While most scholars, even those from
“Orthodox” denominations, will readily admit that the Trinity is a doctrine
that developed slowly over time, many apologists for the doctrine point to
alleged biblical and patristic texts in favour of the belief. Some point to
Tertullian, an early writer who was rather prodigious in his literary output.
Indeed, one of the evidences of his being a “Trinitarian” (to use a
then-anachronistic term) is that he used the term trinitas, where we get
the term “Trinity.” Of course, this is to commit the root or etymological
fallacy (see here for a discussion of this common exegetical fallacy).
Did Tertullian hold the modern
definition of the Trinity? The answer is “no.”
One can access Tertullian’s writings
here, and I would always urge any reader to rely on the primary source
materials than anyone’s commentary, no matter how informed (my own included).
However, when one reads his writings, we find a number of things that are
inconsistent with Trinitarianism; for instance:
That the person of the Father is the
only true God (Answer to the Jews ch. 1)
That the true God was the “common
Father” (the person of the Father [Apology ch. 39])
That Jesus did not exist eternally
(Against Hermogenes ch 3)
That the Son’s relationship to the
Father can be understood as that of a beam to the sun, a rather “Arian” understanding of the relationship between Jesus and the Father (Against Praxeas 8)
The Father is older than the Son
(Against Praxeas 9)
One could go on, but you get the idea. Tertullian also believed that, while
God is “spirit,” he did not believe “spirit” was immaterial but material; this
belief is inconsistent with the doctrine of “divine simplicity,” which is
necessary for any (creedal) Trinitarian theology (see Against Praxeas 7), something that Trinitarian defenders will readily admit.
Recently, Dr. Dale Tuggy (“Biblical Unitarian”) presented a paper on
Tertullian and whether he could be understood as a Trinitarian or Unitarian.
Additionally, he debated Catholic apologist, William Albrecht, on this very
issue. What follows are the youtube videos for both. Personally, I think the debate was a clear victory for Dale Tuggy and I would have to agree with the assessment Jaco van Zyl gave of this debate
in this blog post:
I’d like to congratulate
Dale Tuggy for a superb delivery of exquisite academic prowess. It is clear
that you are in a league of your own, Dale, and that your precision and
coherence brought you to a point where you can present your case to crowds of
PhD students and scholars and be found convincing. Your opponent can only claim
the prize for shouting the loudest, so no one leaves empty-handed…
Of course, listen to both the presentation
and the debate, and, in light of Tertullian’s own writings, decide for yourself.
As a Latter-day Saint, I would take exception with both the Trinitarianism of Albrecht and the "humanitarian Unitarianism" (or Socinian Christology) of Tuggy. However, I do think I am more partial to being neutral in calling things like this as I don't have a dog (or, in this case, concept of God) in this fight, and would come closer to Albrecht's view, as I believe Jesus did pre-exist his birth and is divine.
It should be noted that some anti-LDS writers (e.g. Matthew Paulson, Breaking the Mormon Code; Dayton Hartman, Joseph Smith's Tritheism) have appealed to Tertullian as evidence of the Trinity doctrine being early. Such could not be further from the truth when one carefully reads Tertullian, however.
Tertullian the Unitarian
Debate: Was Tertullian a Trinitarian?
