Podcast: Play in new window | Download
Subscribe: Spotify | Email | RSS
This episode is a recording of my talk on September 20, 2013 in Prague, Czech Republic, at the conference “Analytical Theology: Faith, Knowledge and the Trinity.”
Our Czech hosts were Roman Catholic philosophers, interested in both contemporary analytic philosophy and early modern Catholic scholastic philosophy. It was an excellent conference, and we all enjoyed our conversations, as well as seeing some of one of the world’s most beautiful cities, and some surrounding countryside. Special thanks to Vlastimil, Lukáš, and Petr and Daniel for their hospitality, papers, and conversations.
My talk is called “Tertullian the unitarian“. Though he’s the first on record to use the Latin word trinitas, I show that he was in fact a sort of unitarian, a kind I have elsewhere called “subordinationist.”
Here are my conference slides, in case you want to follow along.
These ideas are relevant, of course, far beyond Tertullian. But here I want to set the record straight, because there’s a lot of mistaken stuff out there about Tertullian, in realms such as apologetics, church history, and the history of theology.
Update: this paper has now been revised and published.
My talk is called “Tertullian the unitarian“. Though he’s the first on record to use the Latin word trinitas, I show that he was in fact a sort of unitarian, a kind I have elsewhere called “subordinationist.”
I must pay a special vote thanks to Greg for exposing the bluff whereby “subordinationism” would be “sort of unitarian” and not, as it is (historically and conceptually) a step towards the full-fledged doectrine of the “trinity” (“co-equal, co-eternal, tri-personal”) as concocted by the Cappadocian scoundrels towards the end of the 4th century, as a “mysterian” political compromise between the Nicene and the Arians.
Here is, BTW, the link to the text from which Greg provided his quotation:
CCEL > ANF03. Latin Christianity: Its Founder, Tertullian > Anti-Marcion > Against Praxeas > Chapter III (Sundry Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from These Misapprehensions)
Admittedly, I have not read your paper – but I found the premise a bit challenging on the surface in the light of the following in Adv Praxeas –
Perhaps this is better followed up on the FB Socinian page in which more people will be exposed?
Chapter III.-Sundry
Popular Fears and Prejudices. The Doctrine of the Trinity in Unity Rescued from
These Misapprehensions.
The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise
and unlearned, ) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled
at the dispensation25 (of the Three in One), on the ground that their very rule of faith
withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God; not
understanding that, although He is the one only God, He must yet be believed in
with His own oi0konomi/a. The numerical order and
distribution of the Trinity they assume to be a division of the Unity; whereas
the Unity which derives the Trinity out of its own self is so far from being
destroyed, that it is actually supported by it. They are constantly throwing
out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they
take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the One
God; just as if the Unity itself with irrational deductions did not produce
heresy, and the Trinity rationally considered constitute the truth. We, say
they, maintain the Monarchy (or, sole government of
God).26 And so, as far as the sound goes, do even Latins (and ignorant
ones too) pronounce the word in such a way that you would suppose their
understanding of the monarxi/a (or Monarchy) was as complete as their pronunciation
of the term. Well, then Latins take pains to pronounce the monarxi/a (or Monarchy), while Greeks
actually refuse to understand the oi0konomi/a, or Dispensation (of the
Three in One). As for myself, however, if I have gleaned any knowledge of
either language, I am sure that monarxi/a (or Monarchy) has no other
meaning than single and individual27 rule; but for all that, this monarchy does not, because it is the
government of one, preclude him whose government it is, either from having a
son, or from having made himself actually a son to himself,28 or from ministering his own monarchy by whatever agents he will.
Comments are closed.