"Under the influence of Stoic philosophy, Tertullian believes that all real things are material. God is a spirit, but a spirit is a material thing made out of a finer sort of matter.
*At the beginning, God is alone, though He has His own reason
within Him.
*Then, when it is time to create, He brings the Son into existence, using but not losing a portion of His spiritual matter.
*Then the Son, using a portion of the divine matter shared with Him, brings into existence the Spirit.
And the two of them are God’s instruments, His agents, in the creation and governance of the cosmos.
The Son, on this theory, is not God Himself, nor is He divine in the same sense that the Father is. Rather, the Son is “divine” in that He is made of a portion of the matter that the Father is composed of.
The Son, on this theory, is not God Himself, nor is He divine in the same sense that the Father is. Rather, the Son is “divine” in that He is made of a portion of the matter that the Father is composed of.
This makes them “one substance” or not different as to essence.
But the Son isn’t the same god as the Father, though He can, because of what He’s made of, be called “God”.
Nor is there any tripersonal God here, but only a tripersonal portion of matter - that smallest portion shared by all three.
The one God is sharing a portion of His stuff with another, by causing another to exist out of it, and then this other turns around and does likewise, sharing some of this matter with a third.
Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian argues that although the above process results in two more who can be called “God”, it does not introduce two more gods - not gods in the sense that Yahweh is a god.
Against the common believers concerned with monotheism, Tertullian argues that although the above process results in two more who can be called “God”, it does not introduce two more gods - not gods in the sense that Yahweh is a god.
There is still, as there can only be, one ultimate source of all else, the Father. Thus, monotheism is upheld. The one God is unipersonal both at the start and the end of this process. Nor are the persons equally divine; Tertullian holds that the Son is “ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only” (Tertullian, Praxeas, ch. 27; Matthew 24:36).
Q: What is Tertullian’s answer to his “monarchian” critics?
Q: What is Tertullian’s answer to his “monarchian” critics?
A: He strongly emphasizes that these are truly three; none of the
three is identical to any other. They are “undivided” in the sense that the Father, in sharing some of His matter, never loses any; rather, that matter comes to simultaneously compose more than one being. The Father is one entity, the Son is a second, and the Spirit is a third. Nor are they parts of any whole; the latter two simply share some of the Father’s divine stuff.
Tertullian does not argue that the three compose or otherwise are the one God. Instead, Tertullian replies that a king may share his one kingdom with subordinate rulers, and yet it may still be one kingdom. Likewise, God (i.e. the Father) may share the governance of the cosmos with His Son (Praxeas, ch. 4)
Despite these fundamental differences from later orthodoxy, Tertullian is now hailed by trinitarians for his use of the term “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas) and his view that it (at the last stage) consists of three persons with a common or shared “substance”. StanfordEncyclopediaOfPhilosophy
Despite these fundamental differences from later orthodoxy, Tertullian is now hailed by trinitarians for his use of the term “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas) and his view that it (at the last stage) consists of three persons with a common or shared “substance”. StanfordEncyclopediaOfPhilosophy
