sojourns at Rome, to the Church of God which sojourns at Corinth, to them who are called and sanctified in the will of God through our Lord Jesus Christ: {God is God and Jesus is Lord Christ. Clement repeatedly made a clear distinction between these two persons}. Grace and peace be multiplied to you from Almighty God through Jesus Christ. 42:1 The Apostles received for us the gospel from our Lord Jesus Christ; our Lord Jesus Christ received it from God. 42:2 Christ, therefore, was sent out from God, and the Apostles from Christ; and both these things were done in good order, according to the will of God {the Father}. 46:6 Have we not one God and one Christ? (One of each: one God: the Father, and one Christ: Jesus} 49:6 ... Jesus Christ our Lord has given his blood for us, by the will of God ... 50:7 This blessedness comes to them who are elect by God, through Jesus Christ our Lord ... 58:2 ... For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the Holy Spirit {the emanating Power of God} 59:4 ... let all the nations know that you {the Father} are God alone and Jesus Christ {is} your Son ... 64:1 Finally, my God {the Father} ... who has chosen our Lord {master} Jesus Christ ... ...{God, please} give to every soul ... faith, fear, peace, patience ... through our high priest and protector, Jesus Christ ...” (Clement of Rome, First Epistle to the Corinthians) Jesus is the “high priest of God,” like Philo’s Word of God. St. Clement of Rome represents the mainstream beliefs of Gentile Christianity of the 1st century. He stated clearly their beliefs. The phrase “one God and one Christ” differentiates God from Jesus. The phrase, “you {the Father} are God alone and Jesus Christ {is} your Son ...” indicates that Jesus is not God. The word “alone” refers to God, the Father.

Justin Martyr was a prominent apologist of Christianity in the first half of the second century CE. He affirmed the superiority of God over Jesus: “... we know no ruler more kingly or just than He {Jesus} except God {the Father} who begot Him.” In other words, “God is more kingly than Jesus.” He also wrote that God begat Jesus, before he created the world, and that Jesus was the captain of God’s army (i.e. the Archangel): “... God begat, before all creatures, a Beginning {Jesus} ... who is called by the Holy Spirit {in the Holy Scriptures}, now {heis called} the Glory of the Lord, now {he is called} the Son, again Wisdom, again {he is called} an Angel, then a god, and then Lord and Logos; and on another occasion He calls Himself Captain, when He appeared in human form to Joshua the son of Nave {Nun}.” Justin Martyr did not mix God with Jesus. His phrase “again an Angel, then a god” indicates that the titles “angel” and “god” were synonymous. Justin Martyr also wrote that God is the cause of all things: “ ‘But what do you call God?’ said he. ‘That which always maintains the same nature, and in the same manner, and is the cause of all other things--that, indeed, is God.’ So I answered him.’ ” He believed that God is the cause of all things. He is the cause of Jesus. He begat Jesus. Justin Martyr believed that God “always maintains the same nature.” This implies that Jesus is not God. Jesus did not maintain the same nature. He assumed the human nature. He considered Jesus “an improperly called god”: an angel. Here is a quotation from Justin Martyr that is of great theological importance: “{we believe that:} ... He is the Son of the living God Himself, and believe Him to be in the second place, and the Prophetic Spirit in the third.” The Father God comes first, Jesus comes second, and the Holy Spirit comes third.

Clement of Alexandria (born ca. 150 CE, died between 211 and 215 CE) called the Father “the uncreated and imperishable and only true God.”
Irenaeus (died ca. 200 CE) was the one who introduced the four gospels in the canon of the New Testament. He was a central figure in early Gentile Christianity. He believed that the only true God is the Father. He wrote, “... that we may learn through Him {Jesus} that the Father is above all things {i.e. including Jesus}. For ‘the Father,’ says he {says Jesus}, ‘is greater than I.’ The Father, therefore has been declared by our Lord to excel {above Jesus} with respect to knowledge ...” He wrote that there is “one God” and “one Christ”: “... that there is one God, Creator of heaven and earth, announced by the law and the prophets; and one Christ {Jesus} the son of God. If any one do not agree to these truths, he despises the companions {disciples} of the Lord {Jesus}.” Irenaeus said that this is what the Jewish Christians, “the companions of the Lord,” believed: “one God” and “one Christ {Jesus}.” He also wrote, “... God of Abraham ... who are the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, {you are} the only true God ... grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, {and} the governing power of the Holy Spirit, give to every reader of this book to know You, that You are God alone ...” Irenaeus made it clear that Jesus was not God. Irenaeus also wrote, “... that this Being alone is truly God and Father, who both formed this world, fashioned man ...” Irenaeus believed that God created the world through Jesus, as he explains here: “ ‘For He {God} commanded and they were created; He spoke, and they were made’ Whom, therefore did He command? The Word {Jesus}.” Irenaeus also wrote that Jesus was “a god”: “But he {Jesus} is himself in his own right, beyond all men who ever lived, a god {Gr. theos, without the article} and Lord, and King eternal, and the incarnate Word.” He called Jesus “a god” in the same sense as Philo called the Word “a god,” or as Paul and John called Jesus “a god.” He considered Jesus the Archangel: an “improperly called god.”

When Irenaeus wrote “God” he meant the Father. When he wrote “Master” he meant Jesus: “For faith, which has respect to our Master {Jesus}, endures unchangeably, assuring that there is one true God {the Father}, and that we should truly love Him for ever, seeing the He alone is our Father ...” Irenaeus wrote “he {God} alone is our Father” because Jesus said, “And call no one your father on earth, for you have one Father--the one in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9 NRSV) Irenaeus wrote that the Father alone is the true God: “... the Father Himself is alone called God ... the Scripture acknowledge Him alone God; and yet again the Lord {Jesus} confesses Him alone as His own Father, and knows no other, as I will show from His very words ... consider the terrible blasphemy [you are guilty of] against Him {the Father} who truly is God.”

Theophilus of Antioch (a late second century apologist of Christianity) expressed the “orthodox” Gentile Christian beliefs of his time. He wrote that God is greater than Jesus because God cannot be contained in a place (as the Old Testament says ), whereas Jesus is locally present (he is contained): “Indeed the God {Gr. “o VoeQ,” with the definite article} and Father of the universe is unconfined and is not present in a place ... he generated this Logos ... as the firstborn of all creation. ... The Word being therefore a god {Gr. Voeq - without the definite article}, and born of God, the Father of the universe, when he wills, sends him into a place. When he appears there, men hear him, and see him, sent as he is from God, and he is there locally present.” According to Theophilus, the Father is God (Gr. “o VoeQ”) and Jesus is a god (Gr. “Voeq” - without the definite article). Theophilus never calls Jesus “o VoeQ.” He reserves the article “o” for the Father, which is in accordance with Philo’s grammatical rule. He believed that Jesus came into existence after God because he was “born of God.” God “generated this Logos.” He believed that God is superior to Jesus because he orders Jesus to go (he sends him). He believed that Jesus is visible, while God is invisible (as explained earlier in 1 Timothy).

Philo, Jeremiah, Paul, Jesus, the Jews, the Jewish Christians, Clement of Alexandria, and Irenaeus claimed that the Father is “the true God.” This was the understanding of the early Church fathers, before the Synod of Nicaea.

That’s hilarious! Where did that “Get out of Jail Free” card come from? What else have you got up your sleeve? (Just kidding.)

The post is far too long to reply too. Posts of that length aren’t conversations. (A loop hole in our agreement? Yikes!)

Dr. Brown is correct. I’ll just leave it at that.
 
That’s hilarious! Where did that “Get out of Jail Free” card come from? What else have you got up your sleeve? (Just kidding.)

The post is far too long to reply too. Posts of that length aren’t conversations. (A loop hole in our agreement? Yikes!)

Dr. Brown is correct. I’ll just leave it at that.
I was making the point that way before Nicea the Deity of Christ was a given in the early church. The " T " word is a different story. :)
 
I was making the point that way before Nicea the Deity of Christ was a given in the early church.

I would make the counterpoint that it wasn’t. Tertullian is a good example. There are others. Paraphrasing here, “there was a time when the Son did not exist”. You‘re probably acquainted with it but I’ll provide the exact quote upon request.
 
@civic you mentioned Justin Martyr. I’ll probably post a quote from him on who and how many he believed God is but, in the meantime, I wanted to ask: are you familiar with Justin’s position in regard to those who say that souls go to heaven when people die?

It’s located in his Dialogue With Trypho.

”For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians … But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.”

(Chapter 80)

Bold is mine.
 
Last edited:
@civic here is the quotation of Tertullian which I paraphrased in post #529.

”Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.”

(Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3)

Bold is mine.

There was a time when the Son didn’t exist with God.

That doesn’t sound like something which you or others of your faith would say.

Who does it sound like?

In the classroom, I asked students if they knew who it was that said this. I didn’t tell students ahead of time that it was Tertullian. Invariably, the students said that it was Arius.
 
“Was the transition from the personal monotheism of Israel to the tripereonal theism of Nicaea a legitimate development of Old Testament revelation?“

Pause. That’s a very important question.

Resume.

”Christians affirm that it is, holding that Nicaea represents a fuller unfolding, not a distortion, of the self-disclosure of the God of Israel. Indeed, the trinitarianism of Nicaea and the Christological definitions of Chalcedon are seen as the valid and necessary interpretation of the claims of Jesus Christ in the context of the Old Testament witness to the God who is One. Without Nicaea and Chalcedon, it would not have been possible to maintain that Christianity is a biblical religion, the legitimate daughter of Old Testament Judaism. Today the clarity and necessity of Chalcedon, if not refuted or disproved, have been widely forgotten and ignored. Christianity took four centuries to formulate its witness to the deity and humanity of Christ in the context of the one God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob in such a way that it preserved a coherent approach to the unity of truth. It has taken fifteen centuries more to forget Chalcedon again; as it loses touch with Chalcedon, the Christian world is in the process of losing its coherence. It is in fact losing the conviction that there is any final truth about the one who said, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life.’”

(Harold O.J. Brown, Heresies, pp. 431,432)
Thanks for those excerpts. It's the Divinity of Christ that first and foremost had to be settled by Christianity. That is the key. After that it's just a natural step to the acceptance of the Trinity. Christians are in fact losing the understanding of Christology that Chaldelon taught to the world, as supported by the Bible. Once one loses sight of the true Jesus then his understanding of the Trinity is easily undermined in his unbelieving mind. The center of the controversy is concentrated on Jesus' immortal words "who do you say I am"? If one does not accept him as the Uncreated Word of God who became flesh to save man, as only God can, then that unbeliever is no better than a Muslim. Can Muslims be saved? I leave that up to God.
 
@civic I was looking for something else and came across this about Justin Martyr. I thought since we were talking about him that I might as well go ahead and post it.

”The Apologists, especially Justin, taught the subordination of the Son to the Father. From Justin’s Dialogue (Cf. Seeburg, Eng. ed., 113) the Father alone is the real God; the Logos is only a Divine Being of second rank. … while the Father is eternal, infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable and transcendent, the Son is not (Justin, Dial. 56, 62, 128f.).”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 47)
 
Thanks for those excerpts. It's the Divinity of Christ that first and foremost had to be settled by Christianity. That is the key. After that it's just a natural step to the acceptance of the Trinity. Christians are in fact losing the understanding of Christology that Chaldelon taught to the world, as supported by the Bible. Once one loses sight of the true Jesus then his understanding of the Trinity is easily undermined in his unbelieving mind. The center of the controversy is concentrated on Jesus' immortal wirds "who do I say I am"? If one does not accept him as the Uncreated Word of God who became flesh to save man, as only God can, then that unbeliever is no better than a Muslim.

Church history is so important to know. It’s been a struggle for me to get people to read it. They think it’s dry, dusty, boring and has no impact on, or significance to, them. So many times I’ve heard people say “Who cares? That was then, this is now.” They have no idea how Christianity got from where it was in the 1st century to where it is today, and no interest in finding out. I’ll have more to say about that in another post.
 
@civic I was looking for something else and came across this about Justin Martyr. I thought since we were talking about him that I might as well go ahead and post it.

”The Apologists, especially Justin, taught the subordination of the Son to the Father. From Justin’s Dialogue (Cf. Seeburg, Eng. ed., 113) the Father alone is the real God; the Logos is only a Divine Being of second rank. … while the Father is eternal, infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable and transcendent, the Son is not (Justin, Dial. 56, 62, 128f.).”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 47)
While I believe in a biblical view if subordination between the Father and Son it has nothing to do with nature, essence , substance or being. It has to do with relationship just like in a marriage where biblical submission is an honorable thing. My wife is no less if a human than I, my human nature is not greater than hers we have different roles within our relationship. The same is true with the Father and Son with the divine nature. So his view is heretical and unbiblical:)
 
@civic I was looking for something else and came across this about Justin Martyr. I thought since we were talking about him that I might as well go ahead and post it.

”The Apologists, especially Justin, taught the subordination of the Son to the Father. From Justin’s Dialogue (Cf. Seeburg, Eng. ed., 113) the Father alone is the real God; the Logos is only a Divine Being of second rank. … while the Father is eternal, infinite, incomprehensible, unchangeable and transcendent, the Son is not (Justin, Dial. 56, 62, 128f.).”

(J.L. Neve, A History of Christian Thought, Vol. 1, p. 47)
Looks like Justin had not yet read John 1 when he mentioned that. Did he back track on those words later? I don't care if he did or not. Many Theologians have back tracked on their earlier comments like Augustine. Just wondering.
 
While I believe in a biblical view if subordination between the Father and Son it has nothing to do with nature, essence , substance or being. It has to do with relationship just like in a marriage where biblical submission is an honorable thing. My wife is no less if a human than I, my human nature is not greater than hers we have different roles within our relationship. The same is true with the Father and Son with the divine nature. So his view is heretical and unbiblical:)

We’re a long way from Justin Martyr and what he believed about God in the 2nd century. Christians who haven’t read Justin assume that he believed about God what they believe about God. It’s almost never true that they do.

Justin believed in two Gods. No one of your faith believes in two Gods, let alone that one of the Gods is far superior to the other.
 
Looks like Justin had not yet read John 1 when he mentioned that. Did he back track on those words later? I don't care if he did or not. Many Theologians have back tracked on their earlier comments like Augustine. Just wondering.

There is no record in his writings, in the writings of his contemporaries, or in the writings of other early Christians which indicate that he changed his mind. What we see with Justin is what we get.

Trinitarianism was unknown to him. “Justin the Trinitarian” never existed.
 
Church history is so important to know. It’s been a struggle for me to get people to read it. They think it’s dry, dusty, boring and has no impact on, or significance to, them. So many times I’ve heard people say “Who cares? That was then, this is now.” They have no idea how Christianity got from where it was in the 1st century to where it is today, and no interest in finding out. I’ll have more to say about that in another post.
Virtually all our critical thinkers are focused on our physical world: economics and sciences. Spiritual critical thinkers are rare. And on top of that history teachers are constrained by the government on what can be taught and how. That's why history teaching is now a disgrace. I would love to become a part time history teacher when I retire but I'm not blind to reality.
 
Virtually all our critical thinkers are focused on our physical world: economics and sciences. Spiritual critical thinkers are rare. And on tip of that history teachers are constrained by the government on what can be taught and how. That's why history teaching is now a disgrace. I would love to become a part time history teacher when I retire but I'm not blind to reality.
Boy ain’t that the truth
 
Back
Top Bottom