I've seen several different versions of this quotation, but the one constant is: > *Woman is a temple built over a sewer*. Other versions expand on this. Adding items such as > *Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You should always go in mourning and in rags.* or > *Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You led astray one whom the devil would not dare attack directly. It was your fault that the Son of God had to die; you should always go in mourning and rags*. But what is the original source? Putting the first quote in to Google reveals so many different versions that I'm beginning to doubt the existence of a primary source.

What does Tertullian mean by the Son being a "portion of the Father's substance"? > "For the Father is the entire substance, **but the Son is a derivation > and portion of the whole**" ([*Against Praxeas*, Chapter 9](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm)) . Tetullian seemed to contradict the Scriptures: > For **the entire fullness of God's nature dwells bodily in Christ**, > > Colossians 2:9 (HCSB) If not, what does he mean by the Son being a derivation and portion of the whole substance?

Tertullian becoming a Montanist is the key factor why he wasn't considered a Church Father and a Saint, although he is considered an important ecclesiastical writer (*cf*. [wikipedia, 3rd paragraph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian)) . Why did this great early apologist become a heretic?

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?

Today's reading on Exodus 90 said: > The early Church writer Tertullian (~155–220 A.D.), known as the father of Western theology, once posed the question, “What has Jerusalem to do with Athens?” The idea behind it is that the connection between the Christian faith and Greek philosophy isn’t clear; indeed, in certain periods of the Church’s history, it has been highly controverted. I'm wondering what the controversies have been; the reading goes on to talk about culture, not philosophy so I'm kind of left in the lurch and this is why I am asking here. Not that I'm as smart as Tertullian to pose such a question, but I'd like to know how various churches answer this question. > What has Jerusalem to do with Athens? This is a [tag:chrestomathy-request] so I'd prefer the answer(s) be in the form of citations from the major works outlining the tenets of each sect with regards to how (and if) it integrates Greek philosophy with theology.

In an article answering Georg Kaplan's 1 denials of the Trinitarian doctrine, Ken Temple states : >Even if the early Church had never applied the title θεός to Jesus, his deity would still be apparent in his being the object of human and angelic worship and of saving faith; the exerciser of exclusively divine functions such as creatorial agency, the forgiveness of sins, and the final judgment; the addressee in petitionary prayer; the possessor of all divine attributes; the bearer of numerous titles used of Yahweh in the OT; and the co-author of divine blessing. > >Faith in the deity of Christ does not rest on the evidence or validity of a series of ‘proof-texts’ in which Jesus may receive the title θεός **but on the general testimony of the NT** corroborated at the bar of personal experience.147 > >Apologetics and Agape - Wordpress - March 19, 2018 Nevertheless he publishes a list of texts as an example. However what attracted my attention and what prompts my question is his answer to the objection that the doctrine of the Trinity was formed in later centuries than the early church and the objector claims that the early church knew nothing of it until Nicea. So Ken Temple further states : >... Ignatius, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, and Athanasius and Hillary and others had expressions of the Trinity in centuries (and at the same time – Athanasius and Hillary) before Gregory of Nyssa. Ignatius is clear on the Deity of Christ in early second century (around 107-110 AD) and has a simple expression of the Trinity. So, Ken Temple then quotes from Ignatius (writing in 107-110 AD), which I shall not copy, it is in the linked document. But all he says of Tertullian is : >Also, Tertullian, around 190-220 AD, used the basic words, “Trinitas Unitas” (three in one) and “persona” (the Latin equivalent of hypostatis) over 1 century before the Cappadocian Fathers, as did Origen around 250 AD. My question is - Are there more susbstantial references available on this subject from Tertullian and Origen and Irenaeus ? ------------------------------------ 1 Georg Kaplan, a professed Unitarian, seems to be linked to the pseudonyms 'Gregory Blunt' and 'Thomas Pearne'. (Although, elsewhere it is spelt 'Kaplin'). Edit : Comment suggests that this is a third layer of pseudonym.

Everett Ferguson, in [*Church History*, I.21.IV](https://books.google.com/books?id=VB_StdsoDV4C&pg=PT458) , cites [Tertullian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian) (d. ~240) as a proto-satisfaction theory of atonement thinker: > The sacrificial or satisfaction theory had an initial statement by Tertullian, but found its classic formulation in Anselm. Where in Tertullian's writings does he make this "initial statement"? Which of his writings indicate an early form of [satisfaction theory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satisfaction_theory_of_atonement) , as opposed to [other theories of atonement](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity) ?

Tried to understand the doctrine deeply and in a broader way than it is taught in school, or presented in Wikipedia. And no one can explain it to me in a simple way for my mind to accept it, How it can be that: x = G y = G z = G BUT! x != y != z != x And even in this site the authors of the site have written without no doubt: > The most difficult thing about the Trinity Doctrine is that there is no way to adequately explain it. The Trinity is a concept that is impossible for any human being to fully understand, let alone explain In the end the authors just throw at me their problems: > This is a difficult concept to grasp. But let's put a God-sized doctrine into perspective -- God is beyond our comprehension. Logically, something does not work out for me, The Almighty **will not allow** us to believe that there is a triangle with four sides, or that he will create a square whose diameter is equal to its side. Of course it **"is a difficult concept to grasp"**, because maybe they have disrupted the intent of Christ, who can tell me that Christ accept Tertullian: > new theological concepts and advanced the development of early Church doctrine. I'm desperate to understand the truth, and to settle this problem.

I've read the internet about Tertullian's "tres personae, una substantia" of Trinity. It seems that his "tres personae, una substantia" is rejected by all kind of Christianity. However I would like to know what the Tertullian's "Tres Personae" mean since from the internet I read about English, the word [Person] has different meaning with [Persona]. Now it seems to me the "Tres Personae" is [Three Persona], not [Three Persons], while in the point of view of the pro-Trinity majority (as far as I know) it's about [Three Persons]. So, my question is – did Tertullian meant of his "Personae" a Person? or a Persona? Or did I make mistake which actually in English language, there is no difference between Persona and Person?

Today, [Tertullian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tertullian) (c. AD 155–240) has something of a mixed reputation in many Christian circles. He's recognized as a significant thinker and a major contributor to the doctrine of the Trinity. But in his later years he became associated with a movement known as Montanism, and he seems to have separated himself from the church. As a result of this and some of his teachings, he is not recognized as a saint in Catholicism, for example, and scholars have varied opinions of him. In light of this modern disagreement, I'd like to know how those in the early church saw Tertullian. **According to their writings, what did the church fathers of the fifth century or prior think of Tertullian?**

In his book *On Baptism*, Chapter 18, "Of the Persons to Whom, and the Time When, Baptism is to Be Administered," Tertullian says > According to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. Based on the arguments he uses for this, and the way he says it, he is not making a case against paedobaptism the way that credobaptists would now. Nevertheless, he clearly is not in favor of the practice. People obviously interpret different authors different ways. However, I am wondering: are there any other early church writers who are *clearly* opposed to paedobaptism? In other words, I'm not looking for writings that could be interpreted as credobaptist, I'm looking for writings where paedobaptism is clearly spoken against, as in Tertullian.

While reading Bruce Shelley's *Church History in Plain Language*, I came across the following quote, in the context of how early Christians separated themselves from the world around them for fear of idolatry: > Tertullian even forbade a Christian to be a schoolteacher, because such teaching involved using textbooks that told the ancient stories of the gods and called for observing the religious festivals of the pagan year. ([page 42](https://books.google.com/books?id=RbfVAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA42)) Shelley doesn't provide a citation for this claim or go into any more detail, so I wonder: - Where does Tertullian say this? - Was the entire profession off-limits, or only certain activities? - Did he also forbid Christians from studying under one of these pagan school teachers?

What is the earliest record of the Apostle John being placed in boiling oil and miraculously living? I can't find any scriptural mention of the story. The only reference I have is Tertullian : > *"Since, moreover, you are close upon Italy, you have Rome, from which there comes even into our own hands the very authority (of apostles themselves). How happy is its church, on which apostles poured forth all their doctrine along with their blood; where Peter endures a passion like his Lord's; where Paul wins his crown in a death like John [the Baptist]'s; where the Apostle **John was first plunged, unhurt, into boiling oil**, and thence remitted to his island-exile."* > > *The Prescription Against Heretics , Ch. 36*

The early Christian theologian Tertullian used the term *refrigerium interim* to describe a happy state in which the souls of the blessed are refreshed while they await the Last Judgment and their definitive entry into Heaven (source). ***What was the Biblical Basis he used to support this concept?***

Tertullian is well known as the first Latin writer to use the word "trinity" (*trinitas*) and as a proponent of trinitarian doctrine in general. But there were many trinitarian controversies between his time and that of the Nicene Creed. Books and articles about the doctrine often say that it was not "settled" until then (or later). What aspects of Tertullian's doctrine of the trinity are claimed by scholars to be opposed to later orthodox formulations of the doctrine? And where specifically in his writings do such scholars point to make their case?