Was the Pre-Nicene Church Orthodox?

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
After speaking of Hermogenes as "he", he says:

ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

I maintain that the substance existed always with its own name, which is God; the title Lord was afterwards added, as the indication indeed6156 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.

Tertullian says something like this elsewhere:
In disharmony with the present Catholic church, according to Tertullian the Son's beginning was when God said "Let there be light."[Klotsche, E.H. The History of Christian Doctrine (Baker Book House; GR, Mi. 1949), p.54.]

By quoting little snippets out-of-context one can prove almost anything.

Tertullian Apology Chapter 21

We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun — there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.” This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also [pg.1094] declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαι, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.​
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
By quoting little snippets out-of-context one can prove almost anything.

Tertullian Apology Chapter 21

We have been taught that He proceeds forth from God, and in that procession He is generated; so that He is the Son of God, and is called God from unity of substance with God. For God, too, is a Spirit. Even when the ray is shot from the sun, it is still part of the parent mass; the sun will still be in the ray, because it is a ray of the sun — there is no division of substance, but merely an extension. Thus Christ is Spirit of Spirit, and God of God, as light of light is kindled.

Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 8

The Word, therefore, is both always in the Father, as He says, “I am in the Father;” and is always with God, according to what is written, “And the Word was with God;” and never separate from the Father, or other than the Father, since “I and the Father are one.” This will be the prolation, taught by the truth, the guardian of the Unity, wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from Him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also [pg.1094] declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are προβολαι, or emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.​

Pfff. By alleging ridiculousness, one can avoid a scholarly point too. I gave the link, and quoted a whole section of it where Tertullian is stating what he maintains rather than Hermogenes. I will let the reader judge whether I quoted Tertullian "out of context." Once again, I find you to be in denial.... This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect.
Cheers.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Pfff. By alleging ridiculousness, one can avoid a scholarly point too. I gave the link, and quoted a whole section of it where Tertullian is stating what he maintains rather than Hermogenes. I will let the reader judge whether I quoted Tertullian "out of context." Once again, I find you to be in denial.... This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect.
Cheers.

You have found nothing and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong! And you never will. There is nothing to deny. That is correct you did quote in entire paragraph but that did not fully represent Tertullian's beliefs as I have shown by quoting from his other writings. That is what I meant out-of-context, in view of the fuller context of Tertullians writings. What scholarly point have you evaded by alleging ridiculousness?
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
You have found nothing and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong! And you never will. There is nothing to deny. That is correct you did quote in entire paragraph but that did not fully represent Tertullian's beliefs as I have shown by quoting from his other writings. That is what I meant out-of-context, in view of the fuller context of Tertullians writings. What scholarly point have you evaded by alleging ridiculousness?

Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son.
K, mate. Just showing you and the reader the facts. Can't make you acknowledge them. But you do seem to be in serious denial...."you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong...." I am not trying to prove you wrong friend. Just showing the truth for those who care to see it. You may want to remember that YOU are the one that posted on my thread that I am wrong.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Christians did not invent anointing. Anointing can be but is not necessarily spiritual. See the explanation that Theophilus himself gave. I highlighted it for you.

If you are catholic minded, true.

Exodus 29
Then shalt thou take the anointing oil, and pour it upon his head, and anoint him.

Acts 10
38 How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

If you see man anointed with oils, then you think the physical things anoint.

Just as the water doesn't wash away the sins at baptism. How can physical water wash away spiritual sin?

Oils were mostly used to anoint in healing (physical sickness).

Christ didn't heal with oils, IMO, but with spirit. The spirit not available to the OT authors. But the catholic idea has us returning to the OT idea.

1 John
27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

While oils were used in physical healing, the anointing of the Spirit is for spiritual healing (through truth).

Use oil if you think it has some mystical power. I don't believe it does. More rituals.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
So Jesus told the Apostles to perform "rituals" but those have no significance, impart no supernatural grace & lack meaning. I see. Kind of like our bosses today giving us busy work.

So how many other things does one see Jesus saying that have no meaning?
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
So Jesus told the Apostles to perform "rituals" but those have no significance, impart no supernatural grace & lack meaning. I see. Kind of like our bosses today giving us busy work.

So how many other things does one see Jesus saying that have no meaning?

Did he say "anoint them with oil"?

Mark 6
7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Why didn't Jesus say "don't forget the oil"?

Because it only took the power of spirit to accomplish (over unclean spirit).

People sought Christs touch, and even the woman who touched his robe found it wasn't even that.

Christ even told us to pray from within. I see no (physical) rituals Christ taught.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unix
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Did he say "anoint them with oil"?

Mark 6
7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Why didn't Jesus say "don't forget the oil"?

Because it only took the power of spirit to accomplish (over unclean spirit).

People sought Christs touch, and even the woman who touched his robe found it wasn't even that.

Christ even told us to pray from within. I see no (physical) rituals Christ taught.
Christ taught baptism, although He did not baptize but his disciples did.
Christ washed the feet of the apostles.
Acts also tells us that the apostles laid their hands on the convert to give the gift of the Holy Ghost.
 
Upvote 0

Der Alte

This is me about 1 yr. old.
Supporter
Aug 21, 2003
28,575
6,063
EST
✟992,246.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son.
K, mate. Just showing you and the reader the facts. Can't make you acknowledge them. But you do seem to be in serious denial...."you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong...." I am not trying to prove you wrong friend. Just showing the truth for those who care to see it. You may want to remember that YOU are the one that posted on my thread that I am wrong.
Cheers

You seem to be in serious denial! Merely saying, "Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son." is meaningless. You must give some kind of evidence/discussion to show why they don't "abrogate his [Tertullian] view that the Son didn't always exist." You are not showing me truth, you are showing me your presuppositions. And I am acknowledging them for what the they are.

You claim you are not trying to prove me wrong. This is what you said in post #422 "This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect." I said "you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong." You did in fact claim to have shown that some orthodox beliefs are incorrect or wrong. You have not done so.
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
You seem to be in serious denial! Merely saying, "Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son." is meaningless. You must give some kind of evidence/discussion to show why they don't "abrogate his [Tertullian] view that the Son didn't always exist." You are not showing me truth, you are showing me your presuppositions. And I am acknowledging them for what the they are.
All he is doing is explaining his theory of the one substance of the Son and Father. He doesn't talk about how the Son was begotten.

You claim you are not trying to prove me wrong. This is what you said in post #422 "This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect." I said "you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong." You did in fact claim to have shown that some orthodox beliefs are incorrect or wrong. You have not done so.
That is not my purpose. It was your purpose, and I responded with evidence you demanded, which did in fact show you to be wrong. You then equivocated as you do above. If you want to keep this futile exercise up, I will probably not respond just for the sake of keeping the thread on point.
Cheers
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
You seem to be in serious denial! Merely saying, "Those other quotes do nothing to abrogate his view that the Son didn't always exist as at least the Son." is meaningless. You must give some kind of evidence/discussion to show why they don't "abrogate his [Tertullian] view that the Son didn't always exist." You are not showing me truth, you are showing me your presuppositions. And I am acknowledging them for what the they are.

You claim you are not trying to prove me wrong. This is what you said in post #422 "This seems to happen whenever I show one of your "orthodox" beliefs to be incorrect." I said "you have found nothing, and you have never proved any of my beliefs wrong." You did in fact claim to have shown that some orthodox beliefs are incorrect or wrong. You have not done so.

I agree with your assessment, and it is quite clear that, when taking the totality of his teachings (i.e. reading the proof texts in context), he isn't teaching that the Son was created at all. Indeed, he disagreed with the Arian position completely, and argued against it. Thanks.
 
Upvote 0

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
I agree with your assessment, and it is quite clear that, when taking the totality of his teachings (i.e. reading the proof texts in context), he isn't teaching that the Son was created at all. Indeed, he disagreed with the Arian position completely, and argued against it. Thanks.

Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.]died before Arius was even born, and knew nothing of "the Arian position" and didn't argue against it. In fact there is no credible evidence that Arius clearly believed Christ to be created.
 
Upvote 0

NYCGuy

Newbie
Mar 9, 2011
839
162
New York
✟33,519.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Tertullian [A.D. 145-220.]died before Arius was even born, and knew nothing of "the Arian position" and didn't argue against it. In fact there is no credible evidence that Arius clearly believed Christ to be created.

Sorry, I was thinking about Sabellianism.

The fact remains however that, as we see in Tertullian's own writings, his believe in the one substance of the Father and the Son goes completely against the Arian position, and yes, historians do have a clear understanding of the Arian position vs the orthodox one. Indeed, the Council of Nicaea directly addressed the heresy of Arianism by reaffirming the revealed teaching that Jesus Christ has eternally existed as God, never with a beginning.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Did he say "anoint them with oil"?

Mark 6
7 And he called unto him the twelve, and began to send them forth by two and two; and gave them power over unclean spirits;
8 And commanded them that they should take nothing for their journey, save a staff only; no scrip, no bread, no money in their purse:

Why didn't Jesus say "don't forget the oil"?

Because it only took the power of spirit to accomplish (over unclean spirit).

People sought Christs touch, and even the woman who touched his robe found it wasn't even that.

Christ even told us to pray from within. I see no (physical) rituals Christ taught.

Ah, backpedal to take a stand on/against oils to avoid the point being made about your earlier claim regarding meaningless rituals. Nice!

So you are taking back the statement about meaningless rituals and qualifying it to only apply to oils. I see.

Ok, since oils were brought up and apparently deemed meaningless, what does Scripture say?

"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

"My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."

Apparently it was not meaningless ritual to Jesus or the Apostles.
 
Upvote 0

DrBubbaLove

Roman Catholic convert from Southern Baptist
Supporter
Aug 8, 2004
11,336
1,728
63
Left coast
✟55,100.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
I see no (physical) rituals Christ taught.
Baptizing seems a physical ritual to me. Chastising for not honoring Him with oils on His head sounds like physical ritual to me. Anointing the sick sounds like physical ritual to me.

So again, are these rituals meaningless or not?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Sorry, I was thinking about Sabellianism.

The fact remains however that, as we see in Tertullian's own writings, his believe in the one substance of the Father and the Son goes completely against the Arian position
How is that?
Tertullian theorized that the Son was one substance or essence with the Father which made them one God in his view. However, he also theorized he had a beginning as the Son, which is why your church has never sainted him even tho he is routinely known as the "father of Latin orthodoxy."
Indeed, it is apparent he shared this view with Arius - that there was a time when the "Son was not." According to a letter of Arius, assuming authenticity, he believed there was a point in time when the Son was begotten - whether this was before all worlds, or was He was created, he did not seem to have a clear opinion on.
and yes, historians do have a clear understanding of the Arian position vs the orthodox one. Indeed, the Council of Nicaea directly addressed the heresy of Arianism by reaffirming the revealed teaching that Jesus Christ has eternally existed as God, never with a beginning.
"Revealed" by whom? The scriptures say He was begotten when the Father told him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee." So who "revealed it?" Tertullian? I think not. He said the Son had a beginning. Athanasius three centuries after Christ? Is this kind of like the rest of the doctrine of the trinity? Being "one substance" was "revealed" to Tertullian. Being a "trinity" was "revealed" to Theophilus? The Lord's words of "Godhead" aren't good enough for man? Who was "co-equal" and "one being" revealed to? Or "eternally begotten?" Was it the twelve apostles of the Lord? Are these words the chosen words of God confirmed by scripture?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NumberOneSon

The poster formerly known as Acts6:5
Mar 24, 2002
4,138
478
49
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟22,170.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Sorry for my delay in responding to your post. I will respond to this in another post.
Ok.

But they didn't "share" power 1 hr with the beast in the treaty with Rome before it's downfall to them.
What treaty are you referring to? Are you talking about the feodorati? The Alans were feodorati.



They didn't cause the downfall of Rome.
All of the tribes I mentioned most definitely contributed to the downfall of the Roman Empire.

They just came in after the fact and tried to grab "the spoils."
After what? When historians refer to the “Fall of Rome”, they’re usually referring to the division of the Western Empire by the barbarian kingdoms and the loss of Roman culture that was punctuated when the germanic troops serving the empire deposed Emperor Romulus Augustus and installed Odoacer in his place. The previous division of Roman territory by the Alans, Moors, Britons, etc. led to Rome’s “fall”. I’m not sure what you mean by “they just came in after the fact”…the spoilation of the Roman Empire by the Teutonic tribes precipitated the fall of Rome.

They also didn't comprise any of the present nations of Europe.
None of the 5th or 6th Century Barbarian kingdoms comprise the present nations of Europe. At most, you could make an argument for France, but that’s about it.

Of the 10 I mentioned 2 still exist in the kingdoms they carved out - the Franks in France, and the Visigoths in Spain.
How in the world is modern Spain the equivalent of the Visigothic kingdom? You do realize the Visigothic kingdom was destroyed by the Moors in the 8th Century, and the Visigoths themselves disappeared from history after that time, right?

3 were "plucked up" by the roots, however, and completely disappeared from history.
All of the barbarian kingdoms (besides France) have been plucked up by the roots and have disappeared, and I doubt you would be able to connect any modern day Frenchman back to the Frankish bloodline. The Visigoths, Sueves, Ostrogoths, Lombards, Burgundians…all of those kingdoms were destroyed a long time ago.


He used his persuasion to encourage Justinian and provided information. He obviously wanted Justinian to reclaim Rome for the "Roman empire." There is evidence of their communication and cooperation.
Really? Then provide examples of this pope encouraging Justinian to uproot the three tribes and providing information to facilitate those attacks. Which pope, by the way? I look forward to seeing your evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Ah, backpedal to take a stand on/against oils to avoid the point being made about your earlier claim regarding meaningless rituals. Nice!

So you are taking back the statement about meaningless rituals and qualifying it to only apply to oils. I see.

Ok, since oils were brought up and apparently deemed meaningless, what does Scripture say?

"Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

"My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment."

Apparently it was not meaningless ritual to Jesus or the Apostles.

Not meaningless. Unnecessary for spiritual edification. A physical action showing concern. Jesus walked a lot. I'm sure baby oil would feel good on tired feet.
 
Upvote 0

Phantasman

Newbie
May 12, 2012
4,953
226
Tennessee
✟34,626.00
Faith
Christian Seeker
Marital Status
Married
Baptizing seems a physical ritual to me. Chastising for not honoring Him with oils on His head sounds like physical ritual to me. Anointing the sick sounds like physical ritual to me.

So again, are these rituals meaningless or not?

Only the spiritual acceptance, not the water.

I would ask if you think water is holy, but I think I know the answer.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

RevelationTestament

Our God is a consuming fire.
Apr 26, 2013
3,727
46
United States
✟19,404.00
Faith
Mormon
Marital Status
Married
Hi RT.
Sure. The Angles, Jutes, Rugians, and Alans were all Tuetonic tribes that carved kingdoms out of the Roman Empire as it began to crumble. There were also native barbarian tribes like the Basques, Welsh, and Britons with their own kingdoms as well. The Moors created a kingdom out of the Southwestern end of the Roman Empire in North Africa toward the end of the 5th Century.

So there were more than 10 Teutonic tribes that divided the Western Empire, and there were more than 10 divisions.

Part of the issue here is what constitutes a tribe. Sometimes several different names were given the same people by the Romans. Unfortunately, the Teutonic/Germanic tribes left us no or virtually no written history of themselves. Most of our history is given through Roman eyes, and they sometimes had multiple names for the same peoples due to geographic reasons, etc. My research indicated to me that the Angles and Jutes were Suebian tribes - that is essentially the same as the Seuvi, and from the same area of N. Germany. They in turn were a confederate tribe with the Alamanni or also the Alans. The Alani basically merged into the other tribes at the time of Attila the Hun. They all attacked the Roman kingdom as one in the area of S Gaul and Hispania. This group were and acted as one people or tribe and carved out an area in central and N. Spain and Portugal. Their descendants still live there.
The Rugii did settle a small area in the very N edge of the Roman empire, named Rugiland, but were defeated by the Heruli at the time of the fall of Rome, and therefore did not take part in the fall of the Roman Empire to fulfill the prophecy.
The other tribes you mentioned were, as you note, "native" tribes. That is, they were native peoples living under Roman rule who simply were able to re-establish their independence and were not conquerors. For instance the Moors had lived in the tip of Africa at the time they came under Roman rule, and simply reestablished their own kingdom when Rome began to crumble. However, the Vandals did defeat the Moors.
 
Upvote 0