The Ante-Nicene Church Fathers; Were They Right?

[Ratiocination]

Welcome all,
In my research of the early church I have found that the early Fathers were essentially subordinists, that is, Christ was a lesser person than the Father, which means that they couldn't be Trinitarian doesn't it?
For example;

Cyprian
"That Christ is the First-born, and that He is the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made, In Solomon in the Proverbs: "The Lord established me in the beginning of His ways, into His works: before the world He founded me ... the Lord begot me" ... Also Paul to the Colossians: ''Who is the first-born of every creature" ... That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians ... Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."-Cyprian, (200-280 C.E.); The Treatises Of Cyprian, Second Book, First Testimony; ANF, Vol. V (5), pp. 515, 6.

Clement of Alexandria.

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between “first-created” and “first-born” or “first-begotten,” but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering of a passage in Proverbs before him could have had no misgiving as to the use of these terms.” Clement of Alexandria, by John Patrick (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1914), p.103,104, note 6.

Wisdom, which was the first creation of God.”–Clement of Alexandria, (153-193-217 C.E.); The Stromata (or, Miscellanies), Book V, chapter xiv (14).

"We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to uncreated but the Father." (bold italics added)—Commentary on John, Book 2, chapter 6; ANF, Vol. X (10), p. 328.
The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 2nd Edition, Revised:

Do we therefore conclude that the early Christian organisation was Anti-Trinity?

 

[AMMON]

Yes.

 

[True Believer]

Absolutely!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Agape', TB

 

[gort]

I see we are trying to understand God and His Son by human standards again.



<><

 

[Spear Man]

Actually if you read your posts again, you will see that neither Clement not Cyprian ever denies the divinity of Christ. As a matter of fact, nowhere will you find the Church Fathers denying that Christ is God Incarnate, due to the simple fact that He is God and this has always been the constant teaching of the Church. If this was not, it seems that you would have volume after volume of writings from the Fathers refuting this belief, but on the contrary, you have Father after Father refuting the heresies that deny the divinity of Christ.

 

[Starcrystal]

"Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

~ Philippians 2:5 - 11

EVERYTHING shall bow to JESUS, even everything in heaven.

"Equal with God." it says. Jesus only humbled himself and became human to fulfill the mission of redemption.
He is not subordinate to the Father, and he is highly exalted above everything.

I beleive Jesus in his incarnation (human form) was TEMPORARILY limited by the physical 3 dimensional world. He could not be omnipresent for one thing, though he had access to omniescence because he was still one with the Father & Holy Spirit. This did not limit his deity at all.

It was only during his 33 years of incarnation that things like "My Father is greater than I" "No one knows the day nor hour but the Father" "Father, let this cup pass from me," and "Eloi eloi lama sabacthani" were uttered. This was his humanity. In his resurrected and exalted state (which is eternal) he has all the power he had prior to his incarnation. The Jesus of the book of Revelation is unveiled as King. The Jesus of the gospels is a servant who died on a cross for our sins.

The is the mystery of being fully God yet fully man. God in spirit was still everywhere, as well as in Jesus. But Jesus the MAN perceived the same physical limitations we all do. Sure, he could access the power of his deity to perform miracles, walk on water, raise the dead, etc, but he still had a body, two hands & feet. He walked places. He humbled himself and became man to dwell among us, yet he remained fully God. After his resurrection the full power of God manifested, for he was free from the chains of the physical realm which he as God made a conscious choice to enter temporarily.

 

[Rick of Wessex]

I'll let the Ante-Nicene Fathers answer for themselves:

Ignatius of Antioch
"Ignatius, also called Theophorus, to the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . predestined from eternity for a glory that is lasting and unchanging, united and chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).

"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God&#8217;s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

"[T]o the Church beloved and enlightened after the love of Jesus Christ, our God, by the will of him that has willed everything which is" (Letter to the Romans 1 [A.D. 110]).


Aristides of Athens
"[Christians] are they who, above every people of the earth, have found the truth, for they acknowledge God, the Creator and maker of all things, in the only-begotten Son and in the Holy Spirit" (Apology 16 [A.D. 140]).


Melito of Sardis
"It is no way necessary in dealing with persons of intelligence to adduce the actions of Christ after his baptism as proof that his soul and his body, his human nature, were like ours, real and not phantasmal. The activities of Christ after his baptism, and especially his miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the deity hidden in his flesh. Being God and likewise perfect man, he gave positive indications of his two natures: of his deity, by the miracles during the three years following after his baptism, of his humanity, in the thirty years which came before his baptism, during which, by reason of his condition according to the flesh, he concealed the signs of his deity, although he was the true God existing before the ages" (Fragment in Anastasius of Sinai&#8217;s The Guide 13 [A.D. 177]).


Irenaeus of Lyon
"For the Church, although dispersed throughout the whole world even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and from their disciples the faith in one God, Father Almighty, the creator of heaven and earth and sea and all that is in them; and in one Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who became flesh for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who announced through the prophets the dispensations and the comings, and the birth from a Virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the bodily ascension into heaven of the beloved Christ Jesus our Lord, and his coming from heaven in the glory of the Father to reestablish all things; and the raising up again of all flesh of all humanity, in order that to Jesus Christ our Lord and God and Savior and King, in accord with the approval of the invisible Father, every knee shall bend of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth . . . " (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

"Nevertheless, what cannot be said of anyone else who ever lived, that he is himself in his own right God and Lord . . . may be seen by all who have attained to even a small portion of the truth" (ibid., 3:19:1).


Clement of Alexandria
"The Word, then, the Christ, is the cause both of our ancient beginning&#8212;for he was in God&#8212;and of our well-being. And now this same Word has appeared as man. He alone is both God and man, and the source of all our good things" (Exhortation to the Greeks 1:7:1 [A.D. 190]).

"Despised as to appearance but in reality adored, [Jesus is] the expiator, the Savior, the soother, the divine Word, he that is quite evidently true God, he that is put on a level with the Lord of the universe because he was his Son" (ibid., 10:110:1).


Hippolytus of Rome
"Only [God&#8217;s] Word is from himself and is therefore also God, becoming the substance of God" (Refutation of All Heresies 10:33 [A.D. 228]).

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new" (ibid., 10:34).


Novatian
"If Christ was only man, why did he lay down for us such a rule of believing as that in which he said, &#8216;And this is life eternal, that they should know you, the only and true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent?&#8217; [John 17:3]. Had he not wished that he also should be understood to be God, why did he add, &#8216;And Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent,&#8217; except because he wished to be received as God also? Because if he had not wished to be understood to be God, he would have added, &#8216;And the man Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent;&#8217; but, in fact, he neither added this, nor did Christ deliver himself to us as man only, but associated himself with God, as he wished to be understood by this conjunction to be God also, as he is. We must therefore believe, according to the rule prescribed, on the Lord, the one true God, and consequently on him whom he has sent, Jesus Christ, who by no means, as we have said, would have linked himself to the Father had he not wished to be understood to be God also. For he would have separated himself from him had he not wished to be understood to be God" (Treatise on the Trinity 16 [A.D. 235]).

Origen
"Although he was God, he took flesh; and having been made man, he remained what he was: God" (The Fundamental Doctrines 1:0:4 [A.D. 225]).


Cyprian of Carthage"One who denies that Christ is God cannot become his temple [of the Holy Spirit] . . . " (Letters 73:12 [A.D. 253]).


Gregory the Wonderworker
"There is one God, the Father of the living Word, who is his subsistent wisdom and power and eternal image: perfect begetter of the perfect begotten, Father of the only-begotten Son. There is one Lord, only of the only, God of God, image and likeness of deity, efficient Word, wisdom comprehensive of the constitution of all things, and power formative of the whole creation, true Son of true Father, invisible of invisible, and incorruptible of incorruptible, and immortal of immortal and eternal of eternal. . . . And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides ever" (Declaration of Faith [A.D. 265]).

Hope this helps.

Rick

 

[Ratiocination]

Hello people,
My point is that practically all the anti-nicene fathers say that christ was a created being in some way or another, proving the point that the theology of him being eternal into the enending past came at a much later date. So with that in mind when they reffer to christ as God they were obviously never puting him on the same par as ALMIGHTY God but were, as you say, pointing out that he was a divine being. Also noteworthy to point out that JW's don't deny the divinity of Christ, we just have a very different understanding of that phrase then most, which shows that these early church fathers had that exact same intention when saying christ was subordinate to his father and reffering to his divinity at the same time.
BTW, you cannot be subordinist and Trinitarian at the same time which therefore proves that the Trinity doctrine was never in the minds of these early church fathers but came with violence and death at a much latter date.

Love,

 

[Spear Man]

Hello people,
My point is that practically all the anti-nicene fathers say that christ was a created being in some way or another, proving the point that the theology of him being eternal into the enending past came at a much later date.

This is because Christ was truly man and truly God. God took human form in the person of Jesus Christ. Scripture is very clear that there is only one God. Read the quotes that Rick posted. There is no mistaking their clear teaching that Jesus Christ is God.

 

[Ratiocination]

This is because Christ was truly man and truly God. God took human form in the person of Jesus Christ. Scripture is very clear that there is only one God. Read the quotes that Rick posted. There is no mistaking their clear teaching that Jesus Christ is God.

No one is denying the divinty of Christ, but what did they mean when they called him God? It can't be that they thought he was almighty God because the overwhelming majority of them said that he was created by someone.




Hippolytus
"The first and only (one God), both Creator and Lord of all had nothing coeval [co-time or, coeternal] with Himself ...But He was One, alone in Himself. By and exercise of His will He created things that are not, which antecedently had no existence ... Therefore this solitary and supreme Deity , by an exercise of reflection, brought forth the Logos first ... He is this Progeneitor's first-born". (bold italics added)-Hippolytus, (170-236 C.E.); The Refutation Of All Heresies, Book X (10), chapter XXVIII (28); ANF, Vol. V, p. 6l7.
Turtullian
"For He could not have been 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; [Latin, "et filius non fuit", "and (the) son not was"; …the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father [when the Son was created, then, God became a Father]... Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Son of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God [here "God" refers to the Father, Jehovah, the Son is called Wisdom, and God is a being apart from Wisdom, God and Wisdom are two distinct entities] alone who is unbegotten and uncreated." (bold italics added)-Tertullian, (160(?)-230(?) C.E.; Against Hermogenes, chapter III; ANF, Vol. III, p. 487.
“The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in his own person under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget Me…while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.”- Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter vii, ANF, Vol. iii, p. 602.
Origen
"And therefore we have first to ascertain what the only-begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. For He is termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: "The Lord created me—the beginning of His ways and among His works, before He made any other thing; He founded me before the ages. In the beginning, before He formed the earth ... before all the hills, He brought me forth ... He is styled First-born, as the apostle declared "who is the first-born of every creature." [Colossians 1:15] The first-born however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom but one and the same ... the Apostle Paul says that "Christ (is) the power of God and the wisdom of God. [1 Corinthians 1:24]" (bold italics added)—Origen, De Principiis, Book I, chapter II, § 1; ANF, Vol. IV (4), page 246.
Novatian
"Thus God the Father, the Founder and Creator of all things, who only knows no beginning, invisible, infinite, immortal, eternal, is one God ... when He willed it, the Son, the Word, was born ... He then, since He was begotten of the Father, is always in the Father. And I thus say always, that I may show Him not to be unborn, but born. ... it is essential that He who knows no beginning must go before Him who has a beginning; even as He is the less as knowing that He is in Him, having an origin because He is born, and of like nature with the Father in some measure by His nativity, although He has a beginning. ... And reasonably, He is before all things, but after the Father, since all things were made by Him, and He proceeded from Him of whose will all things were made. ... But now, whatever He is, He is not that of Himself, because He is not unborn; but He is of the Father, because He is begotten, whether as being the Word, whether as being the Power, or as being the Wisdom, or as being the Light, or as being the Son; and whatever of these He is, in that He is not from any other source, as we have already said before, than from the Father, owing His origin to His Father ... He gathered His beginning by being born of Him who is one God. ... He shows the one God the Father by His obedience, from whom also He drew His beginning." -Novatian, (210-280 C.E.) Treatise Concerning The Trinity, chapter XXXI (31); ANF, Vol. V (5), pp. 643, 644.



Subordanists or Trintarians?

See also Colosians 1:15, Revelation 3:14.

Love…

 

[Starcrystal]

Jesus INCARNATE, in human form born of Mary was "created" ~ or rather, conceived. But Jesus in His fulness always was. He is the Word made flesh. John 1: "In the BEGINNING the was the Word, and the word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word became FLESH (Here's the incarnation) and dwelt among us."
In Revelation 19 we see that when Jesus comes with the armies of heaven, it says, "His name is called the Word of God."
In Hebrews 7:1 - 3 Jesus is compared to Melchizedek, of whom it says was "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made LIKE UNTO THE SON OF GOD, abideth a priest continuously." (vs. 3)

 

[Spear Man]

Ratiocination:

The quote you cited from Hippolytus was missing some very important parts to get the context of what he was saying. Here is the more of the quote and I think you will see what I mean.

"The one God, the first and only, both Creator and Lord of all things, had nothing coeval with Himself, neither infinite chaos, nor immeasurable water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, nor hot fire, nor gentle breeze, nor azure roof of the great heavens. No, He was one, to Himself alone; and when He so willed, He created those things which before had no existence other than in his willing to make them and inasmuch as He had knowledge of what would be: for he also had foreknowledge. He first created, however, the diverse elements of the things which would come into existence, fire and air, water and earth..."[10,32]

"Therefore this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word-not a word in speech, but as a mental word, the Reason for everything. Him only did He produce from what existed; the Father Himself was Being, from which He produced Him."[10,33]

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new..."[10,34]

You see that God the Father "produced" the Word "Jesus" from what already existed (God). This amounts to God=Jesus and Jesus=God. God became Fleash in Jesus Christ. Notice also that he states: "For Christ is the God over all..." What is equally important is what he does not say "for Christ was a God," which apparently would fit your line of theology. There is oneGod. This is consisitent with Scripture and the constant teaching of the 2000 year old Christian Church. Come on board brother!

 

[Ratiocination]

Ratiocination:

The quote you cited from Hippolytus was missing some very important parts to get the context of what he was saying. Here is the more of the quote and I think you will see what I mean.

"The one God, the first and only, both Creator and Lord of all things, had nothing coeval with Himself, neither infinite chaos, nor immeasurable water, nor solid earth, nor dense air, nor hot fire, nor gentle breeze, nor azure roof of the great heavens. No, He was one, to Himself alone; and when He so willed, He created those things which before had no existence other than in his willing to make them and inasmuch as He had knowledge of what would be: for he also had foreknowledge. He first created, however, the diverse elements of the things which would come into existence, fire and air, water and earth..."[10,32]

"Therefore this sole and universal God, by reflecting, first brought forth the Word-not a word in speech, but as a mental word, the Reason for everything. Him only did He produce from what existed; the Father Himself was Being, from which He produced Him."[10,33]

"For Christ is the God over all, who has arranged to wash away sin from mankind, rendering the old man new..."[10,34]

You see that God the Father "produced" the Word "Jesus" from what already existed (God). This amounts to God=Jesus and Jesus=God. God became Fleash in Jesus Christ. Notice also that he states: "For Christ is the God over all..." What is equally important is what he does not say "for Christ was a God," which apparently would fit your line of theology. There is oneGod. This is consisitent with Scripture and the constant teaching of the 2000 year old Christian Church. Come on board brother!

I'm confused, are you saying that Christ was created or he is eternal? Also notice in the early church that GOD (jehovah) is always called the one God, and Jesus is simply called God, again I'm asking exactly what did they have in mind when they reffered to him (christ) in this way if they all say he's a created thing. If he's the first created thing that would surley make him divine beyond compare, but not on a par with the person that made him!
Love...

 

[Ratiocination]

Hi StarCrystal, long time no type.



Ok, Melchizedek was a real human, as real as Abraham. (Genesis 14:17-20; Hebrews 7:4-10) With this in mind Melchizedek must have literally had parents, a father and a mother, and he might have had offspring. Therefore as a human he had a genealogy, although not known to the writer Paul.

So referring to Melchizedek as a type, or pattern, of Jesus in this priestly role, Paul said: “Jesus . . . has become a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.” (Hebrews 6:20)

Paul must have realized that the Bible record does not give details about Melchizedek’s family lineage—his ancestors or any possible descendants, there is simply no information there. From the standpoint of what Paul knew or we know, therefore, Melchizedek could correctly be said to be “without genealogy”

Of course we know that Jesus’ Father was Jehovah God and that his human mother was Mary. Still, there was a similarity between Melchizedek and Jesus because remember Jesus was not born in the tribe of Levi, the tribe for priests in the nation of Israel which meant Jesus had not become a priest through human genealogy and neither had Melchizedek, Likewise rather than becoming a priest through a human father who had himself been a priest, Jesus had “been specifically called by God a high priest according to the manner of Melchizedek.”—Hebrews 5:10.

Therefore in this sense too Jesus did not have any descendants or successors to his priesthood. he was without genealogy. So the verse fits well with what I’m saying.

Love…

 

[Wisdom's Child]

I think that Ignatius sums up the whole issue quite well...

Ante-Nicene Fathers
Ignatius
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Philadelphians
Chapter 6

If any one preaches the one God of the Law and the prophets, but denies Christ to be the Son of God, he is a liar, even as also is his father the devil, and is a Jew falsely so called, being possessed of mere carnal circumcision.

If any one confesses Christ Jesus the Lord, but denies the God of the law and of the prophets, saying that the Father of Christ is not the Maker of heaven and earth, he has not continued in the truth any more than his father the devil, and is a disciple of Simon Magus, not of the Holy Spirit.

If any one says there is one God, and also confesses Christ Jesus, but thinks the Lord to be a mere man, and not the only-begotten God, and Wisdom, and the Word of God, and deems Him to consist merely of a soul and body, such an one is a serpent, that preaches deceit and error for the destruction of men, And such a man is poor in understanding, even as by name he is an Ebionite.

If any one confesses the truths mentioned, but calls lawful wedlock, and the procreation of children, destruction and pollution, or deems certain kinds of food abominable, such an one has the apostate dragon dwelling within him.

If any one confesses the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost, and praises the creation, but calls the incarnation merely an appearance, and is ashamed of the passion, such an one has denied the faith, not less than the Jews who killed Christ.

If any one confesses these things, and that God the Word did dwell in a human body, being within it as the Word, even as the soul also is in the body, because it was God that inhabited it, and not a human soul, but affirms that unlawful unions are a good thing, and places the highest happiness in pleasure, as does the man who is falsely called a Nicolaitan, this person can neither be a lover of God, nor a lover of Christ, but is a corrupter of his own flesh, and therefore void of the Holy Spirit, and a stranger to Christ.

All such persons are but monuments and sepulchers of the dead, upon which are written only the names of dead men. Flee, therefore, the wicked devices and snares of the spirit which now worketh in the children of this world, lest at any time being overcome, ye grow weak in your love.

But be ye all joined together with an undivided heart and a willing mind, "being of one accord and of one judgment," being always of the same opinion about the same things, both when you are at ease and in danger, both in sorrow and in joy. I thank God, through Jesus Christ, that I have a good conscience in respect to you, and that no one has it in his power to boast, either privately or publicly, that I have burdened any one either in much or in little. And I wish for all among whom I have spoken, that they may not possess that for a testimony against them.

 

[wrp]

No one is denying the divinty of Christ, but what did they mean when they called him God? It can't be that they thought he was almighty God because the overwhelming majority of them said that he was created by someone.

This is a non-sequitur, and we can only get here by ignoring much of what they say.

Tertullian
"For He could not have been 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; [Latin, "et filius non fuit", "and (the) son not was"; …the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father [when the Son was created, then, God became a Father]... Let Hermogenes then confess that the very Son of God is declared to be born and created, for the especial reason that we should not suppose that there is any other being than God [here "God" refers to the Father, Jehovah, the Son is called Wisdom, and God is a being apart from Wisdom, God and Wisdom are two distinct entities] alone who is unbegotten and uncreated." (bold italics added)-Tertullian, (160(?)-230(?) C.E.; Against Hermogenes, chapter III; ANF, Vol. III, p. 487.

This passage should not be understood to discuss the Trinity, but rather the titulature of the persons of the Trinity. It is invariably cited by heretics, precisely because it is a stray remark in a book about something else -- whether matter was God or not. Instead, why not look at Tertullian's work on the Trinity -- indeed he coined the term 'trinitas' -- Adversus Praxean.

“The Son likewise acknowledges the Father, speaking in his own person under the name of Wisdom: “The Lord formed Me as the beginning of His ways, with a view to His own works; before all the hills, did He beget Me…while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.”- Tertullian, Against Praxeas, chapter vii, ANF, Vol. iii, p. 602.

Since Tertullian considers the Son as the reason of God, if this were all we would have to believe that there was a time when God was irrational! But read some more of Tertullian, from the same work:

"We however as always, the more so now as
better equipped through the Paraclete, that leader into all truth,3
believe (as these do) in one only God, yet subject to this dispensation
(which is our word for "economy") that the one only God
has also a Son, his Word who has proceeded from himself, by
whom all things were made; and without whom nothing has been
made : 4 that this <Son> was sent by the Father into the virgin
and was born of her both man and God, Son of man and Son of
God, and was named Jesus Christ: that he suffered, died, and
was buried, according to the scriptures,5 and, having been raised
up by the Father and taken back into heaven, sits at the right
hand of the Father 6 and will come to judge the quick and the
dead 7 : and that thereafter he, according to his promise,8 sent
from the Father the Holy Spirit the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the
faith of those who believe in the Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit. That this Rule has come down from the beginning
of the Gospel, even before all former heretics, not to speak of
Praxeas of yesterday, will be proved as well by the comparative
lateness of all heretics as by the very novelty of Praxeas of
yesterday. [...]
For
before all things God was alone, himself his own world and
location and everything - alone however because there was
nothing external beside him. Yet not even then was he alone :
for he had with him that Reason which he had in himself - his
own, of course. For God is rational, and reason is primarily in
him and thus from him are all things: and that Reason is his
consciousness. This the Greeks call Logos, by which expression
we also designate discourse: and consequently our people are
already wont, through the artlessness of the translation, to say
that Discourse was in the beginning with God,2 though it would be
more appropriate to consider Reason of older standing, seeing
that God is [not] discursive from the beginning but is rational even
before the beginning, and because discourse itself, having its
ground in reason, shows reason to be prior as being its substance.
Yet even so it makes no difference. For although God had not
yet uttered his Discourse, he always had it within himself along
with and in his Reason, while he silently thought out and ordained
with himself the things which he was shortly to say by the agency
of Discourse: for while thinking out and ordaining them in
company of his Reason, he converted into Discourse that <Reason>
which he was discussing in discourse. [etc]

Evans' translation of Adversus Praxean can be found at the Tertullian Project, and I commend reading it from the top. Tertullian is concerned to indicate the distinction of Father and Son against Monarchians, but even so he says enough to indicate the divinity of the Son.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

 

[Ratiocination]

Hello everyone,
Roger, this is exactly my point, the subordination of christ is also mentioned in the writings of turtullian which therefore proves him not to be Trinitarian but a subordanist? My point was when Christ is reffered to in this way, then what are they implying? it simply can't be that they think Christ is Almighty God because they say he is created. Which means for you to say they are talking of the Trinity is writing back a much later theology into their writings is it not?
Trinitarian or subordanist?
Love...

 

[Carvacho1]

Quick question: Reguarding the verse in St. John 17:16 " Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." If this is not his doctrine and if it is from the one that sent him.... shouldn't he be subordinate to some one that SENT him.


Also in John 20:17 " Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God and your God"

If Jesus isn't subordinate to anybody then why does he say HE even has a God.

Just curious on what you believe these scriptures mean.

 

[Der Alte]

Welcome all,
In my research of the early church I have found that the early Fathers were essentially subordinists, that is, Christ was a lesser person than the Father, which means that they couldn't be Trinitarian doesn't it?

Cyprian

"That Christ is the First-born, and that He is the Wisdom of God, by whom all things were made, In Solomon in the Proverbs: "The Lord established me in the beginning of His ways, into His works: before the world He founded me ... the Lord begot me" ... Also Paul to the Colossians: ''Who is the first-born of every creature" ... That He also is both the wisdom and the power of God, Paul proves in his first Epistle to the Corinthians ... Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God."-Cyprian, (200-280 C.E.); The Treatises Of Cyprian, Second Book, First Testimony; ANF, Vol. V (5), pp. 515, 6.

Clement of Alexandria.

"Clement repeatedly identifies the Word with the Wisdom of God, and yet refers to Wisdom as the first-created of God; while in one passage he attaches the epithet "First-created," and in another "First-begotten," to the Word. But this seems to be rather a question of language than a question of doctrine. At a later date a sharp distinction was drawn between &#8220;first-created&#8221; and &#8220;first-born&#8221; or &#8220;first-begotten,&#8221; but no such distinction was drawn in the time of Clement, who with the Septuagint rendering of a passage in Proverbs before him could have had no misgiving as to the use of these terms.&#8221; Clement of Alexandria, by John Patrick (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1914), p.103,104, note 6.

Wisdom, which was the first creation of God.&#8221;&#8211;Clement of Alexandria, (153-193-217 C.E.); The Stromata (or, Miscellanies), Book V, chapter xiv (14).

"We consider, therefore, that there are three hypostases, the Father and the Son and Holy Spirit; and at the same time we believe nothing to uncreated but the Father." (bold italics added)&#8212;Commentary on John, Book 2, chapter 6; ANF, Vol. X (10), p. 328.

The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Volume 1 Faith, Trinity, Incarnation, by Harry Austryn Wolfson, 2nd Edition, Revised:

Do we therefore conclude that the early Christian organisation was Anti-Trinity.

What "research" have you done other than cut and paste a few quotes from an anti-Trinitarian website? I know you don't have John Patrick's book published in 1914. And I am pretty sure you ahve never seen "Philosophy of the Church Fathers", which is probably about 100 years old. You are making the same mistake that every other anti-Trinitarian makes, you uncritically accept anything someone writes that supports your presuppositions as true. Go read some of my quotes from the ECF in the "Scriptures changed to support the Trinity" thread and follow the links for the entire quote in context. Here is a link to the early church fathers go find the articles quoted above and see if it really says what your source claims it does.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

 

[Ratiocination]

What "research" have you done other than cut and paste a few quotes from an anti-Trinitarian website? I know you don't have John Patrick's book published in 1914. And I am pretty sure you ahve never seen "Philosophy of the Church Fathers", which is probably about 100 years old. You are making the same mistake that every other anti-Trinitarian makes, you uncritically accept anything someone writes that supports your presuppositions as true. Go read some of my quotes from the ECF in the "Scriptures changed to support the Trinity" thread and follow the links for the entire quote in context. Here is a link to the early church fathers go find the articles quoted above and see if it really says what your source claims it does.

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/

Notict that my thread is called "The Anti-Nicene Church Fathers; Were They Right?".... Not only have you ignored my question but you've also wasted an entire post making ZERO POINT!!!
Please try harder Der Alter and enter into the debate otherwise you just "flamming"
Love...