Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_Servant]

Well, frankly mak, you could be if you'd broaden your horizons.

I'm joking, Catherine. You know that.

You are remarkably smart and have good retention in terms of facts. I know that you are very locked into Utah and the LDS - but maybe in the future you'll have offers that you can utilize to extend those skills to a wider setting.

I already have.

In case you didn't know it, I'm not the "one liner" so-called apologists you'll find on CARM who thinks picketing Mormon temples is a Christian act. I don't think it is. I don't believe it is "missionary work" to attend Mormon wards and attempt to proselytize Mormons. For those reason, I am often ostracized from the cliché at CARM. Intellectual give and take - dialogue, that's what is important.

You don't ever seem willing to engage any of the dialogue I offer.

I'm quite open to having Mormons having their own beliefs and respecting their right to do so. I didn't see Paul or Silas picketing in the New Testament, nor are we commanded to do so.

Also, I don't believe a Christian has to be down the line with evangelicals or "fundamentalism" to be a Christian - since the Bible's only qualifier is, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved."

And yet you frequently insist that one must believe on the proper conceptualization of Christ's relationship to God. You always expand upon that brief little definition.

I've personally been censored my eschatology. I don't care - Cranmer never was much for the End Times thing.

I'd really like you to at least consider the other side. I don't have any ill-will toward you at all. You are very successful as a young man, and have great potential. My prayer is that you will use those talents in service to Christ.

I do.

No mak, you serve the LDS. I'm talking about Christ. I did add to that post, and here it is again:


Well, frankly mak, you could be if you'd broaden your horizons. You are remarkably smart and have good retention in terms of facts. I know that you are very locked into Utah and the LDS - but maybe in the future you'll have offers that you can utilize to extend those skills to a wider setting.

In case you didn't know it, I'm not the "one liner" so-called apologists you'll find on CARM who thinks picketing Mormon temples is a Christian act. I don't think it is. I don't believe it is "missionary work" to attend Mormon wards and attempt to proselytize Mormons. For those reason, I am often ostracized from the cliché at CARM. Intellectual give and take - dialogue, that's what is important. I'm quite open to having Mormons having their own beliefs and respecting their right to do so. I didn't see Paul or Silas picketing in the New Testament, nor are we commanded to do so.

Also, I don't believe a Christian has to be down the line with evangelicals or "fundamentalism" to be a Christian - since the Bible's only qualifier is, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved." Those evangelicals who say you must understand the mechanics of soteriology are simply wrong. Catholics who believe in the Lord Jesus are just as saved as some Southern Baptist fundie. Also, I've personally been censored regarding my eschatology. I don't care - Cranmer never was much for the End Times thing. So, I'm more liberal than those you might meet on CARM who characterize Catholicism as a cult - and probably think of Anglicans in that way as well.

I'd really like you to at least consider the other side. I don't have any ill-will toward you at all. You are very successful as a young man, and have great potential. My prayer is that you will use those talents in service to Christ. I think you may just do so one

[_grindael]

Tertullian (A.D. 160-220) Next to Augustine perhaps the greatest Western theologian of the patristic period. Tertullian was one of the first major Christian theologians to write in Latin (the language of Western theology) and authored many apologetic, theological and controversial works in defense of Christianity. Tertullian is often credited as being the first important theologian to use the term Trinity, describing God as “one substance in three persons.”

Of course, he described the Son as ontologically subordinate, and insisted there was a time when He did not exist.

No, that is incorrect. The quotes bear this out:

Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead

In the course of time, then, the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered, God Himself, the Lord Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ. We, however, as we indeed always have done (and more especially since we have been better instructed by the Paraclete, who leads men indeed into all truth), believe that there is one only God, but under the following dispensation, or οἰκονομία, as it is called, that this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made. Him we believe to have been sent by the Father into the Virgin, and to have been born of her— being both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God, and to have been called by the name of Jesus Christ; we believe Him to have suffered, died, and been buried, according to the Scriptures, and, after He had been raised again by the Father and taken back to heaven, to be sitting at the right hand of the Father, and that He will come to judge the quick and the dead; who sent also from heaven from the Father, according to His own promise, the Holy Ghost, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the faith of those who believe in the Father, and in the Son, and in the Holy Ghost. 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.(Against Praxeas, Chapter II).

Chapter IX.—The Catholic Rule of Faith Expounded in Some of Its Points. Especially in the Unconfused Distinction of the Several Persons of the Blessed Trinity.

Bear always in mind that this is the rule of faith which I profess; by it I testify that the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit are inseparable from each other, and so will you know in what sense this is said. Now, observe, my assertion is that the Father is one, and the Son one, and the Spirit one, and that They are distinct from Each Other. This statement is taken in a wrong sense by every uneducated as well as every perversely disposed person, as if it predicated a diversity, in such a sense as to imply a separation among the Father, and the Son, and the Spirit. I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. 7861 For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation p. 604 and portion of the whole, 7862 as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” 7863 In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” 7864 Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” 7865 thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy. Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of Father and Son amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? 7866 For, of course, all things will be what their names represent them to be; and what they are and ever will be, that will they be called; and the distinction indicated by the names does not at all admit of any confusion, because there is none in the things which they designate. “Yes is yes, and no is no; for what is more than these, cometh of evil.” 7867

“In his representation of the distinction (of the Persons of the Blessed Trinity), Tertullian sometimes uses expressions which in aftertimes, when controversy had introduced greater precision of language, were studiously avoided by the orthodox. Thus he calls the Father the whole substance, the Son a derivation from or portion of the whole.” (Bp. Kaye, On Tertullian, p. 505). After Arius, the language of theology received greater precision; but as it is, there is no doubt of the orthodoxy of Tertullian’s doctrine, since he so firmly and ably teaches the Son’s consubstantiality with the Father—equal to Him and inseparable from him. [In other words, Tertullian could not employ a technical phraseology afterwards adopted to give precision to the same orthodox ideas.]

And,

He adds also another point: that as God was always God, there was never a time when God was not also Lord. But it was in no way possible for Him to be regarded as always Lord, in the same manner as He had been always God, if there had not been always, in the previous eternity, a something of which He could be regarded as evermore the Lord. So he concludes that God always had Matter co-existent with Himself as the Lord thereof. Now, this tissue of his I shall at once hasten to pull abroad. I have been willing to set it out in form to this length, for the information of those who are unacquainted with the subject, that they may know that his other arguments likewise need only be understood to be refuted. We affirm, then, that the name of God always existed with Himself and in Himself— but not eternally so the Lord. Because the condition of the one is not the same as that of the other. God is the designation of the substance itself, that is, of the Divinity; but Lord is (the name) not of substance, but of power. I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed of something accruing. For from the moment when those things began to exist, over which the power of a Lord was to act, God, by the accession of that power, both became Lord and received the name thereof. 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. In this way He was not Lord previous to those things of which He was to be the Lord. But He was only to become Lord at some future time: just as He became the Father by the Son, and a Judge by sin, so also did He become Lord by means of those things which He had made, in order that they might serve Him. Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments, Hermogenes? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid, when it applies the two titles to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each at its proper time! For (the title) God, indeed, which always belonged to Him, it names at the very first: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. And God said, and God made, and God saw; but nowhere do we yet find the Lord. But when He completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord. Then also the Scripture added the name Lord: And the Lord God, Deus Dominus, took the man, whom He had formed; Genesis 2:15 And the Lord God commanded Adam. Genesis 2:16 Thenceforth He, who was previously God only, is the Lord, from the time of His having something of which He might be the Lord. For to Himself He was always God, but to all things was He only then God, when He became also Lord. Therefore, in as far as (Hermogenes) shall suppose that Matter was eternal, on the ground that the Lord was eternal, in so far will it be evident that nothing existed, because it is plain that the Lord as such did not always exist. Now I mean also, on my own part, to add a remark for the sake of ignorant persons, of whom Hermogenes is an extreme instance, and actually to retort against him his own arguments. For when he denies that Matter was born or made, I find that, even on these terms, the title Lord is unsuitable to God in respect of Matter, because it must have been free, when by not having a beginning it had not an author. The fact of its past existence it owed to no one, so that it could be a subject to no one. Therefore ever since God exercised His power over it, by creating (all things) out of Matter, although it had all along experienced God as its Lord, yet Matter does, after all, demonstrate that God did not exist in the relation of Lord to it, although all the while He was really so.

There is not doubt that Tertullian taught the Trinity Doctrine, and did not believe that Christ at one time didn't exist. The Son "as Lord" didn't always exist, but he did exist as GOD before he was Lord. It makes sense when you actually read and comprehend the quoted material instead of taking it out of context.

[_maklelan]

No, that is incorrect.

'Fraid not. You glossed right over the following:

For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.

So Jesus is a derivation that acknowledges God is greater. As the begotten he is subordinate to the begetter (in your translation, the "thus" at the beginning of the sentence following two quotes about inferiority make it clear this isn't just about separate persons, but about separation in rank). And he is a lower degree within the Trinity than the Father. Elsewhere he is described as an "outflow [emanation] and assignment of the whole [the Father]." Even the New Catholic Encyclopedia acknowledge that Tertullian promoted subordinationism:

In not a few areas of theology, Tertullian’s views are, of course, completely unacceptable. Thus, for example, his teaching on the Trinity reveals a subordination of Son to Father that in the later crass form of Arianism the Church rejected as heretical.

It also says that for Tertullian, "there was a time when there was no Son and no sin, when God was neither Father nor Judge."

Now, you can obviously find conservative scholars who don't want to acknowledge his subordinationism, and so marginalize or reject it through some kind of semantic slight of hand, but that's dogmatism, not an honest reading of his texts. For honest assessments of his theology, you can look in the Cambridge Companion to Christian Doctrine, in J. N. D. Kelly's book, in Routledge's The Early Christian World (vol. 2), and in dozens of other textbooks and academic articles spread across time and space (I had those first three handy and found the references to Tertullian's subordinationism pretty quickly).

[_Mittens]

Maklelan proves his ignorance of the scriptures and Orthodox Christianity

For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm His inferiority is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another; He, too, who sends is one, and He who is sent is another; and He, again, who makes is one, and He through whom the thing is made is another. Happily the Lord Himself employs this expression of the person of the Paraclete, so as to signify not a division or severance, but a disposition (of mutual relations in the Godhead); for He says, “I will pray the Father, and He shall send you another Comforter…even the Spirit of truth,” thus making the Paraclete distinct from Himself, even as we say that the Son is also distinct from the Father; so that He showed a third degree in the Paraclete, as we believe the second degree is in the Son, by reason of the order observed in the Economy.[/

In Hebrews chapter 2 Jesus was made lower than the angels when he became man

Hebrews 2

1Therefore we ought to give the more earnest heed to the things which we have heard, lest at any time we should let them slip. 2For if the word spoken by angels was stedfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just recompense of reward; 3How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; 4God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man."

The scriptures teach Jesus created the angels, and line 33 of the Anthanasion Creed teaches Jesus was inferior to the Father.

so maklelan gets both the scriptures wrong and Orthodox Christianity.

”who although being essentially one with God and in the Form of God {possessing the fullness of the attributes which make GOD GOD} did not think this equality with God was a thing to be grasped or retained.” Philippians 2:6 Amplified version

9 “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” 2 Cor 8:

Orthodox Christianity also teaches a distinction of persons

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.
(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

[_maklelan]

Maklelan proves his ignorance of the scriptures and Orthodox Christianity

No, I didn't highlight the statement you're harping on below.

The scriptures teach Jesus created the angels, and line 33 of the Anthanasion Creed teaches Jesus was inferior to the Father.

The Athanasian Creed (learn to spell) mentions a functional inferiority. Tertullian promotes an ontological inferiority (learn your own theology).

so maklelan gets both the scriptures wrong and Orthodox Christianity.

”who although being essentially one with God and in the Form of God {possessing the fullness of the attributes which make GOD GOD} did not think this equality with God was a thing to be grasped or retained.” Philippians 2:6 Amplified version

Still entirely misrepresenting the Greek word μορφη.

9 “For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that, though he was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be rich.” 2 Cor 8:

Orthodox Christianity also teaches a distinction of persons

Yeah, we know.

[_Mittens]

Maklelan seems to think saying Tertullian believes or says this makes it correct without a quote of link. Did tertillian write any scripture we use ?

I said line 33 says Jesus was in inferior when Jesus forsook equality and wealth to become man. The Book of Mormon even agrees since it was written by Creedal Professor

that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and man; God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man of the substance of his mother, born in the world; perfect God and perfect man, of a rational soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching His godhead; and inferior to the Father, as touching His manhood;

[_maklelan]

Maklelan seems to think saying Tertullian believes or says this makes it correct without a quote of link. Did tertillian write any scripture we use ?

No, I think no such thing. The entire point was to show that the Trinity was a slow and long development, and that even the early champions of the Trinity promoted a view that would later be condemned as a heresy.

I said line 33 says Jesus was in inferior when Jesus forsook equality and wealth to become man. The Book of Mormon even agrees since it was written by Creedal Professor

Absolutely irrelevant.

[_grindael]

Yeah, we know. The only "honest" scholars are the ones who agree with your worldview Daniel. Sorry, but that doesn't cut it. Everyone who doesn't agree with you is "dishonest". Only you can read everyone's intent. God Daniel. How nice it must be. I was not wrong in calling you out as incorrect on the Son never existing at one point. That is not what Tertullian was teaching at all. There is nuance to what he taught, which seems to be beyond your comprehension.

And I didn't "gloss over" anything. I provided the full quotes, emphasizing that Tertullian believed in only ONE GOD, who was a TRINITY. What you ignored was Tertulllian's whole point here, the title "Lord".

The subordination of the Son, was when Jesus was in the flesh. That is when he said the Father is greater than I. He did the will of the Father while on earth. That Tertullian did not get every point correct is hardly a refutation of the Trinity or a confirmation of Mormon theology.

It doesn't change the fact that Jesus was a part of the Trinity, of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father, which was always what was taught by Orthodoxy. If you are right, then Tertullian contradicts himself.

The Son, as Tertullian states, is only different by distinction, because they are not the same, they are different personages (in the mode of their being) within the Godhead. The SUBSTANCE existed ALWAYS with its own name, which is GOD. Jesus was GOD, states Tertullian, until all of creation was made by him and then the Son was given his distinction as "Lord".

The fact is, Tertullian was answering Heretics to the best of his ability to do so. You are straining at gnats here. The Trinity is ONE GOD of three persons. That is what Tertullian taught. This is what all of the great ECF's taught, who stated this doctrine was handed down from the beginning. There was a time when SIN did not exist and the Son AS LORD over creation and SIN but that doesn't mean that the Son didn't exist as part of God The Father. (This also throws out Smith's later heresy of three separate gods).

Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments, Daniel? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid, when it applies THE TWO TITLES to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each AT ITS PROPER TIME!

For (the title) GOD, indeed, WHICH ALWAYS BELONGED TO HIM, IT NAMES HIM AT THE VERY FIRST: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. And God said, and God made, and God saw; but nowhere do we yet find the Lord.

But when He (Jesus as GOD) completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord.

Who created the Heavens and the earth? According to Tertullian, LORD Jesus. (this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, [GOD who was ALWAYS the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit] by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.) So the title GOD, ALWAYS BELONGED TO HIM. How could it, if he didn't exist AS GOD before he was LORD?

Thenceforth HE, WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY GOD ONLY, IS THE LORD [OR THE SON], FROM THE TIME of His having something of which He might be the Lord. ... How they are susceptible of number WITHOUT DIVISION, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

This is an HONEST reading of the text. Some may disagree, but I have no problem with that, it doesn't change the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Bible and by Orthodoxy at all in it's basic form. As Edgar Foster points out here, http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... ology.html there is disagreement on this, but this does not destroy the doctrine of the Trinity, nor support the argument made by Mormons that it was generated out of the Council of Nicaea.

"He [Tertullian] has not avoided a subordination not only in the order of revelation to mankind but in essential being. Even if we set aside his purely metaphorical illustrations, we find it clearly stated that the Father is the originating principle of the Son and the Spirit, and therefore holds in relation to them a certain superiority: 'The Father is wholly essential being (SUBSTANTIA): the Son is derived from the Whole as part thereof (PORTIO TOTIUS): the Father is greater than the Son, as One who begets, who sends, who acts, is greater than the One is begotten, who is sent, through whom He acts," (Leaders of Early Christian Thought, London: The Lindsey Press, 1954, Page 178).

The salient point that I wish to extract from Mellone's writing is the one that he makes about Tertullian subordinating the Son "in essential being" and not simply in the order of divine revelation. In Adversus Praxean 12 and Adversus Praxean 3, Tertullian suggests that the Father is superior to the Son in essential being, not just in the order of Heilsgeschichte.

Sydney H. Mellone (M.A., D.Sc.) was external examiner in Philosophy at the University of London.

[_maklelan]

Yeah, we know. The only "honest" scholars are the ones who agree with your worldview Daniel.

Not true at all. I disagree with many honest scholars.

Sorry, but that doesn't cut it.

It's also not true. Watch as you abandon this line of argumentation now that keeping it up would require evidence you can't find or provide.

Everyone who doesn't agree with you is "dishonest".

Absolutely false. I disagree every single day with scholars who are very honest and very well educated.

Only you can read everyone's intent. God Daniel. How nice it must be. I was not wrong in calling you out as incorrect on the Son never existing at one point. That is not what Tertullian was teaching at all.

I'm afraid that doesn't work outside of conservative devotional scholarship already entirely invested in the Trinity.

There is nuance to what he taught, which seems to be beyond your comprehension.

Right. Show me that nuance.

And I didn't "gloss over" anything. I provided the full quotes, emphasizing that Tertullian believed in only ONE GOD, who was a TRINITY.

And I didn't challenge that.

What you ignored was Tertulllian's whole point here, the title "Lord".

Utterly irrelevant.

The subordination of the Son, was when Jesus was in the flesh.

Absolutely not. Tertullian explicitly refers to his inferiority as an emanation from God. That has nothing to do with the incarnation. Only one of the references was to his subordination in the flesh.

That is when he said the Father is greater than I. He did the will of the Father while on earth. That Tertullian did not get every point correct is hardly a refutation of the Trinity or a confirmation of Mormon theology.

Oh, so now he got things wrong?

It doesn't change the fact that Jesus was a part of the Trinity, of ONE SUBSTANCE with the Father, which was always what was taught by Orthodoxy. If you are right, then Tertullian contradicts himself.

No, you're reductive, naïve, and presuppositional hermeneutic just can't grasp the concept.

The Son, as Tertullian states, is only different by distinction, because they are not the same, they are different personages (in the mode of their being) within the Godhead. The SUBSTANCE existed ALWAYS with its own name, which is GOD. Jesus was GOD, states Tertullian, until all of creation was made by him and then the Son was given his distinction as "Lord".

The fact is, Tertullian was answering Heretics to the best of his ability to do so. You are straining at gnats here. The Trinity is ONE GOD of three persons. That is what Tertullian taught. This is what all of the great ECF's taught, who stated this doctrine was handed down from the beginning. There was a time when SIN did not exist and the Son AS LORD over creation and SIN but that doesn't mean that the Son didn't exist as part of God The Father. (This also throws out Smith's later heresy of three separate gods).

Do I seem to you to be weaving arguments, Daniel? How neatly does Scripture lend us its aid, when it applies THE TWO TITLES to Him with a distinction, and reveals them each AT ITS PROPER TIME!

For (the title) GOD, indeed, WHICH ALWAYS BELONGED TO HIM, IT NAMES HIM AT THE VERY FIRST: In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth; Genesis 1:1 and as long as He continued making, one after the other, those things of which He was to be the Lord, it merely mentions God. And God said, and God made, and God saw; but nowhere do we yet find the Lord.

But when He (Jesus as GOD) completed the whole creation, and especially man himself, who was destined to understand His sovereignty in a way of special propriety, He then is designated Lord.

Who created the Heavens and the earth? According to Tertullian, LORD Jesus. (this one only God has also a Son, His Word, who proceeded from Himself, [GOD who was ALWAYS the Father and Jesus and the Holy Spirit] by whom all things were made, and without whom nothing was made.) So the title GOD, ALWAYS BELONGED TO HIM. How could it, if he didn't exist AS GOD before he was LORD?

Thenceforth HE, WHO WAS PREVIOUSLY GOD ONLY, IS THE LORD [OR THE SON], FROM THE TIME of His having something of which He might be the Lord. ... How they are susceptible of number WITHOUT DIVISION, will be shown as our treatise proceeds.

This is an HONEST reading of the text. Some may disagree, but I have no problem with that, it doesn't change the doctrine of the Trinity as taught in the Bible and by Orthodoxy at all in it's basic form. As Edgar Foster points out here, http://fosterheologicalreflections.blog ... ology.html there is disagreement on this, but this does not destroy the doctrine of the Trinity, nor support the argument made by Mormons that it was generated out of the Council of Nicaea.

You're missing the point entirely. I am well aware that you can rationalize away problems with the development of the Trinity. What you don't appear willing or able to acknowledge is that showing you can convince yourself of this is not helpful in this context. You've got to be able to show your dogmatism makes sense to someone not already entirely committed to it, and in that you fail before you even get started.

"He [Tertullian] has not avoided a subordination not only in the order of revelation to mankind but in essential being. Even if we set aside his purely metaphorical illustrations, we find it clearly stated that the Father is the originating principle of the Son and the Spirit, and therefore holds in relation to them a certain superiority: 'The Father is wholly essential being (SUBSTANTIA): the Son is derived from the Whole as part thereof (PORTIO TOTIUS): the Father is greater than the Son, as One who begets, who sends, who acts, is greater than the One is begotten, who is sent, through whom He acts," (Leaders of Early Christian Thought, London: The Lindsey Press, 1954, Page 178).

The salient point that I wish to extract from Mellone's writing is the one that he makes about Tertullian subordinating the Son "in essential being" and not simply in the order of divine revelation. In Adversus Praxean 12 and Adversus Praxean 3, Tertullian suggests that the Father is superior to the Son in essential being, not just in the order of Heilsgeschichte.

Sydney H. Mellone (M.A., D.Sc.) was external examiner in Philosophy at the University of London.

And?

[_Mittens]

Maklelan seems to think saying Tertullian believes or says this makes it correct without a quote of link. Did tertillian write any scripture we use ?

No, I think no such thing. The entire point was to show that the Trinity was a slow and long development, and that even the early champions of the Trinity promoted a view that would later be condemned as a heresy.

I said line 33 says Jesus was in inferior when Jesus forsook equality and wealth to become man. The Book of Mormon even agrees since it was written by Creedal Professor

Absolutely irrelevant.

I can't believe Maklelan thinks he's is qualified to speak about the Bible when he's so clueless


There is plenty of Christian writers teaching the Trinity in first century like Didache and Clement of Rome { A.D. 75 } and Hermas { A.D. 78-85 } teaching the Trinity. 2nd century Ignatius { A.D. 110-120 } Justin Martr { A.D. 114-168 } Irenaeus [ A.D. 115-190 } a disciple of Polycarp. Theophilus { A.D. 116-181 } said” In like manner also the three days which were luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and his Word, and his wisdom.” In the third century came Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and Novatian, teaching the Trinity also.