Tertullian's Christology - Jesus as a demigod in training 

This is an extremely high quality comment, thank you for leaving it. I totally understand the fear that Unitarianism might be true. I have a slightly better situation than most because my family is Unitarian but I still bear a heavy social cost and church and fellowship is difficult to find. But not impossible. I trust and believe you when you say that cost would be extremely high for yourself. To be perfectly honest, one of the reasons why I don't "push as hard" as some of the apologists on the internet do, is that I feel guilty pushing people into such a difficult situation to become a Unitarian without good access to fellowship. Another option is to continue to fellowship in whatever protestant trinitarian fellowship you find yourself in already while thinking privately about this issue. I know its never fun being in the closet about something, but sometimes its better than nothing. I'll pray for you. My last words are to comfort with by telling you that you are not alone. I get private emails from folks like yourself pretty regularly. Feel free to reach to transfiguredchannel@gmail.com

I was in your shoes for many years. I converted to Islam and have so much peace now, for me it really satisfies the heart and intellect. You don't lose Jesus, just all the impossible mental gymnastics and confusion. For me Islam is the obvious choice once you dive deep into history. The problem is the entire Christian religion including the bible was corrupted by the Greek and Roman world. The authentic tradition of Jesus was simply not preserved; however, the original message was 100 times closer to Islam than Roman Catholicism or any other form of Trinitarian Christianity. Unitarianism is an option, which is why I enjoy this channel. However, if do go that route you're going to be an island and stuck between two worlds. I don't think it's worth it when the religion of Islam has so much structure, guidance and massive community you can tap into. I think this is why any sort of Unitarian Christianity in the middle east died out, they figured Islam was close enough, just admit this is the way God preserved the truth and move on from a sinking ship. Finally, once you look into the Quran and the preservation of the Islamic tradition in depth any honest person would conclude no human could create such a perfect system. Nothing in human history has the preservation and clear guidance as Islam. One obstacle many people have a hard time overcoming is the love for Jesus which I understand, but in the end, what are you really loving? The actual Jesus or some fiction created by Greek philosophers. May God guide you on your journey.

Without the crucifixion, I just see no plausibility or attraction to Islam. God created real humanity through Jesus on the cross. Does Islam have anything like that? Or just a rehashed watered down version of Judaism?

@@transfigured3673 Sam thanks for making the channel I really enjoy your content and your humble honest approach. I can totally relate to your sentiment as I was raised Christian. However, I have a totally different perspective now. I just can’t see how a childless man who never married and dies a victim is the only paradigm for human perfection. Muhammad led such a broad life, he was a husband, he was a father, he was a statesman, created a nation etc. etc. These are aspects of the human experience that require a paradigm of perfection. Forgiving people from a position of power vs weakness is extremely powerful. Man is the image and likeness of God and has many colors and simply having one prophet with a particular way of life as the example seems a bit monochrome in hindsight. We see Allah through all of creation but most especially through human beings made in his image, and to a fuller extend perfect human beings like Prophets including the Messiah Jesus Son of Mary. As Al-Ghazali said "Jesus' soul was like a polished mirror, perfectly reflecting the light of God. However, Christians, seeing this divine light so clearly in Jesus, mistakenly began to worship the light they saw in the mirror, rather than the source of that light." I now enjoy the light of all the prophets.

@@transfigured3673 Externally I can see how you might think Islam is more like Judiasm, and it is with the divine law and strict monotheism, however its internal soul is more like that of Christianity. Its the best of both worlds, the middle path.

Thanks for listening

The struggle is real

Yeah. People literally try to read "co-equal" theology into Irenaeus. And transubstantian into Justin's writings.

Allies of convenience

Agreed

Rabbinic Jews and Muslims are Unitarian ... no sense of Son or Holy Spirit. Biblical Jews not so narrow.

honestly they were water breaks because my throat felt a little dry. No words edited out

nor the last

@@transfigured3673 or is he? Of course, for the trinitarians Sam is a false teacher and vice versa.

Interesting. Does seem like possibly a similar idea

​@@transfigured3673 Maybe also rudimentary in Irenaeus??: 'Since then the Word establishes, that is to say, gives body and grants the reality of being, (...); rightly and fittingly is the Word called the Son.' Called! So 'Son' is a 'nickname' of the Word. This seems the standard until Origen develops the 'eternal generation' logic > 'For if God is always perfect, he does not lack the power by which he is a Father (...) why would he deprive himself of this good and not become the Father immediately.'

Exactly

You're right it's more a matter of degree of emphasis on spiritual gifts and a question of whether the montanist prophets were legit, as opposed to whether prophecy was legitimate altogether. And you're also right that I could have mentioned that anti-montanism was mixed with modalism. YOUR FACTS ARE CORRECT AND I APOLOGIZE FOR LACK OF CLARITY AND SPECIFICITY!

Tertullian goes beyond Monarchical Trinitarianism or Nicene Hypostatic Subordinationism. He says the son is created, the son began to exist, the father hasn't always been a father, and that there are many divine characteristics that the son doesn't have but the father does.

@@transfigured3673 that's historically professed by St Justin Martyr and St Theophilus of Antioch who said explicitly that God was alone before creation. What happens during Nicaea is Origenism eternal sonship won the debate. Before Origen almost everyone including St Lucian of Antioch, the teacher of protopresbyter Arius taught that the Son didn't exist prior to creation. This is detailed in Khalid Anatolios' Road to Nicaea. I highly recommend this book. He also discussed the fail attempt of St Hillary of Poitier on explaining how homoousian language which was a Samosatan heresy condemned in Antioch 268 could be accepted as new dogma at Nicaea. I am in on going conversation with Jake Brancatella for a few years on this topic. I think what missed is the understanding that while pre Nicene profess the Son was created in time (which you nailed it correctly) but all of them including Samosata and Arius professed the Logos is co-eternal. Or in another words God while alone prior to the creation of the Son was never lonely because He always accompanied by His eternal Logos before the world began. So what Origen did is introducing novel idea that the eternal Logos is eternally begotten before creation as the Son. Let me know if you're interested to explore this in detail. You can find me on Facebook. If God is willing my bishop would ordain me as a deacon and hopefully as a priest one day. In Byzantine Catholic Seminary I wrote a paper specific on pre Nicene Trinitarianism based on Khalid Anatolios excellent works. I would argue what you have shown in the video is enough to refute IP assertion on Tertullian because no way he would support Origen's idea because it would make God by necessity forced to create and involuntary begat the Son. If the Son is eternal as Origen claim then God has no free will but to begat the Son and be the Father. There are many things that we can discuss let me know if you're interested to have dialogue with me. I will be available on Facebook. Btw thank you for making a video on Samosata. It's sad not many people discussing his theology. Especially because he is the precursor of Arius. God bless.

@@AdithiaKusno I consider myself a “Trinitarian” in the ante-Nicene definition of Justin, Irenaeus etc, but I don’t agree with all of your assessment on what Justin, Theophilus, and Tertullian taught. I am trying to understand why you consider the difference between Origenist eternal generation and a “two-stage Logos emission/begetting” theory like Justin/Theophilus to be materially different rather than just a different explanation. The begetting by will still does not tell us if the begetting is prior/outside of time or not. Do you agree that Justin says that all things were created by the Logos, as the Gospel of John says? Justin Martyr writes in Dialogue with Trypho that Trypho ch 48 attributes to Justin the belief that “Christ existed as God before all ages.” Their rough contemporary and supporter, St. Irenaeus, says plainly in Against Heresies 4:20:1 that “Always present with himself [the One God, the Father] are the Word and Wisdom, the Son and Spirit.” If Justin teaches that Jesus created all things, in middle platonic philosophy, God is outside of “Time” and created it, meaning Justin plainly believe Christ preexisted/was born outside of “time” which He created by the will of the Father.

@@IAmisMaster the eternal production of Logos and Pneuma are atemporal. If they were produced in time then they would be creatures. Which no church fathers professed including Tertullian who while professed the Son was not existed prior to generation still profess that God never mindless and eternally having His Logos always. I recommend Khalid Anatolios's Road to Nicaea. Origen's eternal generation is not just mere different explanation of the same reality. In Origen the Father is always a father of a son due to eternal generation. This belief is not found prior to Origen. Prior to Origen no one disputing the Logos is co-eternal with God. We see this in Islamic debate on the Qur'an co-eternal uncreated together with Allah. The difference with Islam is they deny Allah begat the Qur'an while Origen speculated God begat the Logos. Arianism didn't spread fast around the world. The whole world already professing hypostatic subordinationism long before Arius existed. Arian bishops complained they were called Arians they retort how could they bishops submit to a presbyter which is their inferior?

@@AdithiaKusno Okay thanks for clarifying. But think about it. Jesus is identical/synonymous with “the Logos” according to all the logos theologian/proto-orthodox interpretations of John 1. Justin, Tertullian, Origen etc would never think that Jesus and the Logos are two distinct subjects/individuals. They believed these are two titles/names for the same subject (perhaps in different stages or roles, but no different than the mere nominal distinction between Samuel Clemens and Mark Twain). If that’s the case, then it seems to me mere semantics to say Justin and Origen taught anything radically different, since the Logos remains eternal. Now you might be making a point about trying to rehabilitate Arius that I am not aware of. Are you saying that Arius agreed the Word was eternal, but like Tertullian, said the “Son” is not eternal since Jesus is only “Son” when inside the created order? Refreshing to hear someone who looks at the evidence. Do you consider yourself a monarchical trinitarian?

Let me know when you get to the end of the video

Chapter 7. The Son by Being Designated Word and Wisdom, (According to the Imperfection of Human Thought and Language) Liable to Be Deemed a Mere Attribute. He is Shown to Be a Personal Being Then, therefore, does the Word also Himself assume His own form and glorious garb, His own sound and vocal utterance, when God says, Let there be light. Genesis 1:3 This is the perfect nativity of the Word, WHEN HE PROCEEDS FORTH FROM GOD- formed by Him first to devise and think out all things under the name of Wisdom - The Lord created or formed me as the beginning of His ways; Proverbs 8:22 then afterward begotten, to carry all into effect - When He prepared the heaven, I was present with Him. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: FOR BY PROCEEDING FROM HIMSELF He became His first-begotten Son, BECAUSE BEGOTTEN BEFORE ALL THINGS; Colossians 1:15 and His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, in a way peculiar to Himself, FROM THE WOMB OF HIS OWN HEART - even as the Father Himself testifies: My heart, says He, has emitted my most excellent Word. The Father took pleasure evermore in Him, who equally rejoiced with a reciprocal gladness in the Father’s presence: You are my Son, today have I begotten You; even before the morning star did I beget You. 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. For if indeed Wisdom in this passage seems to say that She was created by the Lord with a view to His works, and to accomplish His ways, yet proof is given in another Scripture that all things were made by the Word, and without Him was there nothing made; John 1:3 as, again, in another place (it is said), By His word were the heavens established, and all the powers thereof by His Spirit - that is to say, by the Spirit (or Divine Nature) which was in the Word: thus is it evident that it is one and the same power which is in one place described under the name of Wisdom, and in another passage under the appellation of the Word, which was initiated for the works of God Proverbs 8:22 which strengthened the heavens; by which all things were made, John 1:3 and without which nothing was made. John 1:3 Nor need we dwell any longer on this point, as if it were not the very Word Himself, who is spoken of under the name both of Wisdom AND OF REASON, and of the entire Divine Soul and Spirit. He became also the Son of God, and was begotten WHEN HE PROCEEDED FORTH FROM HIM. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, GOD and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that He Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could He who is empty have made things which are solid, and He who is void have made things which are full, and He who is incorporeal have made things which have body? For although a thing may sometimes be made different from him by whom it is made, yet nothing can be made by that which is a void and empty thing. Is that Word of God, then, a void and empty thing, which is called the Son, who Himself IS DESIGNATED GOD? The Word was with God, and the Word was God. John 1:1 It is written, You shall not take God’s name in vain. Exodus 20:7 This for certain is He who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God. Philippians 2:6 In what form of God? Of course he means in some form, not in none. For who will deny that God is a body, although God is a Spirit? John 4:24 For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form. Now, even if invisible things, whatsoever they be, have both their substance and their form in God, whereby they are visible to God alone, how much more shall that which has been sent forth FROM HIS SUBSTANCE not be without substance! Whatever, therefore, was the substance of the Word that I designate a Person, I claim for it the name of Son; and while I recognize the Son, I assert His distinction as second to the Father.

From my reading of these passages the way Tertullian formulated the generation of God’s eternal Word/Wisdom or his belief that the Father has a substantial body or bodily substance is not how later Christian writers/theologians/apologists would express the church’s understanding of God’s nature as Spirit or the eternal begetting of the Son. However, Tertullian’s statements do show that he clearly believed that the divine Person who later became the Son, thereby making God a Father, was not created ex nihilo. Tertullian explicitly and emphatically affirmed that the prehuman Jesus is God’s very own uncreated Reason/Word/Wisdom who has always existed in/with God, being an essential, eternally intrinsic aspect of God’s uncreated substance.

@@anakindripskywalker5247 Your main objection is about how since reason was within God, then that means by extension Jesus is eternal. However that is not true, because God of course will always his reason in him just like how you will have your brain in you. The difference is, the Logos at a point became personified within the person of this person called 'Son'. This 'son' is Jesus. He embodies God's reason/Logos, he represents it to the fullest. That just means that Jesus (the person) is not eternal, but the reason of God is eternal- What Jesus is embodies (the reason of God) is eternal, but he himself as a person isn't something that was always there. So, no, God the Father was not always a Father, but became a Father when the "son" or Jesus Christ came to be, who is this son? This son is the personification of God's very own reason. Think of it like Ghost rider. Different persons become the spirit of vengeance, the spirit of vengeance is older than the persons in whom it is embodied in. Jesus being begotten before all things was something even Arius would've agreed with.

@@thegoodresident completely wrong , the whole passage that he showed in the video was talking about titles anyways , that is the whole point , the passage was not about ontology , tertulian refers the son as a title , while calling The WORD eternal

@@anakindripskywalker5247 For the Father to be given the title "Father" there has to be some reason for that, right? What happened? Did the Father become a Father out of nowhere? This is what Tertullian was talking about. The Father became a Judge because of Sin. He became a Lord because of the creation etc. Same way, he became a Father when the Son came into existence. The Word is eternal- but there was something extremely common in this time period. The Logos was an attribute of God, who either was personified always, or became personified into a figure. Same way, though the word is eternal, the person embodying the word is NOT eternal. More evidence of this can be seen in Tertullian's theology itself: Q) How does God achieve the title of "Father"? A) Because he became a Father. And how did he become a Father? Due to the Son. Just like how he became Judge because of Sin, he became a Father because of the Son. There was a time when neither the Son existed nor sin. The Son as a person didn't exist, the word did, when the word became a person (the Son)- this is two stage logos theology.

@legostory33 I think you’re missing point of this channel. The content creator is trying to start conversations and get others to re-examine these historical Christian scholars that have been superficially celebrated and held up as authoritative figures in the Early Church.

As you may know I don't like the term "adoptionism" because I never hear anybody in this ancient period using the word "adopted" to describe the Son's relationship to the Father. I think that there is a blurry line between gnostic christology and possessionist christology where Jesus is basically a human being who get's temporarily possessed by the "Christ spirit" from heaven.

@@transfigured3673 Thanks for clarifying your POV.