so I find no contradiction between human responsibility and God's election and sovereignty; for context. I just do not agree with a lot of the "hardline" Calvinist positions, I feel they overreach and force a contradiction between predestination and individual responsibility (as in, it's not possible for the total puppet people of hardline Calvinism to be responsible for anything, much like a rock isn't responsible for falling downhill, which flies in the face of what Scripture clearly says, which is that we are responsible.) I wonder how Calvinists answer Isaiah 65:12, which to me seems to pretty clearly state that we are not destined to Hell *until* we choose sin (ESV): >I will destine you to the sword, and all of you shall bow down to the slaughter, because, when I called, you did not answer; when I spoke, you did not listen, but you did what was evil in my eyes and chose what I did not delight in.” I don't intend to come across as combative, I just want to nail down the "mechanism and reality" of sovereignty and personal responsibility, and this verse seems pretty heavily related.

The [Wesleyan Quadrilateral](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesleyan_Quadrilateral) > explicates the Methodist belief of prima scriptura. This method bases its teaching on four sources as the basis of theological and doctrinal development. These four sources are chiefly scripture, along with tradition, reason, and Christian experience. > **Scripture** > Wesley insisted that scripture is the first authority and contains the only measure whereby all other truth is tested. It was delivered by authors who were divinely inspired. It is a rule sufficient of itself. It neither needs, nor is capable of, any further addition. The scripture references to justification by faith as the gateway to scriptural holiness are: Deut. 30:6; Ps. 130:8; Ezek. 36:25, 29; Matt. 5:48; 22:37; Luke 1:69; John 17:20–23; Rom. 8:3–4; II Cor. 7:1; Eph. 3:14; 5:25–27; I Thess. 5:23; Titus 2:11–14; I John 3:8; 4:17. > > **Tradition** > Wesley wrote that it is generally supposed that traditional evidence is weakened by length of time, as it must necessarily pass through so many hands in a continued succession of ages. Although other evidence is perhaps stronger, he insisted: "Do not undervalue traditional evidence. Let it have its place and its due honour. It is highly serviceable in its kind, and in its degree". Wesley states that those of strong and clear understanding should be aware of its full force. For him it supplies a link through 1,700 years of history with Jesus and the apostles. The witness to justification and sanctification is an unbroken chain drawing us into fellowship with those who have finished the race, fought the fight, and who now reign with God in his glory and might. > > **Reason** > Although scripture is sufficient unto itself and is the foundation of true religion, Wesley wrote: "Now, of what excellent use is reason, if we would either understand ourselves, or explain to others, those living oracles". He states quite clearly that without reason we cannot understand the essential truths of Scripture. Reason, however, is not a mere human invention. It must be assisted by the Holy Spirit if we are to understand the mysteries of God. With regard to justification by faith and sanctification Wesley said that although reason cannot produce faith, when impartial reason speaks we can understand the new birth, inward holiness, and outward holiness. > > **Experience** > Apart from scripture, experience is the strongest proof of Christianity. "What the scriptures promise, I enjoy". Again, Wesley insisted that we cannot have reasonable assurance of something unless we have experienced it personally. John Wesley was assured of both justification and sanctification because he had experienced them in his own life. What Christianity promised (considered as a doctrine) was accomplished in his soul. Furthermore, Christianity (considered as an inward principle) is the completion of all those promises. Although traditional proof is complex, experience is simple: "One thing I know; I was blind, but now I see." Although tradition establishes the evidence a long way off, experience makes it present to all persons. As for the proof of justification and sanctification Wesley states that Christianity is an experience of holiness and happiness, the image of God impressed on a created spirit, a fountain of peace and love springing up into everlasting life. Regarding the experience dimension, John Wesley strongly believed in justification and sanctification, and the Christian experience of holiness, happiness, peace, and love (paraphrasing the last paragraph in the previous quote). However, I was curious about John Wesley's view on spiritual experiences specifically, and according to the article [*Wesley, the Almost Charismatic*](https://firebrandmag.com/articles/wesley-the-almost-charismatic) : > So, what are the results of our DNA test? Is Wesley a charismatic? Did he hold to the belief and practice that the gifts of the Spirit are normative in the life of the believer or at least for himself? **Wesley did not seem to espouse or teach the notion that supernatural manifestations of the Spirit are normative for the believer, which characterizes PCR Christians. Yet, in practice, the charismata clearly operated through Wesley and the early Methodists in quite a regular or normative manner. With that said, Wesley can be considered a charismatic on one of two counts, making him half a charismatic, or playing on Wesley’s “an almost Christian” – “an almost charismatic.”** The four inferences drawn from Wesley concerning the gifts of the Spirit further serve as correctives for a proper balance for Wesleyans of all stripes, who often neglect the miraculous power of God, and for today’s PCR movement, which often lacks a robust doctrine of sanctification and sound theology for its supernatural experiences. Simply put, all of the work of the Spirit should be normative in our lives, including the gifts and fruit of the Spirit. The Spirit gives gifts to and produces fruit in every true believer. No Christian should ever settle for anything less than the promises of God in scripture. Yet, in agreement with the scriptures and Wesley, the various operations of the Spirit should be prioritized and given their proper place in the scheme of salvation. We note in 1 Corinthians 13 that the fruit of love, which is eternal, is greater than the gifts of prophecy or tongues, which are temporal. Wesley’s holiness hermeneutic, resonating with scripture, also prioritizes character over charisma, fruit over gifts, and holiness over power. And regarding the apparent cessation of charismatic experiences among Christians over the course of history, John Wesley offered this explanation: > It does not appear that these extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were common in the church for more than two or three centuries We seldom hear of them after that fatal period when the Emperor Constantine called himself a Christian, and from a vain imagination of promoting the Christian cause thereby heaped riches, and power, and honour, upon the Christians in general; but in particular upon the Christian clergy. From this time they almost totally ceased; very few instances of the kind were found. The cause of this was not (as has been vulgarly supposed,) "because there was no more occasion for them," because all the world was become Christian. This is a miserable mistake; not a twentieth part of it was then nominally Christian. **The real cause was, "the love of many," almost of all Christians, so called, was "waxed cold." The Christians had no more of the Spirit of Christ than the other Heathens. The Son of Man, when he came to examine his Church, could hardly "find faith upon earth." This was the real cause why the extraordinary gifts of the Holy Ghost were no longer to be found in the Christian Church -- because the Christians were turned Heathens again, and had only a dead form left**. > > Source: [The Sermons of John Wesley - Sermon 89](https://www.whdl.org/sites/default/files/resource/book/EN_John_Wesley_089_more_excellent_way.htm) In other words, John Wesley placed high importance on scripture, tradition, reason, and experience. When it comes to the realm of experience, he particularly emphasized the pursuit of holiness and the manifestation of the fruit of the spirit. Moreover, he remained receptive to the display of charismatic gifts, attributing their decline in church history to the diminishing strength of spiritual fervor in Christians, perhaps due to an increasing reliance on institutional structures. Which denominations hold similar views? --- Additional resources: - Blog post: [John Wesley and Spiritual Gifts](https://craigladams.com/blog/john-wesley-and-spiritual-gifts/) - Journal article: [Wesley and Charisma: An Analysis of John Wesley's View of Spiritual Gifts](https://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1011&context=aussj) In particular, the last article concludes: > The gifts of the Spirit combined with the doctrine of priesthood of all believers were one of the main axioms of early Reformation. However, later writings of the Lutheran and Reformed traditions neglected both the idea of the priesthood of all believers and of the perpetuity of Spiritual gifts, thus minimizing experiential aspects of the Christian religion. **Wesley’s break with cessationism is variously interpreted today. Some claim that Wesley set the stage for the practices of the modern Charismatic movement. Others argue that Wesley’s emphasis on Spiritual gifts and implication of laity in the spiritual affairs was just a marginal note in his theology of holy life. As usual, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Wesley saw the gifts of the Spirit as a natural part of Christian experience connecting it with the doctrine of sanctification. For him, the lack or rarity of manifestations of the Spirit during long centuries of Christian dispensation was due to the declining spiritual life of the Church. In essence, the love of many “grew cold”. Wesley’s focal desire was to restore the piety and love of early Christians through indwelling power of the Holy Spirit. Experience of spiritual assurance, fruits of the Spirit, gifts and even supernatural manifestations of the Spirit were for Wesley, a natural consequence of God’s power among true Christians, working for the edification of the saints and the spreading of the Gospel.** It is important to note that although Wesley saw extraordinary gifts as a legitimate Christian experience, his treatment of gifts was different in regards to the blessing of assurance and the fruits of the Spirit. While he actively sought for spiritual assurance and for the fruits of Spirit (love, peace, meekness and so on), Wesley was more passive in expecting the manifestations of gifts of the Spirit. His main argument in regards to the gifts was that “they are available for Christians today” but he never made it a matter of doctrine to receive them, as it was the case with fruits of the Spirit or the assurance of the justification.

Just to be clear, this isn't a question about whether there were ten, eleven, or twelve in the group, but rather how certain we are, perhaps based on the syntax of the original Greek, that "and then to the Twelve" in 1 Corinthians 15:5 is a reference to an appearance of Christ to a *group* of apostles, as opposed to a series of *individual* appearances to the rest of the apostles besides Peter. Perhaps this is an odd question, as I've never seen it asked before. Is there any dispute about this among New Testament scholars?

A few other people and I at my church have decided to do a detailed study on the 12 Apostles. This got me thinking about the order the apostles were called to follow Christ. We know Simon Peter and Andrew were called first, but the rest are harder to discern. **So, in what order were the 12 Apostles called?**

Elements of monotheism seem to have existed in the philosophies of at least several of the celebrated ancient Greek philosophers; *e.g.,* Parmenides, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle. A while back, I recall have read (but I can't recall exactly where) that in the writings of the ancients, "God is everywhere implied." Can someone point me to who may have written or uttered this; and also, and if such writings extended beyond ancient Greek philosophy? *Remarks:* I thought perhaps the statement might have come from St. Thomas Aquinas because he was very much influenced by Aristotle---but so far, have found nothing. Also, I thought perhaps I would find the desired remark in St. Basil's "Address to young men on the right use of Greek literature," but it seemed to me to disclose nothing of the sort. Thank you.

In [Psalm 39 (NIV)](http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2039&version=NIVUK) starting with verse 12, David said: > "Hear my prayer, Lord, listen to my cry for help; do not be deaf to my weeping. I dwell with you as a foreigner, a stranger, as all my ancestors were. So he's asking God to hear his prayer, listen to his cry for help, and to not be deaf to his weeping. Then in verse 13, he says: > Look away from me, that I may enjoy life again before I depart and am no more." What is this supposed to mean? It sounds like he is contradicting himself.

In this Biblical Unitarian answer to a question asking after differences in the way that Catholics view Mary vs. how Biblical Unitarians view Jesus there appears the following: > Like Mary in Catholicism with special 'veneration' or devotion, there is an attitude towards Jesus which others might consider 'worship' and inappropriate towards anyone except God, and which is not equal to other humans in heaven. Catholics insist that the veneration they direct towards Mary is not the same as the worship that belongs to God alone. Of course, for Catholics, God indicates the three persons of the Trinity. Given the block-quote above my question is: Do Biblical Unitarians worship Jesus or only venerate him in the same sense in which Catholics venerate Mary?

The Bible unlocks another mystery about the dwelling of God, the place that His Christ is preparing for the saints. There is apparently more than one heaven. Paul wrote of a man who was received in the the **third heaven** *2 Corinthians 12:2* >I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. Is there any Biblical verse that explicity unlocks which one is the dwelling of The Most High and His Lamb?

What is the earliest canon law reference that contraceptive intercourse does not consummate a marriage? Fr. Hardon, S.J., defines "consummated marriage " as >A marriage in which after the matrimonial contract is made husband and wife have marital intercourse. **Contraceptive intercourse does not consummate Christian marriage.** (Etym. Latin *consummare*, to bring into one sum, to perfect.)

We see minute details of preparation for the first-ever public miracle of Jesus in John 2:6-7: >Nearby stood six stone water jars, the kind used by the Jews for ceremonial washing, each holding from twenty to thirty gallons. Jesus said to the servants, “Fill the jars with water”; so they filled them to the brim. The density of wine is slightly less than that of water, at about 0.99 g/mL. So if you have a standard glass of wine, that's roughly 150 mL, converting that to grams, you're at about 148.5 grams. In other words, 148.5 mL of pure water, if turned into wine, would make 150 mL. Given that each of the six jars had a capacity of 20 to 30 gallons, and each having been filled to the brim, there was all possibility that once the water turned into wine, the jars were no longer able to hold it without spilling. Now, John the Evangelist has the distinction of having recorded minute details of events, especially miracles. See for example, John 6:12-13: >When they had all had enough to eat, he said to his disciples, “Gather the pieces that are left over. Let nothing be wasted.” So they gathered them and filled twelve baskets with the pieces of the five barley loaves left over by those who had eaten. When John wrote that the jars had been filled 'to the brim 'prior to the miracle, there was some purpose. However, he does not mention if the jars were able to hold the water since miraculously turned into wine. Of course, the guests were desperately waiting for wine, and the jars would soon run dry. So, the phenomenon of overflowing must have been momentary. Are any apocryphal writings available on the post-miracle wine jars of Cana?

According to the Nicean Creed, Jesus Christ is said to be: >Light of Light, true God of true God, begotten and not made; of the very same being (**ὁμοούσιον**) of the Father, by Whom all things came into being, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible. > >φῶς ἐκ φωτός, Θεὸν ἀληθινὸν ἐκ Θεοῦ ἀληθινοῦ, γεννηθέντα οὐ ποιηθέντα, **ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί**, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἐγένετο How was the idea of homoousion developed, and when was this term used prior to the Council of Nicea?

We read in John 2:1-2: >**1** On the third day a wedding took place at Cana in Galilee. Jesus’ mother was there, **2** and Jesus and his disciples had also been invited to the wedding. See that the primary invitee to the *Wedding Feast* is Blessed Mother Mary. Verse 2 implies that Jesus & Company, 'care of' Mary, were **also** invited. Traditionally, we are made to believe that the host of the wedding feast was not a close relative of Jesus, in that he initially shows reflectance to intervene in the shortage of wine, a serious prestige issue for the host. But, the primary invitee being Mother Mary, it is quite possible that the host was a close relative or friend of hers. The Evangelist does not leave a clue. Are there some apocryphal writings on the issue?

> NIV - Romans 9:17
(17) For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I **raised** > you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and > that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth. > > (18a) Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy,
(18b) and he hardens whom he wants to harden." Since I'm not from an English speaking country, I have a difficulty to know what it means by the time I read the word "raised". Almost all English versions of Romans 9:17 use the word "*raised*" but there are two version (Contemporary English Version and Good News Translation) which directly describe it as "**made king**". Still I check the Exodus 9:16.
> NLT - Exodus 9:16
But **I have spared you** for a purpose--to show > you my power and to spread my fame throughout the earth. > > Christian Standard Bible - Exodus 9:16
However, **I have let you > live** for this purpose: to show you my power and to make my name known > on the whole earth. Between (A) "made king" and (B) "let you live", I choose B for "raised". And by choosing B, I feel it goes well with the Romans 9:18a. So, God does not kill Pharaoh because He choose to give mercy (let him live) to Pharaoh. But choosing B doesn't go well with Romans 9:18b. It's still also not connected if I choose A. The only thing which I think "connected" if I made a conclusion by myself about "raised" which is coming from Exodus 7:3 > NIV - Exodus 7:3
But I will **harden Pharaoh's heart**, and though I > multiply my signs and wonders in Egypt So Romans 9:17 become like this :
*For Scripture says to Pharaoh: "I **hardened** you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.* From here, now I can separate that Romans 9:18a is referring to verse 15, and Romans 9:18b is referring to verse 17. And if I still insist the meaning of "raised" in verse 17 is B, then (to me) in order verse 17 connect with verse 18, I need to use a chronology like this : *"God has mercy (let him live) to Pharaoh in order He can harden Pharaoh's heart so then He might display His power"*. A bit awkward to me :). My question is :
1. What did Paul mean on the word "raised" ?
2. Is there a connection between verse 17 and 18 ?

I came across an article that described how Dr. Michael Heiser shows that sections of scripture such as Psalm 82 talk about the Hebrew God as the head of a divine council of elohim, i.e. gods. So did the Israelites once believe that the Egyptian gods were part of that council? or was it just limited to Mesopotamian deities?

The economy of God is unbeatable and without peer, as evidenced for example by the fact that, even as semiconductor design and engineering is approaching atom-scale electronics, human and animal brains are still orders of magnitude more energy-efficient and capable than the world's most sophisticated microchips. God has also succeeded at creating enormous fusion reactors the universe throughout while scientists still struggle to get hints of the feasibility of such technology under carefully controlled laboratory conditions. This question is for young earth creationists who believe that all other stars, galaxies and objects in the cosmos were created attendant to the Creation of this Earth, and that there is no life on other worlds (other than perhaps spirits or eternal beings pertaining to, or known by the people on this Earth), or that this Earth is otherwise unique in terms of theological significance or its place in the universe in some pre-eminent way. I refer to these beliefs as "geocentrist" models because they make everything in the universe effectively revolve around this Earth and its purposes. I do not say they deny that the Earth revolves around the Sun, but they still make everything in the universe effectively accessories to this Earth and its Creation. What reasons do they give for why God with such mind-boggling extravagance would create so many other galaxies, stars, solar systems and even planets--given for example the gargantuan amounts of energy that each star outputs--if not a one of them sustains life of its own, or has any other purpose except towards this Earth and its populace? That would actually make life on Earth less energy-efficient than the most primitive creations of mankind, by a large margin. Obviously there are other ways to measure this, but again, why waste the vast, vast, vast (with many zeros added on for good measure) majority of starlight and creative effort on something so far away that our telescopes cannot resolve 99.999999% it to more than a mere point of light? God is doubtless generous, with trillions of photons devoted to striking our eyes each second, and efficiency isn't everything, but is He wasteful? This is a natural question asked by those who ponder why God would create so many quintillions of stars, but only one with life in its system? Why would He break the pattern of sustainable life on other worlds, forfeiting the opportunity to have and redeem quadrillions of quintillions more of His children, when the resources are clearly there and already organized to sustain life? Or if they are not organized in such a fashion to sustain life, surely He has the intelligence to do it--is there some other limitation or reason why, other than simply that He can? To be clear, this is not *my* question or criticism, but rather is a natural question or criticism levied by some secular scientists and engineers regarding common interpretations of Genesis. They might have a point, not against God's ways, but that should help us to correct our own misunderstandings. What can we say that will address the criticism and instruct our own ways?

I understand that certain acts in Catholicism are considered "illicit," or in violation of church law. Is this equivalent to saying that the acts are sinful? Can something be sinful but not illicit, or illicit but not sinful?

Recently, I stated in an article that Tertullian was a Sabellian. One person objected and quoted a passage that states that Tertullian was “one of the chief critics of Sabellianism.” Consequently, I removed that statement from my article, but I also continued to read and think. My response to this issue is now as follows: Tertullian’s Enemy ------------------ Tertullian did not oppose Sabellius as such. Tertullian (ca. 160–225) wrote slightly before Sabellius. For example: > “Shortly after Tertullian’s day, a theologian named Sabellius gave > ...” (Litfin ) (Bryan M. Litfin, University of Virginia, Professor of Theology at > Moody Bible Institute, Chicago) Tertullian’s enemies were the Monarchian theologians. For example: > “The treatise Against Praxeas is widely recognized as Tertullian’s > greatest work on the Trinity. The view apparently taught by Praxeas > has come to be called ‘**modalism**’, thanks to that designation appearing > in Adolf von Harnack’s History of Dogma (1897). Tertullian simply > calls his opponent a ‘**monarchian**’.” (Litfin) The following quote describes the theology of Tertullian's enemies: > Tertullian's "efforts were directed against a view whose chief error > was to conflate the Father and Son, meaning that, among other things, > the Father suffered on the Cross—a view known as ‘patripassianism’, > which Tertullian found abhorrent.” (Litfin) The Monarchians were the people who conflated Father and Son. They said that Father and Son are two names for the same Entity. For example: > “This ‘**monarchian**’ view was ... suggesting the Father and Son were > different expressions of the same being, without any personal > distinctions between them. In other words, **the Father is himself the > Son**, and therefore experiences the Son’s human frailties.” (Litfin) > > “In the words of Noetus: … the Father … Himself became His own Son.” > “It was therefore God who was born from a virgin and who confessed > himself to humankind as the Son of God. At the cross, God commended > his spirit to himself, as he acted to be dead, but he was not dead in > reality, although he raised himself on the 3rd day.” (Willem Oliver ) (Willem H. Oliver, Department of Christian Spirituality, Church History and Missiology, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa) > > “The Latin Fathers … called them 'patripassians' because they have > identified the Father and the Son to such an extent that they believed > that it was the Father who suffered and died on the cross.” (Willem > Oliver) As already mentioned above: > “Adolph Von Harnack coined the term 'Modalism' for this 2nd-century > doctrine, which referred to the Trinity as consisting of 'three modes > or aspects of one divine existence'.” (Willem Oliver) Logos-theologian ---------------- Tertullian was not alone in his war against the Monarchians. As from the late second century, following Justin Martyr, non-Jewish Christianity was dominated by Logos-theology. It taught a two-stage existence for the Logos: He always existed inside God but became a separate Being - a distinct Reality - when God decided to create. (See - The Apologists .) Consequently, in Tertullian's day, in the early third century, the two main competing Christological views were Logos-theology (the Apologists) and Monarchianism. Monarchians objected that: > "The theology of the Apologists involves a division in the being and > unity of God that is unacceptable.” (LA, 68) > > Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods (bi-theism), > “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3)” (Stanford > Encyclopedia of Philosophy ). Tertullian was a Logos-theologian. ---------------------------------- For example, similar to the Logos-theologians: > “For Tertullian, the Son is second in order and comes from the Father > in connection with the Father's decision to create, he also insists > that the Son was always in the Father: the same **two-stage** conception > ...” (LA, 73-74) > > “Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was > **eternally within the being of the Father**, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and > redemption” (RH, 872) Tertullian, therefore, was one of the Logos-theologians: > “When he (Tertullian) is examined against the background of his > immediate predecessors, he falls into place as a typical > second-century Logos theologian.” (Litfin) > > “His ideas were essentially those of the Greek Logos theologians > combined with insights from Bishop Irenaeus.” (Litfin) As a Logos-theologian, he was one of those who opposed Monarchianism: > “Tertullian's targets here are Monarchian theologians for whom the > Word does not exist as a distinct existing thing.” (LA, 74) Ayres here uses the word “thing.” That is not meant to be disrespectful. In the context of the Arian Controversy with its ambiguous terminology, “thing” is a useful word because it is devoid of content. But, perhaps a more neutral word such as ‘entity’ would have been better. Sabellianism is Monarchianism. ------------------------------ So, Tertullian's enemy was Monarchianism. The purpose of this section, however, is to show that Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism. Both systems refuse to acknowledge the distinct existence of the Persons. Both claim that Father, Son, and Spirit are simply three names for the same Reality. For example: > Hanson defines Sabellianism as the “refusal to acknowledge the > distinct existence of the Persons.” (RH, 844) > > Referring to the Dedication creed, Hanson says: “Its chief bête noire > [the thing that it particularly dislikes] is SABELLIANISM, **the denial > of a distinction between the three within the Godhead**.” (RH, 287) > > Ayres says similarly: “The [Dedication] creed clearly and strongly > argues against SABELLIAN emphases and those emphases were associated > with Marcellan theology. We see these emphases, for instance, in the > insistence that there are **three names which ‘signify exactly the > particular hypostasis** and order and glory of each’.” (LA, 119) > > “Paulinus was a rival of Basil's friend and ally Meletius. … Basil > suspected that Paulinus was at heart a SABELLIAN, believing in only > **one Person (hypostasis) in the Godhead**. Paulinus' association with the > remaining followers of Marcellus and his continuing to favour the > expression 'one hypostasis' … rendered him suspect.” (RH, 801) > > Basil of Caesarea “goes on to introduce another argument in favour of > homoousios: 'this expression (homoousios) also corrects the fault of > SABELLIUS for it excludes **identity of Person (hypostasis)** … for > nothing is consubstantial with itself. (RH, 694-5) Sabellianism, therefore, is another name for Monarchianism. For example: > “This movement called themselves 'Monarchians', the Greek Fathers > called them 'Sabellians', as Sabellius was the person who has put this > doctrine in its philosophical form, supplying its metaphysical basis.” > (Willem Oliver) Since Tertullian opposed Monarchianism, and since Sabellianism is another name for Monarchianism, Tertullian was a critic of Sabellianism. Sabellius was not a Monarchian. ------------------------------ Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) lived more or less at the same time in history as Tertullian (ca. 160–225). Sabellianism was named after Sabellius. It is often stated that Sabellius, as in Monarchianism, taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three names for the same Reality. However, if we believe Von Mosheim, Sabellius also opposed that concept. None of Sabellius' writings have survived. Everything we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents and we know that one's enemies seldom give a fair reflection of one's views. So, we are not quite sure what he taught. But Von Mosheim made a study and concluded that Sabellius, while maintaining that Father, Son, and Spirit are one Reality, still managed to distinguish between them. Sabellius, namely, argued that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct forms or portions of the one divine Being. For example: > “While he maintained that there was but one person in God, he yet held > that there are **three forms, or aspects of the one God**. Divers forms of > one and the same being involve some real distinction.” (page 218 ) > > “Sabellius …  believed that, as a man in just one person, and yet in > his person three things may be discriminated, not in thought only, but > as having a real existence, namely, **the body, the soul, and the > spirit, so, also, although there is but one undivided person in God**, > yet in that person, the Father, the Son, and the holy Spirit can be > discriminated, not in thought only, but they must be really > discriminated and kept distinct.” (219-220) > > “As Sabellius held to the simple unity of the person and nature of > God, and yet supposed the Father, Son, and holy Spirit, to differ > really from each other, and **not to be three names of the one God**, > acting in different ways; we are obliged to believe, that he > considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as being **three portions > of the divine nature**.” (220) Sabellianism teaches one hypostasis. ------------------------------------ So, if we are to define Sabellianism to include Sabellius' theology, it would be a wider concept than simply Monarchianism. Note that, in the descriptions of Sabellianism quoted above, it is twice defined as that **only one hypostasis exists in the Godhead**. Today, hypostasis is often translated as 'Person'. But the following quote explains the meaning of hypostasis during the fourth century: > “To defend themselves against charges of Sabellianism, the Nicenes > developed not just the language of three prosopa, or ‘roles’ within > the Trinity, but three hypostaseis, or distinct personalities. This > approach proved problematic … for the Greek word hypostasis … meant > ‘to stand under or among’, that is, ‘to be existent’. Such language > suggested **three distinct existences within the Godhead**, and this > sounded to nervous Christian ears like tritheism.” (Litfin) A hypostasis, therefore, is a distinct existence. Sabellius believed that "there is but one undivided person in God;" i.e., only one hypostasis. To believe, like the Monarchians did, that Father = Son = Spirit, means that only one hypostasis exists. However, as the Sabellius example shows, it is possible to believe in one hypostasis but still to distinguish between Father, Son, and Spirit. To define Sabellianism as the belief in one single hypostasis, therefore, is a wider concept. The question then is, if we use this wider definition of Sabellianism, was Tertullian a Sabellian? Did he teach one or more hypostases?  Tertullian's Theology ===================== Anticipates Nicene Consensus ---------------------------- “Tertullian is often portrayed as a prescient figure who accurately anticipated the Nicene consensus about the Trinity.” For example: > “He also offered a formula that, more than a century later, would > assume the status of doctrinal orthodoxy. God is unam substantiam in > tribus cohaerentibus, ‘one substance cohering in three’.” (Litfin) > > In Tertullians' theology, “while the Son does share the substance of > the Father, both are distinct Persons. This is precisely the > trinitarian terminology that would eventually win the day.” (Litfin) Logos Theologist ---------------- However, as shown above, Tertullian was a Logos-theologian. That has the following consequences: **SUBORDINATION** The Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father: > “He tended toward a profound theological subordination of the Son and > the Spirit. ... The Trinity, he believed, possessed a genuine, > stepwise ranking according to each Person’s gradus, forma, and > species. This is indeed a bold view of the architecture of the > Trinity, one that skirts close to Arian subordinationism.” (Litfin) > > “The Son and Spirit are emissaries of the Father’s will—not > ontologically inferior to him, yet ranked lower.” (Litfin) **THE FATHER WAS NOT ALWAYS FATHER.** In Logos-theology and Tertullian, the Logos always existed inside God and was only begotten to become a distinct entity when He was begotten from the Father: > “But even more problematic from an orthodox point of view was > Tertullian’s firm conviction that a relationship of fatherhood and > sonship is not intrinsic to the Trinity.” (Litfin) > > “The notion that the First Person was not essentially and eternally a > Father … became anathema to later generations. Yet this was precisely > what Tertullian believed, and for this reason his doctrine of temporal > paternity and filiation was closer to the Arian point of view.” > (Litfin) Conclusion ---------- > “Tertullian was not really a forward-thinking Nicene trinitarian born > a century out of time, but a typical theologian of his day. ... We > should not be too quick to anoint Tertullian as the Latin foundation > upon which the Greek edifice of Nicaea was going to be built.” > (Litfin) > > “Historical theologians need to start admitting that Tertullian was a > far cry from being fully Nicene.” (Litfin) Right Words ----------- Tertullian is regarded as important, not because of his theology, but for introducing certain words into the debate that later became 'orthodox', such as 'trinity', 'substance', and 'person'. For example: > “Why such enthusiasm for Tertullian’s trinitarianism? As the above > selections demonstrate, the answer is essentially terminological. > Historical theologians like to suggest that Tertullian’s use of the > term trinitas, and his one substantia/three personae formula, make him > a kind of proto-Nicene hero.” (Litfin) How many hypostases? -------------------- But, to determine whether Tertullian was a Sabellian, we need to determine whether he taught one single hypostasis. Tertullian and his fellow Logos theologians accused the Monarchians "of teaching that the Son and the Spirit do not have real independent existence and are in fact simply modes of the Father's being.” (LA, 68) In contrast: > “Tertullian argues for the true existence of the Son as a distinct > reality.” (LA, 74-75). > > “In Tertullian’s new trinitarian schema, God is characterized by a > single divine ‘substance’ of rulership over the cosmos. Yet he is > fundamentally arranged or disposed in three personae.” (Litfin) But the question is, was that a distinction within one hypostasis, as in Sabellius' theology? What is the nature of the personae in Tertullian? Part of the Father ------------------ Consistent with Logos-theology, “Tertullian … believed and taught that, though the Son or Logos was **eternally within the being of the Father**, he only became distinct … at a particular point for the purposes of creation, revelation and redemption.” (RH, 872)  However, to overcome the criticism of the Monarchians, namely that Logos-theology teaches two creators and two Gods, “inconsistent with monotheism (Tertullian Praxeas, ch. 3),” Tertullian adjusted the standard Logos presentation by saying that **the Logos did not become distinct from the substance of the Father**. He was formed from a portion of the Father's substance but that portion remained part of the Father. So, there is only one substance and only one God, and that is the Father. For example: > “Tertullian believed … (that) at a certain juncture, God, while not > ceasing to be what he always was, nonetheless extended himself or > projected himself forward, so that the three Persons became more > clearly distinguished. By means of these now-more-distinct Persons, > the one God creates the world, rules over it, and enters into it for > salvation.” (Litfin) The point is that the Son always was part of the Father and always will remain part of the Father. In the same way, the Holy Spirit is part of the Father. So, it is possible to distinguish between the Father and the Son but, if the Son is part of the Father, then there is only one hypostasis. For example: > "For the Father is the entire substance, **but the Son is a derivation > and portion of the whole**." (Against Praxeas, Chapter 9) How Tertullian used the term substance, it means one hypostasis. For example: > “The term substantia as Tertullian used it signified the existence of > a single, discrete entity (here, the One God).” (Litfin) > > "The word in Greek translation of Tertullian's una substantia would > not be the word homoousios but mia hypostasis (one hypostasis)." (RH, > 193) Is it, therefore, valid to classify Tertullian as a Sabellian, if one uses the wider definition of Sabellianism as that God is only one single hypostasis?

Jesuit theologian [Fr. Kenneth Baker](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Baker_(Jesuit)) states that Mary was not only free from sin but was "unable" to sin: > Two special factors rendered Mary impeccable or unable to sin. The > first was her constant awareness of God, living always in His > presence, and the second was her reception of special and > extraordinary graces. These special graces made it possible for Mary > to maintain a perfect harmony in her mind, will and emotions and to > recognize always what was the right thing to do and then to do it. > (Baker, Kenneth (2016). Fundamentals of Catholicism, Vol. 2. Ignatius > Press. ISBN 978-1-68149-732-7.) The Catholic Encyclopedia on "The Blessed Virgin Mary" seems to confirm this when it says that her sinlessness was due to "divine privilege" and that she never experienced temptation: > Theologians assert that Mary was > impeccable, not by the essential perfection of her nature, but by a > special Divine privilege. Moreover, the Fathers, at least since the > fifth century, almost unanimously maintain that the Blessed Virgin > never experienced the motions of concupiscence. Does the Catholic Church teach simply that Mary did not sin, or that she was unable to sin?

> Now I beseech you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you; but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been declared unto me of you, my brethren, by them which are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions among you. Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ. Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? - 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 It is certain that Cephas, here, is the Apostle Peter (John 1:42). In Paul's chastisement of the Corinthian believer's "contentions" he lists 4 names that they are claiming to be "of". He outright eliminates himself from the list but, if he recommends any name on the list, it is not Cephas (Peter) but Christ. A natural reading of verse 13 looks like this: *Is Christ divided? Was Paul (or Apollos or Cephas) crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul (or Apollos or Cephas)?* How do proponents of the primacy of Peter reckon with Paul apparently placing Peter and Apollos on equal footing here? Why does Paul give no hint of any special status for Peter over either himself or Apollos when attempting to correct divisions in the Church?

I need the 33d and the 124th canons (rules) of this Synod. Thank you in advance.