Transcript of a published teaching by David K. Bernard, transcribed from YouTube. An attributed primary source — not Acts 2:38 Life doctrine text.
Summary · Transcript · Scripture Index · Download transcript (.txt)
Summary
Summary prepared by Acts 2:38 Life from the transcript below — the preacher’s words follow in full.
The First to Say 'Three Persons in One Substance'
- The question posed: anybody who has read your books — The Oneness of God, and your books on church history — would have come across the name Tertullian. Who was Tertullian?
- Tertullian was a Christian writer who lived around AD 200: a lawyer who converted to Christianity in middle age, and became a local preacher — he never was a bishop — but he did write extensively on several things. He's significant because, depending on which writer you consult, he's sometimes called the father of theology — but he's considered the father of trinitarianism, because he is definitely, without question, the first writer to speak of God as three persons in one substance. He's also the first writer to use the Latin term for Trinity, trinitas. There is one Greek writer before him who used a Greek term that can be translated the same way — but when you read that writer's thought, he didn't talk about persons, and it's unlikely that he meant anything like what Tertullian meant. So we can justly say that Tertullian is the first Christian writer to use the term Trinity for God: he is the inventor of the terms.
- Trinitarians will say their doctrine is in the text of scripture — but most church historians that are not of an evangelical persuasion, that don't have to find everything in the Bible, will be honest to say Tertullian was an important step in the development of the Trinity: he's the first one to actually teach the doctrine of the Trinity, using the terms, and the concept of three persons in one God, or in one substance. Even Catholic writers are very willing to say that, because they believe tradition is of equal authority to scripture — so it doesn't bother them to say there was a development of tradition over the centuries.
- A note on his sources: he has read Tertullian's classic book against Praius, which is against a form of Oneness teaching; he has read pretty much all the Christian writings that exist up to AD 150 or so, and representative samples of the next 50 or 100 years, including Tertullian — so he can speak not just secondhand, but from firsthand reading of the early texts from which we get everything. His book Oneness and Trinity, AD 100 to 300, goes in depth into the other people prior to and during Tertullian's time, drawing from the earliest sources outside the Bible.
But Not the Modern Doctrine: A Subordinate Son
- He hastens to add: Tertullian actually didn't teach the modern doctrine of the Trinity — he would be considered a heretic by orthodox terms, because he did not believe the Trinity was eternal. There had been some earlier development of the Son of God being a subordinate second person, who came out of God, who was begotten — meaning, in the sense of: first there was just God; then out of God came the Son; and then the Son created the worlds. Tertullian still maintained that: in the beginning there was only one God — there's only one God — but then somewhere in the ages past, out of God came a second person called the Son. That's the beginning: not an eternal beginning, but a beginning of time. This Son is not the whole Godhead; he's not equal with God; he's subordinate to God. And then there also came the Holy Spirit. And so there are these three persons in this time period — but in the end, in the ages to come, those two subordinate persons will be submerged back into God, and God will once again be one.
- So you might say: before creation, sometime way back in the beginning, Tertullian is Oneness — and in the far future, after the last judgment, Tertullian is Oneness again — but right here, he's a trinitarian. But it's not three co-equal persons: the second and third persons are clearly subordinate to the first. The modern doctrine of the Trinity says the three persons are co-equal — Tertullian denied that; co-eternal — Tertullian denied that; and consubstantial, the same substance — you might argue that he agreed with that, but yet if they're not equal, how is their essence the same? So basically, he would be considered a heretic if he were teaching today.
A Heretic to His Own Church — and the Doctrine's Later Completion
- Another thing: Tertullian joined the Montinist — a religious group, a religious movement within Christianity, emphasizing the Spirit. By this time, in the 200s and 220s, the work of the Holy Spirit seemed to be diminishing in organized Christianity, and so Montanism was an attempt to revive prophecy; Tertullian even talks about speaking in tongues as considered normal in his group, and miracles. In that sense, it was probably healthy — but the church of that day reacted against it, to say it was excessive, fanatical, and so they actually excommunicated the Montinist from the organized church. So Tertullian died in opposition to the organized church: he is actually officially considered a heretic — not only because his teaching of the Trinity would be heretical by modern standards, but at the time he was considered to have joined a heretical movement. That's why he's never been made a saint by the Catholic Church, because he died as a heretic: how could he be a saint? He's not Saint Tertullian. But yet everybody has accepted his view of the Trinity.
- What's also very interesting: he originated the doctrine of the Trinity, he originated the terminology — but it was only a step in the development, because it took another century after him — actually almost two centuries: the council of Nika in AD 325, which is 100 years after him, and then the council of Constantinople in AD 381, almost 200 years after him — before what has just been described as the modern doctrine of the Trinity was officially established, and voted on, and generally accepted by the organized church. So Tertullian was in the middle of developing the three persons, but not defining them correctly, according to later trinitarian theology: a process that began about AD 150 — he comes along at 200, and really gives the terminology — but it's actually 381 before the process is complete. So he's very significant, as the father of this trinitarian trend.
The Majority Rejected It: Praius and the Simple Believers
- But now what's also very significant: he is one example — and I have many others; the evidence is in the book — the vast majority of believers rejected his teaching. He wasn't a bishop of the church, so he wasn't really considered, at that time, to be a leading authority. Perhaps — as I've mentioned in another podcast, history is written by the victors — his writings are preserved because they support later theology, where maybe there were other people, who were bishops, or who actually represented more of the thought of that time, who were more accepted by the common people, but their writings might have all been destroyed, because they were so against this.
- In fact, Tertullian writes a treatise called Against Praius. Praius is this person who later people have labeled a modalist — and that term means different things to different people. If you actually read Tertullian, the sad thing is: we don't have any of the writings of Praius, or his other contemporaries, or other people who are known as modalists, with rare exceptions — we don't really have anything from their own words, defining what they believe. But if you just read between the lines, it's obvious that Praius believed in one God, and he denied this new term of the Trinity in three persons. It's obvious that he believed in the full deity of Jesus Christ — that Jesus was actually the Son of God, but the manifestation of the Father: the Son was the manifestation of the Father. So he believed in the deity of Jesus Christ; he's not an aryan; he was not a unitarian. On those two points, at least, he would be the same as modern Oneness believers. Just from what Tertullian says about him, he used many of the same passages that we use — such as John 10:30, 'I and my Father are one'; John 14:9, 'If you've seen me, you've seen the Father' — just reading Tertullian's debate and rebuttal, you could see that Praius used a number of key scriptures that Oneness people use today, to establish the true deity of Jesus Christ, and the Oneness of God.
- What is amazing: both from many sources, the vast majority of believers rejected Tertullian's doctrine as an innovation, and the vast majority of believers would have accepted what has just been described about Praius: that Jesus was truly human, truly God; there's only one God; there's no thought of different persons; the Son is the revelation of the Father; the Father manifests in the flesh; and the Holy Spirit is the one Spirit of God. That's what the vast majority of believers said — and we can get this from Tertullian himself, although he's not trying to give any credit to them. He has this very interesting statement, in the work against Praius: he says, 'The simple — I will not call them unlearned — who always constitute the majority of believers...' They reject my teaching, he says, on two grounds: they say that it compromises the Oneness of God, and it contradicts the rule of faith, which would be the ancient confession of faith. They think it compromises the Oneness of God, and they think it compromises the most ancient Christian confessions — which is exactly what we would say. But then he goes on to defend himself, by saying they do not understand the economy of God: they don't understand how God can be one and three at the same time, because they're too simple — they're unlearned, not sophisticated enough to understand that there could be three persons in one substance. Which is almost the argument that you hear these days.
- So that's why Tertullian is important. If a trinitarian is honest, he has to say his doctrine originated with someone that the early church universally regarded as a heretic, and the vast majority of believers of his time rejected his teaching on this subject. It's a very interesting study, to see what he believed, and how influential he was, in establishing the doctrine of the church. Therefore, many church historians say he was the first theologian, as opposed to a Bible teacher: he's actually constructing a theology. Unfortunately, it's theology that's getting away from the simple, yet profound, truth of the Bible.
Scriptures: John 10:30; John 14:9
Scripture index: John 10:30; John 14:9.
Transcript
Tertullan was a Christian writer who lived around AD 200. Uh he was a lawyer who converted to Christianity in middle age and he became a prespter or local preacher. So he never was a bishop but he did write extensively on several things.
Um, and what he's significant because depending on which writer you consult, he's sometimes called the father of theology, but he's considered the father of trinitarianism because he is definitely without question the first writer to speak of God as three persons in one substance. He's also the first writer to use the Latin term for trinity, trinitas. Now there are um there there there is a one Greek writer before him who used a Greek term that can be translated the same way but when you read that writer's thought he didn't talk about persons and it's unlikely that he meant anything like what Tertullian meant. So we can justly say that Tertullian is the first Christian writer to use the term trinity for God.
So he is the inventor of the terms. Now trinitarians will say their doctrine is in the text but most uh of scripture but most church historians that are not of an evangelical persuasion that have to find everything in the Bible they will be honest to say Tertullian was an important step in the development of the Trinity. He's the first one to actually teach the doctrine of the trinity using the terms and the concept of three persons in one god or in one substance. Now even Catholic writers are very uh willing to say that because they believe in in tradition is equal authority to scripture. So it doesn't bother them to say there was a development of tradition over the centuries.
I will hasten to add that Tertullan actually didn't teach the modern doctrine of the trinity. He's he would be considered a heretic by orthodoxian terms because that's very interesting. It's very interesting uh because he did not believe the trinity was eternal. So basing on some older thought which I don't have time to go into but uh but let me describe it. And by the way, I should mention my book oneness and trinity ad 100 to 300 will go in depth into other people prior to and during his time. So if you really want in-depth study, I've read I didn't read all of Tertullian's writings.
I did read his classic book against praxius, which is against a form of oneness teaching. And I've read pretty much all the church uh Christian writings that exist up to AD 150 or so. And I've read representative samples of the next 50 or 100 years including Tertullian. So I can speak not just uh secondhand but I speak from firthand reading of the early text from which we get everything. So my book AD uh one in central trinity AD 100300 does actually draw from the earliest sources outside the Bible and analyze them and I have an in-depth discussion. So if you question what I'm saying you're welcome to trace all the evidence and look at the references and go read the books the original writings themselves.
So there had been some ear earlier development of the son of god being a subordinate second person who came out of god who was begotten meaning in the sense of first there was just god then out of god came the son and then the son created the worlds so that tertullian still maintained that so in the beginning there was only one god just like one of his people teacher 6:4 there's only one god but then somewhere in the ages past out of god came a second person called the son who That's the beginning. So, it's not an eternal beginning, but a beginning of time. This son is not the whole Godhead.
He's not equal with God. He's subordinate to God. And then there also came the Holy Spirit. And so, there are these three persons in this time period. But in in the end, in the ages to come, those two subordinate persons will be submerged back to God and God will once again be one. So you might say before creation sometime way back in the beginning trilion is oneness and in the far future after the last judgment to trillion is oneness again but right here he's a trinitarian but it's not three co-equal persons it's subordinate the the second and third person are clearly subordinate to the first well if I've just described it you know the modern doctor of the trinity says the three persons are co-equal to trillion denied that uh co-eternal trillion denied debt and consubstantial the same substance.
You might argue that he agreed with that but yet if the if they're not equal how how how is their essence the same. So basically he would be considered a heretic um if he were teaching today. Another thing is Tertullian joined the Montinist which was a a religious group a religious movement within Christianity of emphasizing the spirit by this time in the 200s and 220s. uh the the work of the Holy Spirit seemed to be diminishing in uh organized Christianity and so Montanism was an attempt to revise prophecy to trillion even speak talks about speaking in tongues as considered normal in his group and miracles.
Uh in that sense it was probably healthy but the church of that day reacted against it to say it was excessive fanatical and so they actually excommunicated the Montinist from the organized church. So, so Tertullian died in in uh opposition to the organized church. So, he is actually officially considered a heretic. Not only because of his, you know, his teaching of the trinity would be heretical by modern standards, but at the time he was considered to have joined a heretical movement. That's why he's never been made a saint by the Catholic Church because he died as a heretic. How could he be a saint?
So, he's not Staint Tertullian. But yet everybody has accepted his view of the trinity. Now what's also very interesting so that's why I say he originated the doctrine of the trinity he originated the terminology but it was only a step in the development because it took another century after him actually almost two centuries it took the council of Nika in AD 325 which is 100 years after him and then the council of Constantinople in AD 381 almost 200 years after him before what I've just described as the modern doctrine of the trinity was officially established and voted on and universally or generally accepted by the organized church.
So, so Tertullian um was in the middle of developing the three persons but not defining them correctly according to later trinitarian theology. So a process that began about AD 150 he comes along at 200 and really gives the terminology but it's actually uh the 381 before the process is complete. Um so he's very significant as the father of this trinitarian trend. uh but now what's also very significant he is one example and I have many others the evidence is in the book the vast majority of believers rejected his teaching okay so he wasn't a bishop of the church so he wasn't really considered at that time to be a leading authority uh perhaps uh as I've mentioned in another podcast uh that that history is written by the victors so probably his writings are preserved because it supports later theology where maybe there other people who were bishops or who were actually u represented more of the thought of that time who are more accepted by the common people but their writings might have all been destroyed because they were so against uh this and in fact you find this um Tertullian writes a treatise called against Praius.
So prais is this person who later people have labeled a modalist and that term has different means different people but if you actually read Tertullan the sad thing is we don't have any of the writings of practus or his other contemporaries or other people who are known as modalist with with rare exceptions we don't really have anything from their own words defining what they believe but if you just read between the lines practice is going against them. And so it's obvious that I mean trillia is going against practice. So it's obvious that praxius believed in one god and he denied this new term of the trinity in three persons.
It's obvious that he believed in the full deity of Jesus Christ that that Jesus was actually the son of god but the manifestation of the father. So the son was the manifestation of the father. So he believed in the deity of Jesus Christ. So he's not an aryan. He was not a unitarian. He he would be on those two points at least he would be the same as modern oneist believers. Now I'm not going to identify him totally cuz I don't know what to believe but just from what Tertullian says about him and he used the same many of the same passages that we use such as John 10:30 I and my father one John 14:9 if you've seen me you've seen the father if just reading Tullian's debate and rebuttal you could see that praised a number of key scriptures that oneness people use today to establish the true deity of Jesus Christ and the oneness of God.
It's really interesting. But what is amazing to me uh both from many sources, the vast majority of believers rejected Tertullian's doctrine as an innovation and the vast majority of believers would have accepted what I just described about Praius that Jesus was truly human, truly God. There's only one God. There's no thought of different persons. The son is the revelation of the father. the father manifests in the flesh and the holy spirit is the one spirit of god. That's what most the vast majority of believers said and we can get this from Tertullian himself. Although he's not trying to give any credit to them and I'm paraphrasing but you can read it for yourself.
He he has this very interesting statement in the work against practice. He says the simple I will not call them unlearned who always constitute the majority of believers. So it's kind of a backhand. They're simple-minded. I'm not going to say they're ignorant, but they are. You know, I won't say it. The simple uh I won't call them unlearned who always constitute the majority of the believers. They reject my teaching. Uh they say uh he said on two grounds. They say that it compromises the oneness of God. This is my paraphrase. And it uh it uh contradicts the rule of faith, which would be the ancient confession of faith.
So he says, "The vast majority of believers reject what I've just said and they think it compromises the oneness of God and they think it compromises the most ancient Christian confessions, which is exactly what we would say." But then he goes on to defend himself by saying they do not understand the economy of God. So they don't understand how God can be one and three at the same time because they're too simple. They're they're really if the truth are known, they're they're unlearned. So they they're not sophisticated enough to understand that there could be three persons in one substance which is almost the argument that you hear these days.
Sign Youin know if you try to understand the trinity you'll lose your mind the old joke. So that's why Tertullian is important. But uh if a trinitarian be honest he has to say his doctrine originated with someone that the early church universally regarded as a heretic and the vast majority of believers his time rejected his teaching on this subject. Uh so anyway um it's a very interesting study to see what he believed and how influential he was in establishing the doctrine of the church. So therefore many church historians say he was the first theologian as as opposed to a Bible teacher. He's actually constructing a theology.
Unfortunately uh it's theology that's getting away from the simple yet profound truth of the Bible.
Scripture references as spoken: John 10:30; John 14:9.