Loading...In my previous post I summarized the view that God the Father and God the Son and God the Spirit were actually one and the same – that they were three ways of God relating to the creation and the people who inhabit it – just as I am only one person but am both a father and a son and a brother, depending on whom I am relating to. That view has been given various names among historians of theology; here I am calling it “modalist” – God is one person who has three different modes of existence and ways of relating.
Here I continue by discussing how the view came to be attacked by others. Again, this is based on the fuller discussion in my book How Jesus Became God.
The attackers were fighting an uphill battle. As we have seen that the view was widely accepted at the end of the second and beginning of the third, even though it came to be rejected as a heresy. Two of the main opponents – at least whose writings survive – were the Roman church leader Hippolytus and the feisty Carthaginian intellectual Tertullian. These two, Hippolytus and Tertullian. were no pushovers. Quite the contrary, they were forceful polemicists and aimed their attacks not only at such “obvious” heretics as Marcion and the Gnostics, but also at those who seemed to be orthodox in affirming both the humanity and divinity of Christ, but who nonetheless pressed the logic of their positions to a point that created its own kind of heresy. As a result of this controversy, Hippolytus, one of the leaders of the church of Rome, withdrew with a group of like-minded Christians from the larger church and was elected as a kind of sectarian bishop. He is known to history as the first anti-pope. In that role he saw himself as the advocate of orthodoxy and maintained that the more broadly recognized bishops of Rome were heretics.
For his part, Tertullian was the most famous…
These refutations of the modalist view get pretty interesting. To read them, join the blog. It doesn’t cost much, gives a ton, and every dime goes to help those in need. Click here for membership options
It seems to me a lot of these pirouettes are the result of harmonizing the unharmonizable.
Thank you.
Credo quia absurdum -Tertullian
After reading this article, both Hippolytus and Tertullian has made it difficult for me to accept Modalistic Monarchianism.
Dear prof. A question unrelated to this post.
I understand the arguments to make the distinction between the Pauline and non-Pauline (pseudonymous) letters, for example that the seven Pauline letters have comparable writing style and theology. But what makes scholars convinced that it was actually the real Paul that wrote these seven? I mean, it could also be an anonymous writer, which wrote these seven, right? What is the main reason? Or could you perhaps address this in a future post? (Or perhaps refer to a source which discusses it?)
Good question. It’s just a matter of probability. We have seven letters that cohere in terms of point of view, theological perspective, presupposed historical situations; these make best sense, given what they say, in teh 50s CE; they all claim to be written by Paul; and Paul was widely known to be an author of letters (hence all his imitators). So it seems likely they were written by Paul.
Reality VS illustrations is always difficult to comprehend. Attacking the illustration doesn’t provide a logical rebuttal to the reality but that’s all we have, currently.
I struggle with the concept of the Trinity and this is not helped by the illustration currently under consideration — that entities can have various roles: father to son; brother to sister; husband to wife; and so on.
The entity is the person. These roles are assigned to that person. In reality, the roles are nothing more than words that can be used to identify the person. They don’t have any other meaningful impact.
Using terms (words) to identity a role for a person doesn’t stop with just simple relationships. It also invokes terms in foreign languages and casual descriptions — the man with wire-rim glasses and dark hair.
However, it is the person we are interested in, not the words used to identify the person. Not many people refer to themselves as different persons, but it does happen. Some personality disorders create several full and complete personalities within a single person. This is well documented. They even talk to each other and have different goals, aspirations and roles.
Does this imply God has a personality disorder?
Hi Bart, did any of the pagan religions throughout the empire have anything like the heated theological debates about their God or gods that the followers of Jesus had? Why were those early Christians so fussy, so precise, so insistent, so pedantic when it came to defining their dogmas?
No,they didn’t. Mainly because theological propositions were nearly unheard of in pagan circles. These religious were not based at *all* on what a person believed.
Then what were those pagan religions based on, if not what they believed?
Cultic practices. You could look at the brief chapter in my New Testament:A Historical Introduction (on Greek and Roman religion) or for a fantastic full study, James Rives, Roman Religions
I know that believing the “correct” doctrines was seen as vital for salvation in the Middle Ages, but was this also the case in Tertullian and Hippolytus’ time? Otherwise, it’s hard to fathom why these obviously very intelligent men couldn’t see the ultimate futility of trying to rationally explain the concept of the Trinity, through modalist or any other means.
I know that the arguments were to get even more picayune in the 4th century when Arias became the new whipping boy, but it makes one wonder whether Tertullian and Hippolytus had anything better to do all day?
Yes, that’s why they were so adamant in rooting out “false teaching.” They were fighting for the truth, and that has seemed like a noble cause to lots of people over the centuries. Still some today, mutatis mutandis.
Hyppolytus seems like a guy with a sound logic when mocking or exposing modalist beliefs…how could he believe that a father and a son are not two gods, but one god? Was he actually an “orthodox” Trinitarian (if such a category really exists)?
I’m not sure how he worked it out completely, but he does see them as distinct but equal in some sense.
The truth! Anyone who had *more than one* God or *zero* Gods was a heathen or pagan. You could only worship The One True God – who was three in one and one in three! Yeah, so really it was “the truth as I define it”! I honestly don’t think any believers have ever grasped the concept of “ALMIGHTY.”
Tertullian has solved nothing, at least not for me. What should astound us is that the trinitarian view has remained “unquestionable” doctrine for hundreds of years — that Jesus is God. Preachers are taught not to challenge this in congregation, at risk of their jobs. ¿ Would not Jesus be shocked and offended to learn that his students have been worshipping him? John12:44ff: ” Jesus cried and said, He that believeth on me, believeth not on me, but on him that sent me. And he that seeth me seeth him that sent me. I am come a light into the world, that whosoever believeth on me should not abide in darkness.” >>> He also said to his students “You are the light of the world” (Matt 5:14). So, if Jesus is God, so am I ?
No wonder science, biology, genetics, astronomy, etc are so separate from Christianity.
My favorite quote to those who believe Jesus is God is the one you mention.
John 1:18 says that “No one has seen God at any time, the only Son who is in the bosom of the Father, has made him known.”
if Jesus were in fact God, this would imply NO ONE had ever seen Jesus.
How does that make sense?
especially coming from the apostle john, who most believed penned this line ?
In some mss it says “…the only God who is in the bosom of the Father…” Now *that* makes for an interesting idea… (I argue that it’s an “orthodox corruption” in my book of that name.)
Prof Ehrman,
Please, how is John 10:30 to be understood contextually? One in what sense, please?
Thank you
Probably means something like “one in point of view, perpepective, thought, authority, every way.” That is, equal. But NOT identical.
Prof Ehrman,
Q1. When do we have the Bible organized into Chapters?
Q2. And when do we have the organization into Verses?
Thank you.
1. 13th century (by Stephen Langton, in Paris); 2. 1551 (Robert Stephanus — Also in Paris)