Let us Make Man
Were the apostolic fathers and early church apologists 'Oneness' Pentecostals?
A good test case of how they view Jesus' pre-existence of His incarnation
is Genesis 1:26, "Then God said, 'Let Us make man in Our image, according
to Our likeness;...So God created man in His own image; in the image of
God He created him; male and female He created them." (Genesis 1:26-27).
Do they understand 'Let Us make man' to intimate Father, Son and
Holy Spirit...or do they resort to the Rabbinic dodge of angelic co-creators?:
"And furthermore, my brothers: if the Lord submitted to suffer for our
souls, even though he is Lord of the whole world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world,
'Let us make according to our image and likeness,' how is it, then, that he submitted to suffer at the
hands of mean? Learn!" (Epistle of Barnabas, 5.5)
"And the same sentiment was expressed, my friends, by the
word of God [written] by Moses, when it indicated to us, with regard to Him whom it has pointed out,
that God speaks in the creation of man with the very same design, in the following words: 'Let Us
make man after our image and likeness...And God created man: after the image of God did He create
him; male and female created He them.'...For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy which
is said to be among you is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that [God] spoke to
angels, or that the human frame was the workmanship of angels. But this Offspring, which was
truly brought forth from the Father, was with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father
communed with Him; even as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom,
was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God, who has also
declared this same thing in the revelation made by Joshua the son of Nave (Nun)." (Justin Martyr,
martyred 165 A.D., Dialogue with Trypho, Chapter LXII).
“Moreover, God is found, as if needing help, to say, 'Let Us make man in
Our image, after Our likeness.' But to no one else than to His own Word
and wisdom did He say, 'Let Us make.'” (Theophilus of Antioch, To Autolycus,
Book 2, Chapter 18).
"Now man is a mixed organization of soul and flesh, who was
formed after the likeness of God, and molded by His hands, that is, by the Son and Holy Spirit, to whom
also He said, 'Let Us make man.'" (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Preface, 4).
"And this is He of whom the Scripture says, 'And God formed
man, taking clay of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life.' It was not angels,
therefore, who made us, nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor any
one else, except the Word of the Lord, nor any Power remotely distant from the Father of all
things. For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He
had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own
hands. For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom
and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, 'Let Us
make man after Our image and likeness;' He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures
[formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world."
(Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 4, Chapter 20, 1.)
"Thus it was that the Father did say beforehand to the Son:
'Let us make man in our image and likeness. And God made man,' -- that is, the creature
which He fashioned -- 'to the image of God,' -- of Christ, of course, -- 'He made him.'" (Tertullian,
The Resurrection of the Dead, 6:2, 361, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1, William A. Jurgens, p. 149)
Since these early Christians heard in Genesis 1:26 a conference call amongst Father, Son and Holy Spirit, they are not at home in the
modalist camp. They situated the Son with the Father before
the ages, as does scripture; they did not identify the Son as the Father before the ages.
Nor is the trinitarian understanding of Genesis 1:26-27 unique to the early
church. At all ages Christians have understood this passage the same way:
"In the sacred scripture, however, the Son is found to
have been distinct from the Father even before the Incarnation...We read, also, in Genesis (1:26):
'Let us make man to our image and likeness'; and in this the plurality and distinction of those who
make man is expressly designated. Yet Scripture teaches that man was made by God alone.
Thus, there was a plurality and distinction of God the Father and God the Son even before the
Incarnation of Christ." (Thomas Aquinas, The Opinion of Sabellius on the Son of God, and its
Refutation, Chapter 5:9 Summa Contra Gentiles, Book Four).
"Secondly, I would remark upon this divine Word, "Let Us Make,"--that it appertains to the
mystery and confirmation of our faith: by which, we believe that there is ONE GOD, from all eternity and
THREE distinct Persons in ONE Divinity or divine Essence,-- the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. The Jews,
indeed, attempt, in various ways, to elude this passage...I
would demand, secondly, what the creation of man had to do with angels or angels with it?...Wherefore, God
speaks here of Makers or Creators. This expression therefore could not design, or imply, angels....Wherefore, most
assuredly, the Holy Trinity is here intended of God...For all the THREE Persons here concur, and speak
unitedly, when they say, 'Let Us make.'" (Martin Luther,
The Creation: A Commentary on the First Five Chapters of the Book of Genesis, pp. 84-85).
Polycarp
Polycarp was a 'right hand' man:
"'Therefore prepare for action and serve God in fear' and truth, leaving
behind the empty and meaningless talk and the error of the crowd, and 'believing in him who raised' our
Lord Jesus Christ 'from the dead and gave him
glory' and a throne at his right hand; to whom all things in
heaven and on earth were subjected, whom every breathing creature serves, who is coming as 'Judge
of the living and the dead,' for whose blood God will hold responsible those who disobey him."
(Polycarp, To the Phillippians, 2).
"For this reason, indeed for all things, I praise you, I
bless you, I glorify you, through the eternal and heavenly High
Priest, Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom to you with
him and the Holy Spirit be glory both now and for
the ages to come. Amen." (The Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14.3).
"Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and
the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in
faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and
steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his
saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God
Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead." (To the Philippians, 12.2)
Ignatius
"Since, therefore, in the persons mentioned above I have by faith seen and
loved the whole congregation, I have this advice: Be eager to do everything in godly harmony, the
bishop presiding in the place of God and the presbyters in the place of the council of the
apostles and the deacons, who are most dear to me, having been entrusted with the service of
Jesus Christ, who before the ages was with the Father and appeared at the end of
time." (Ignatius, To the Magnesians, 6.1)
"For the most godly prophets lived in accordance with Christ
Jesus. This is why they were persecuted, being inspired as they were by his grace in order
that those who are disobedient might be fully convinced that there is one God who revealed
himself through Jesus Christ his Son, who is his Word which came forth from silence, who in every
respect pleased him who sent him." (To the Magnesians, 8.2).
Ignatius identifies Jesus as 'the Son', not 'the Father', respecting the usage of the apostles:
"Ignatius, who is also called Theophorus, to the church that has found
mercy in the majesty of the Father Most High and Jesus Christ his only Son, beloved and enlightened
through the will of him who willed all things that exist, in accordance with faith in and love for
Jesus Christ our God, which also presides in the place of the district of the Romans, worthy of God,
worthy of honor, worthy of blessing, worthy of praise, worthy of success, worthy of
sanctification, and presiding over love, observing the law of Christ, bearing the name of the Father,
which I also greet in the name of Jesus Christ, Son
of the Father; to those who are united in flesh and spirit to every commandment of his, who
have been filled with the grace of God without wavering and filtered clear of every alien color:
heartiest greetings blamelessly in Jesus Christ our God." (To the Romans, Preface).
"For if I in a short time experienced such fellowship with
your bishop, which was not merely human but spiritual, how much more do I congratulate you who
are united with him, as the church is with Jesus Christ and as Jesus Christ is with the Father, that
all things might be harmonious in unity." (To the Ephesians, 5.1)
"Become imitators of Jesus Christ, just as he is of his
Father." (To the Philadelphians, 7.2)
Clement of Rome
"For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ lives, and the
Holy Spirit (who are the faith and the hope of the elect), so surely will
the one who with humility and constant gentleness has kept without regret the ordinances and
commandments given by God be enrolled and included among the number of those who are saved through
Jesus Christ, through whom is the glory to him for ever and ever. Amen." (First Clement, 58.2).
Shepherd of Hermas
"'First of all, sir,' I said, 'explain this to me: Who is the rock and the
door?' 'This rock,' he said, 'and the door are the Son of God.' 'How is it, sir,' I
said, 'that the rock is old, but the door is new?' 'Listen,' he said, 'and understand, foolish
man. The Son of God is far older than all his creation, with the result that he
was the Father's counselor in his creation. That is why the rock is old.' ..." (The Shepherd of Hermas,
12. 89, Parable 9).
Justin Martyr
An early rule of faith of triune form: "Hence are we called
atheists. And we confess that we are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but not
with respect to the most true God, the Father of righteousness
and temperance and the other virtues, who is free from all impurity. But both Him, and the
Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host
of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and
adore, knowing them in reason and truth, and declaring without grudging to every one who wishes
to learn, as we have been taught." (Justin Martyr, First Apology, Chapter 6).
Simon the Sorcerer
Simon the Sorcerer turns up in the Bible as a rival claimant to deity:
"But there was a certain man called Simon, who previously practiced
sorcery in the city and astonished the people of Samaria, claiming that
he was someone great, to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the
greatest, saying, 'This man is the great power of God.'" (Acts 8:9-10).
Later writers recalled him as having sketched out the conceptual framework
of Sabellian-style modalism:
“‘“And so (it was that Jesus) appeared as man, when in reality he was not
a man. And (so it was) that likewise he suffered — though not actually
undergoing suffering, but appearing to the Jews to do so — in Judea as
‘Son,’ and in Samaria as ‘Father,’ and among the rest of the Gentiles as
‘Holy Spirit.’” And (Simon alleges) that Jesus tolerated being styled by
whichever name (of the three just mentioned) men might wish to call him.”
(Hippolytus, Refutation of All Heresies, Book 6, Chapter 14).
Like other gnostics, Simon was a polytheist. Simon associated with the
Christian church for a time, then struck out on his own. Do the 'Oneness'
Pentecostals want to claim Simon's heritage, when he was not actually proclaiming
the Christian gospel, but his own?
Gnostics
Some gnostics say things that sound like the 'Oneness' Pentecostals:
"Now the name of the Father is the Son. It is he who first gave a name to the one who came forth from him, who was himself, and he begot him as a son. He gave him his name which belonged to him; he is the one to whom belongs all that exists around him, the Father, His is the name; his is the Son." (The Gospel of Truth, The Nag Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson, p. 49)
"Therefore they knew what I [Jesus] was saying, for we took counsel about the destruction of the rulers.
And therefore I did the will of the father, who is I." (The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, The Gnostic Bible, edited
by Willis Barnstone and Marvin Meyer, p. 471)
Of course, 'The Second Treatise of the Great Seth" also says, "And
then a voice of the world ruler came to the angels: 'I am god and there
is no other god but me.' But I laughed joyfully when I examined his conceit."
(The Second Treatise of the Great Seth, The Gnostic Bible, edited by Willis
Barnstone and Marvin Meyer, p. 469). Chuckling at expressions of monotheism
is a common theme with gnosticism:
"And he is impious in his arrogance which is in him. For he said,
'I am God and there is no other God beside me,' for he is ignorant of his
strength, the place from which he had come....And when he saw the creation
which surrounds him and the multitude of the angels around him which had
come forth from him, he said to them, 'I am a jealous God and there is
no other God beside me.' But by announcing this he indicated to the angels
who attended him that there exists another God. For if there were no other
one, of whom would he be jealous?" (The Apocryphon of John, The Nag
Hammadi Library, James M. Robinson, p. 111-112).
"Their chief is blind; [because of his] power and his ignorance [and
his] arrogance he said, with his [power], 'It is I who am God; there is
none [apart from me]." (The Hypostasis of the Archons, The Nag Hammadi
Library, James M. Robinson, p. 162).
Gnostics believe in at least two gods, a bad god who made the world, and
a good god who sent Jesus Christ. The bad god who made the world speaks
in the Old Testament, they say, whereas the good god speaks in the New.
Some gnostics are willing to identify Jesus as same in person with the
good god. But what about that bad god who made the world..?
Athenagoras
The 'Oneness' Pentecostals -- and also the Jehovah's Witnesses, who claim
these same authors -- base their case that the early writers were not Trinitarians
on the fact that they did not employ the word 'Trinity'.
But while early writers like Athenagoras (177 A.D.) may not employ the word, their statements
of faith are triune in form:
"That we are not atheists, therefore, seeing that we acknowledge one God,
uncreated, eternal, invisible, impassible, incomprehensible, illimitable, who is apprehended
by the understanding only and the reason, who is encompassed by light, and beauty, and spirit, and
power ineffable, by whom the universe has been created through his logos, and set in order, and is
kept in being -- I have sufficiently demonstrated. [I say 'His Logos'], for we acknowledge also a Son
of God. Nor let any one think it ridiculous that God should have a Son. For though the poets,
in their fictions, represent the gods as no better than men, our mode of thinking is not the same as
theirs, concerning either God the Father or the Son. But the Son of God is the Logos of
the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern of Him and by Him
were all things made, the Father and the Son being one...The Holy Spirit Himself also,
which operates in the prophets, we assert to be an effluence of God, flowing from Him, and returning
back again like a beam of the sun. Who, then, would not be astonished to hear men who speak of
God the Father, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and who declare both their power in union
and their distinction in order, called atheists?" (Athenagoras, A Plea for the Christians, Chapter X).
Irenaeus
Here are two summary statements of faith by Irenaeus, no
doubt squirming uncomfortably in his role as early 'Oneness' believer:
"This, then, is the order of the rule of our faith...God the
Father, not made, not material, invisible; one God, the creator of all things: this
is the first point of our faith. The second point
is this: the Word of God, Son of God, Christ Jesus our Lord, Who was manifested to the
prophets according to the form of their prophesying and according to the method of the Father's
dispensation; through Whom (i.e. the Word) all things were made; Who also, at the end of the age,
to complete and gather up all things, was made man among men, visible and tangible, in order to
abolish death and show forth life and produce perfect reconcilation between God and man.
And the third point is: the Holy Spirit, through Whom the prophets
prophesied, and the fathers learned the things of God, and the righteous were led into the way of
righteousness; Who at the end of the age was poured out in a new way upon mankind in all the earth,
renewing man to God." (Irenaeus, Proof of the Apostolic Preaching, chap. 6, quoted on p. 53, A
Short History of Christian Thought, Linwood Urban.)
"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole
world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith:
[She believes] in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and
earth, and the sea, and all things that are in
them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for
our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed
through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the
passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the
beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His [future] manifestation from heaven in the glory of the
Father 'to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order
that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the
invisible Father, 'every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under
the earth, and that every tongue should confess' to Him, and that He should execute just judgment
towards all..." (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book I, Chapter 10, 1).
|
Noetus
The modalist heresy first turns up in the second century. Far from being
of 'apostolic' origin, Hippolytus could recall the time of its introduction:
"There has appeared one, Noetus by name, and by birth a native of
Smyrna. This person introduced a heresy from
the tenets of Heraclitus." (Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 2).
"But in like manner, also, Noetus, being by birth a native
of Smyrna, and a fellow addicted to reckless babbling, as well as crafty withal, introduced
(among us) this heresy which originated from one
Epigonus." (Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, Chapter 23).
Noetus affirmed that Jesus was His own Father and His own
Son: "Now, that Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same, no one is ignorant. But
he makes his statement thus: 'When indeed, then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly
styled Father; and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became
His own Son, not another's.'" (Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 5).
'Oneness' Popes of Blessed Memory: Zephyrinus
Hippolytus of Rome |
Two Bishops of Rome (a.k.a. Popes), Zephyrinus and
Callistus, are reported as modalists by Hippolytus, a well-placed contemporary observer. How
strange that 'Oneness' Pentecostals, so addicted to blistering anti-Catholic rhetoric, should trace
their heritage to two early Popes! These two Popes were reportedly forceful advocates for this
heresy: "The school of these heretics during the succession of such bishops, continued to acquire
strength and augmentation, from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail."
(Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 2).
|
Sabellius
Because Sabellius is the most famed of the modalists,
Christians on first encountering 'Oneness' Pentecostals debate against Sabellian tenets
remembered from theology text-books. The response they hear is invariably a shocked, 'But we
don't believe anything like that!' Indeed, Sabellius' vocabulary, of Father "dilating" into
Son and Holy Spirit, is not commonly heard from the 'Oneness' crowd:
"Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, and again, the Son
Father, in subsistence One, in name Two; and he raves also in using as an example the grace of the
Spirit. For he says, 'As there are "diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit," so
also the Father is the same, but is dilated into Son and Spirit.'" (Athanasius, Four Discourses
Against the Arians, Discourse 4, 25).
"If then the Monad being dilated became a Triad, and the
Monad was the Father, and the Triad is Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, first the Monad being dilated,
underwent an affection and became what it was not; for it was dilated, whereas it had not been dilate.
Next, if the Monad itself was dilated into a Triad, and that, Father and Son and Holy Ghost,
then Father and Son and Spirit prove the same, as Sabellius held, unless the Monad which he speaks of
is something besides the Father, and then he ought not to speak of dilation, since the Monad was to
make Three, so that there was a Monad, and then Father, Son, and Spirit." (Athanasius, Four
Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 4, 13).
Sabellius would appear to have been wholly innocent of the most objectionable
feature of modern 'Oneness' Pentecostalism, the identification of 'the
Son' as 'the flesh.' Hilary reports that a later modalist, Photinus,
criticized Sabellius for his failure to get with Pope Callistus' program:
"He [Photinus] castigates Sabellius for denying that the Son of God
is Man, and in his turn has to submit to the reproaches of Arian fanatics
for failing to see that this Man is the Son of God." (Hilary of Poitiers,
On
the Trinity, Book VII, Chapter 7).
In defense of the orthodoxy of the two 'Oneness' Popes
of Blessed Memory, Roman Catholics note that Callistus excommunicated Sabellius. But
Hippolytus says he did so out of fear: "Thus, after the death of Zephyrinus, supposing that he had
obtained (the position) after which he so eagerly pursued, he [Callistus] excommunicated Sabellius,
as not entertaining orthodox opinions. He acted thus from apprehension of me, and imagining
that he could in this manner obliterate the charge against him among the churches, as if he did not
entertain strange opinions." (Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9). In the present day, we do not observe fond feeling between heretics
of differing opinions: the Jehovah's Witnesses do not love the 'Oneness'
Pentecostals, who do not love the Mormons. Hippolytus does not ascribe
the same heresy to Sabellius and Callistus, but significantly different ones.
Pope Callistus I
Callistus was the innovator who introduced the definition
that 'the Son' means 'the flesh', i.e., the humanity, of Jesus of Nazareth: "For that which is
seen, which is man, he [Callistus] considers to be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in
the Son, to be the Father." (Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 9, Chapter 7). This is the man!
This imaginative definition at the heart of modern-day
'Oneness' Pentecostalism was not part of Noetus' system; Hippolytus gives the credit to Callistus:
"Callistus corroborated the heresy of these Noetians, but we have already carefully explained
the details of his life. And Callistus himself produced likewise a heresy, and derived its
starting-points from these Noetians, -- namely, so far as he acknowledges that there is one Father and
God, viz., the Creator of the universe, and that this (God) is spoken of, and called by the name of
Son...And he is disposed (to maintain), that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is Son, but
that the Father it is who dwells in Him. Callistus thus at one time branches off into
the opinion of Noetus, but at another into that of Theodotus, and holds no sure doctrine."
(Hippolytus,
Refutation of All Heresies, Book 10, Chapter 23). So Hippolytus perceives Callistus' heresy, so similar to modern
'Oneness' Pentecostalism, as a blend between true modalism and the 'Unitarian Universalism' of the
day, promoted by Theodotus, who denied the Deity of Jesus Christ.
So we've found our first 'Oneness' believer, the third century Roman Pontiff Callistus! Sadly, there
is no historical evidence that he either spoke in tongues or introduced any innovative baptismal
formula. Thus even this 'Oneness' Pope of Blessed Memory cannot have been 'saved', by
'Oneness' Pentecostal standards. Could anyone, prior to 1913?
Tertullian
Tertullian, like Hippolytus, could recall when the "new-fangled" heresy of
modalism first hit town. He reports that Praxeas, against whom he defended the orthodox doctrine of
the Trinity, was the "first" to import modalism into Rome:
"...as, for instance, Praxeas. For he was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical pravity,
a man in other respects of restless disposition, and above all inflated with the pride of confessorship simply and solely because he had
to bear for a short time the annoyance of a prison; on which occasion, even 'if he had given his body to be burned, it would have profiled
him nothing,' not having the love of God, whose very gifts he has resisted and destroyed. " (Tertullian, Against
Praxeas, I).
"That this rule of faith has come down to us from the beginning of the gospel, even before any of the older heretics,
much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday, will be apparent both from the lateness of date which marks all heresies, and also from
the absolutely novel character of our new-fangled Praxeas. In this principle also we must henceforth find a presumption of equal force
against all heresies whatsoever-that whatever is first is true, whereas that is spurious which is later in date." (Tertullian, Against
Praxeas, II).
'Oneness' Pentecostals call Tertullian as hostile witness to testify against his own clear understanding that modalism was
a "new-fangled" heresy with his plaint that most believers of his day could not clearly
and affirmatively explain what it was they did believe, when challenged by heresy:
"The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned) who
always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation
(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 economy ['oikonomia']. 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." (Tertullian, Against
Praxeas, III).
But it takes liberal use of white-out to blot out one of an author's statements
with another. If, as they claim, the author is 'lying' in one of his assertions,
why would he all of a sudden be forced to 'admit the truth' on the very
next page? To see all he says in context, download 'Against
Praxeas' from the Thrice Holy library. Once while a figure-skating competition
was playing on hellivision, the skater gave a little hop. As the commentator
helpfully explained, if you hop, then 'keep on hopping'—the judges might
be persuaded to see a choreographed move instead of a bobble or a misstep.
If Tertullian is purportedly 'lying' in his first statement, then he ought
to keep on 'lying'—not that the saints should lie at all, but who will
believe the initial 'lie' if he then reverses field and 'tells the truth'?
Rather, a more rational way to read the text is, not to negate one of the
author's statements with another, but to try to discern the intent of the
author, who made both statements.
The 'Oneness' Pentecostals assert that the reason the 'simple' were resisting
Tertullian's offer to help them vanquish Praxeas' "new-fangled"
heresy was because the 'simple' already embraced Praxeas' "new-fangled"
heresy, and indeed had always done so. But this interpretation is clearly
impossible,—how could Praxeas' heresy be "new-fangled" if 'the
majority of believers' already embraced it? How could Praxeas be the "first"
to introduce what everyone already believed? Praxeas was encountering sales
resistance among the 'simple' as he peddled his novel wares; but so was
Tertullian, as he offered his remedy for the malady Praxeas had introduced.
How could this be? It is scarcely an unusual situation. The crime victim
clutching his empty wallet may not be eager to go to the police for assistance,
even though cops fight robbers; many crimes go unreported, not because
victims share their victimizers' values or delight in having been robbed,
but because they fear or dislike the police, or for other reasons. Sick
people do not always rush to the doctor, even though doctors fight disease;
their resistance to swallowing the remedy the doctor prescribed is not
evidence of their fondness for cancer or whatever else ails them. Were
Iraqis disgusted at Saddam's tyranny obliged to embrace American troops
as liberators? Supposing people do not want what is behind Door No. 1;
does this mean they must eagerly embrace what is behind Door No. 2?
The 'simple' believed, as they had been taught, that there is only one
God, that the Father is God, that the Son is God, and that the Holy Spirit
is God. They would have been happy to go on so believing. But the heretics
warned them what they they had been taught was self-contradictory, and
they would have to choose. The Unitarian Universalists and the 'Oneness'
Pentecostals tell the 'simple' today they have to 'fudge' this one of these four
propositions: that 'the Son is God,' explaining that they really ought
to say, 'God was in the Son,' who is the 'flesh'. It wasn't the orthodox
who forced the issue, but the heretics. Tertullian wanted to teach the
'simple' a new vocabulary, which he had learned from Hippolytus, so that
they would not have to sit there tongue-tied when the heretics came by
to argue; but they resisted his gift, because it was new. The language
was new to them, but it wasn't new to God—it was in the book! As Tertullian
showed them, while his vocabulary was unfamiliar, it was nevertheless Biblical, and talking this
way was better than just sitting there making faces at the heretics.
Epiphanius shared Tertullian's anxiety about the "simple": "Then,
when they encounter simple or innocent persons who do not understand the
sacred scriptures clearly, they give them this first scare: 'What are we
to say, gentlemen? Have we one God or three gods?' But when someone who
is devout but does not fully understand the truth hears this, he is disturbed
and assents to their error at once, and comes to deny the existence of
the Son and the Holy Spirit." (The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis,
translated Frank Williams, Books II and III, Section IV, 2,6, Against Sabellians,
62, p. 122.) These authors' concern is not that the "simple"
already believed in one of the many anti-trinity heresies, whether modalism or
Theodotus' explicit denial of the deity of Jesus Christ, else where would
be the need to 'scare' them? Rather their experience was that some of the
"simple" 'assented' all too readily to these novel teachings upon first hearing, and those who did not assent maintained
a sullen silence, unable to defend their faith. The remedy they prescribed
is the same offered here at thriceholy.net, namely scripture.
Beryllus of Bostra
"Beryllus, whom we mentioned recently as bishop of Bostra in Arabia, turned
aside from the ecclesiastical standard and attempted to introduce ideas foreign to the faith.
He dared to assert that our Savior and Lord did not pre-exist in a distinct form of being of
his own before his abode among men, and that he does not possess a divinity of his own, but only
that of the Father dwelling in him. Many bishops carried on investigations and discussions
with him on this matter, and Origen having been invited with the others, went down at first for a
conference with him to ascertain his real opinion. But when he understood his views, and
perceived that they were erroneous, having persuaded him by argument, and convinced him by
demonstration, he brought him back to the true doctrine, and restored him to his former sound
opinion. There are still extant writings of Beryllus and of the synod held on his account,
which contain the questions put to him by Origen, and the discussions which were carried on in his
parish, as well as all the things done at that time." (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 33).
It's a toss-up whether to class Beryllus as a precursor to
Unitarian Universalism or to 'Oneness' Pentecostalism; the two come out much the same in
the end. Both assert that there is a mere man called 'the Son' who came into existence in the
days of King Herod, not having existed previously except as a 'plan' in the mind of 'the Father', who
alone is God. Both allow that this mere man was occasionally and voluntarily indwelt by 'the
Father', who alone is God, in similar manner to the prophets of old. Only 'Oneness'
Pentecostalism, though, adds the ghoulish touch of
the 'Ending
of the Sonship'; the Unitarians at least allow 'the Son' the eternal destiny common to the rest of mankind.
Montanists
The great apologist Tertullian belonged to this charismatic splinter group.
While Hippolytus counts some Montanists as followers of Noetus, most were
as orthodox as Tertullian. Some (though not all) of their number
prophesied...unfortunately, not always accurately! "In the wilds of
Phrygia, a Christian, Montanus, with several male helpers and two prophetesses,
began to speak the words of the Holy Spirit....By 177 [A.D.], the Spirit
was very widely known. "Lo!' it said, through Montanus, 'man is like
a lyre, and I strike him like a plectrum. Man is asleep, and I am
awake'...As critics agreed, Montanus' followers were not intellectual heretics.
They parted from fellow Christians only in their acceptance of the Spirit's
new words, and they persisted far into the sixth century, suffering legalized
persecution from their 'brethren.'...In one of the Spirit's 'oracles,'
a Montanist prophetess was said to have seen Christ, dressed as a woman,
and heard that 'here' (or 'thus') the 'new Jerusalem will descend.' She
believed, said the critics, that the reign of the Saints would begin at
Pepuza in Phyria, a site as bizarre as little Abonouteichos before it changed
its name. Unlike the new 'Ionopolis,' it remained Pepuza, a site
so obscure that it has eluded all attempts to find it on the map."
(Robin Lane Fox, Pagans and Christians, p. 405).
The failure of the heavenly Jerusalem to descend upon this obscure Asia Minor burg may invite charges of
false prophecy, but Montanism seems basically to have been a Back-to-the Bible reform movement.
Consequently, Tertullian has aptly been called 'the First Protestant.' Though evidently not gifted
himself, he had seen charismatic gifts in operation: "'Among us,' he wrote in Carthage,
'there is a "sister," gifted with revelations. She talks with angels, sometimes even with the
Lord.'...She sees and hears mysteries.'" (Quoted p. 410, op. cit.)
As noted, a subset of Montanists were also Noetians. This group still existed
in Jerome's day:
"In the first place we differ from the Montanists regarding the rule
of faith. We distinguish the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three
persons, but unite them as one substance. They, on the other hand, following
the doctrine of Sabellius, force the Trinity into the narrow limits of
a single personality." (Jerome, Letter 41.3)
An anonymous Latin treatise, 'Against All Heresies,' gives the name of
one of these people, Aeschines, the leader of this tendency: "But
the particular one they who follow Aeschines have; this, namely, whereby
they add this, that they affirm Christ to be Himself Son and Father."
(Against All Heresies, Chapter 7).
These people were 'two-fers': both charismatic and also modalist. There
is no evidence, however, that they employed any unusual baptismal formula.
Moreover, as Tertullian's testimony shows, it was not the normal expectation
that all members of the sect would be charismatically gifted, only some.
Donatists
The Donatists were not doctrinal innovators, but moral
rigorists concerned that believers who had abjured their faith under persecution should not be
readmitted to fellowship. "His [Augustine's] extensive polemics against the Donatists were on
the burning issues on which the latter separated from the Catholic Church. These were not what
are usually called doctrinal questions, for on such points as those on which Gnostics, Marcionites,
Arians, and Monophysites differed from the Catholic Church Donatists were in accord with the latter.
The contention, rather, as we have seen, was over the moral character of the priesthood and the
treatment which the Church should accord to those Christians who, having been guilty of serious
lapses, repented." (Kenneth Scott Latourette, A History of Christianity, Volume I, p. 175).
Marcellus of Ancyra
Marcellus has been accused of denying the Trinity: "The followers
of Marcellus and Photinus...say that there is God, and the Logos, and the
Spirit. The Son, however, who is a man born of Mary, is a fourth
one, whom the Logos assumed. And they say that the Logos rules as
an administrator in this man, who was prepared as a dwelling for Him. Thus
do they destroy the Trinity. If, however, the Trinity is to remain,
there is one who is man and Logos: which Logos we have already demonstrated
above to be the Son." (Marius Victorinus, Against Arius, 905 [1, 45] c. 355 A.D.)
The traditional Christian understanding treats 'Son' and 'Word' as synonymous:
"On the contrary, Augustine says (De Trin. vi. 2): 'By Word we understand
the Son alone.' I answer that, Word, said of God in its proper sense, is
used personally, and is the proper name of the person of the Son. [...]
Hence Augustine says (De Trin. vii. 2): 'Word and Son express the same.'
For the Son's nativity, which is His personal property, is signified
by different names which are attributed to the Son to express His perfection
in various ways. To show that He is of the same nature as the Father,
He is called the Son; to show that He is co-eternal, He is called the Splendor;
to show that He is altogether like, He is called the Image; to show that
He is begotten immaterially, He is called the Word." (Thomas Aquinas,
Summa Theologica, First Part Q. 34, Art. 2.)
By his own confession, Marcellus shares this traditional understanding:
"Now I, following the sacred scriptures, believe that there is one
God and his only-begotten Son, the Word, who is always with the Father
and has never had a beginning, but is truly of God -- not created, not
made, but forever existent, forever reigning with God and his Father, 'of
whose kingdom,' as the apostle testifies, 'there shall be no end.'"
(The Panarion of Ephiphanius of Salamis, Books II and III, translated by
Frank Williams, Section VI, 72, p. 425, A Copy of a Letter of Marcellus, 2,6.)
Nevertheless, Basil condemns Marcellus as a heretic: "He [Marcellus]
grants indeed that the Only begotten was called 'Word,' on coming forth
at need and in season, but states that He returned again to Him whence
He had come forth, and had no existence before His coming forth, nor hypostasis
after His return. The books in my possession which contain his unrighteous
writings exist as a proof of what I say." (Basil, Letters, 69:2, To
Athanasius). It would appear Marcellus was, or had been, unwilling to describe the pre-incarnate
Logos as 'Son': "'Now the Son also "is;" but Paul the Samosatian
and Marcellus took advantage of the text in the Gospel according to John,
"In the beginning was the Word." [John 1:1] No longer willing
to call the Son of God a true Son, they took advantage of the term, "Word,"
I mean verbal expression and utterance, and refused to say "Son of
God."'" (Letter of George, quoted p. 447, Epiphanius, Panarion,
Books II and III, Section VI, Against Semi-Arians, Chapter 53 (73), 12,1).
|
|
