Skip to content

Search Results for: Tertullian

my online debate: Was Tertullian a trinitarian?

Tomorrow (Saturday, March 29) at 12:00 EST I’m debating Roman Catholic apologist William Albrecht on whether or not the important early Christian philosopher-theologian Tertullian (d. c. 225) was a trinitarian. Mr. Albrecht is on the affirmative side; I’m on the negative side. He should be well aware of what I’ll argue. I think Tertullian’s language is confusing (to us), and his theology is strange, but… Read More »my online debate: Was Tertullian a trinitarian?

podcast 34 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 2

In this episode, the final half of my debate with Roman Catholic apologist Mr. William Albrecht. The question: was Tertullian a trinitarian? (Part 1 is here.) First, we take turns cross-examining one another, and then the closing arguments. I’ve shortened the audio here,  but have not cut any meaningful content at all. Who makes the better case? As Fox News says, we report, you decide.… Read More »podcast 34 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 2

podcast 33 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 1

On March 29,  I debated Catholic apologist William Albrecht on whether or not Tertullian was a trinitarian. In this episode, our opening statements, and rebuttals, slightly edited (“cleaned up”) from the original audio (“in studio” for me, unfortunately, just over the internet for his side – but I did my best to make the whole thing listenable.) You can also listen to this episode on… Read More »podcast 33 – Albrecht vs. Tuggy debate – Was Tertullian a trinitarian? Part 1

“trinitas” in Tertullian’s On Modesty (De Pudicitia)

The Greek trias, translatable as “triad” or (I think misleadingly) “Trinity,” had been used a few decades before. But the first known use of the Latin trinitas is by Tertullian, and we assume that he coined this Latin term. Actually, we have to talk of earliest uses, because it appears in two works, Against Praxeas and On Modesty, which are probably late works, and we don’t really know… Read More »“trinitas” in Tertullian’s On Modesty (De Pudicitia)

Flocanrib and the ambiguity of the word “Trinity”

Our fictional story was necessary, to help us think about some important distinctions about referring terms. It is easy to forget that “Trinity” was once a puppy, a neologism. But it was. It was born some time in the second half of the second century. We don’t know who coined it, but the earliest surviving mention of it is by Theophilus, bishop of Antioch (d.… Read More »Flocanrib and the ambiguity of the word “Trinity”

10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 1

Some reference sources will tell you that Christians have always believed in the Trinity. This claim is misleading at best. Rather than dating trinitarian theology to the start of Christianity, if we carefully examine the history of theology, we can see a relevant series of dates, as elements of belief in a triune god emerge. Yes, Christians have always believed in one God, but in… Read More »10 steps towards getting less confused about the Trinity – #6 get a date – part 1

podcast 50 – Muslim apologist Dr. Laurence B. Brown on the Trinity

Dr. Laurence Brown is an opthamologist, author, and Muslim apologist. In this episode of The Deen Show (“Deen” is Arabic for “religion” or “religious practice.”), he gave his “Top 10 Reasons Why The Trinity Is Invalid.” Does he disprove or undermine trinitarian theology? In this episode, I interact with and evaluate his reasons. You can also listen to this episode on youtube. This this 50th… Read More »podcast 50 – Muslim apologist Dr. Laurence B. Brown on the Trinity

SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BURKE – Part 3

Were there any “biblical unitarians”, or what I call humanitarian unitarians in the early church?

Buckle your seatbelts – this post isn’t a quickie.

First, to review – in this whole debate, Burke has argued that all the NT writers were humanitarians. But if this is so, one would expect there to be a bulk of humanitarian unitarians in the times immediately after the apostles. Here, as we saw last time, Bowman pounces. All the main 2nd century theologians, he urges are confused or near trinitarians. (Last time, I explained that this is a dubious play on the word “trinitarian”. My term for them is non-Arian subordinationists.) There’s not a trace, Bowman urges, of any 1st c. humanitarians – with the exception of some off-base heretical groups, like the Ebionites.

We’re talking about mainly the 100s CE here, going into the first half of the 200s. The general picture, as I see it, is this. Early in the century, we find the “apostolic fathers” basically echoing the Bible, increasingly including the NT (the NT canon was just starting to be settled on during this century). However, some of them seem to accept some kind of pre-existence for Christ (in God’s mind? or as a divine self alongside God?), and they’re often looser, more Hellenized in their use of “god” (so even though as in the NT the Father is the God of the Jews, the creator, Jesus is more frequently than in the NT called “our God” etc.) But clearly – no equally divine triad, no tripersonal God, and in most, no clear assertion of the eternality of the Son. In the second half of the century, starting with Justin Martyr, we find people expounding  a kind of subordinationism obviously inspired by Philo of Alexandria, the Jewish Platonic theologian Read More »SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BURKE – Part 3

Trinity Monotheism part 2: their set-up, part 1

Before going into objections to “Trinity Monotheism”, I thought it’d be a good idea to say a bit more about their long, meaty chapter in which they (eventually) set out their own theory, in this book. This’ll take a couple of posts, and we’ll allow time for discussion between them. Theologians in particular should find a lot to chew on here;they’re pretty out of step with the theological world on these issues, as we’ll see.Read More »Trinity Monotheism part 2: their set-up, part 1

Anatolios on Eusebius on the Holy Spirit

From Dr. Anatolios’s book Retrieving Nicea: The Development and Meaning of Trinitarian Doctrine, describing the theology of Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260 – c. 339): Eusebius conceives of the Spirit as the next level down in the chain of being and willing that descends from the Father and the Son. While he is ambiguous on the neuralgic question of the creaturehood of the Son, he… Read More »Anatolios on Eusebius on the Holy Spirit