The "Paraclete"

[Woodrow]

Tertullian, the same guy we are quoting, also invented the term Trinity. Or, at least he was the first person to write it down that we know of. That being said, the trinity Tertullian believed in certainly is not the same trinity many Christians believe in today.

Interesting, what would account for concepts of the Trinity changing from what he wrote. I do agree He was the first write out a concept of the trinity. Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD) I wonder what year he wrote his ideas about the Trinity.

You are aware that his ideas were considered heresy at the time, but these heretical ideas becamd for foundation for the "Official" concept of the Trinity.

 

[Sol Invictus]

No way! Just because the "conqueror" carries a weapon, that would insult Muslims? lol, you are reading your OWN values into someone else's response. Like I said, "conquerors" are spoken well of repeatedly in previous chapters, and the Spirit even says that he will share his throne with the one who conquers, as I quoted above. That is a very honorable place to be. Just because the other horsemen are lame, does that mean the first one has to be? Hardly! The fifth seal is pretty cool. I wouldn't mind being a part of that. And seeing as the second horse is War, I think they would actually see a lot of wisdom in it. First comes Muhammad (pbuh), then comes persecution and war.

i'm sure muslims would love the idea that persecution and war come at the wake of muhammad. you once gain ignore the thematic unit not to mention that christ is still in a higher position than muhammad if we take him to be the conqueror! the conqueror comes at the discretion of christ. christ commads him "come" and he appears. whatever the case, it cannot be argued that the christ is higher in position than the conqueror and is in fact the one who actually ushers in the kingdom of god. the kingdom of god is not ushered in by the conqueror and if this were to refer to muhammad then muslims would once again take issue to this seeing as they do believe that muhammad ushered the rule of god etc.

Most of the Christians I speak to are literal about sonship. I don't know about the Jews though; never asked.

that's a fairly easy thing to claim but where is your proof? can you give us respectable christian sources which claim that christians are the literal sons of god? do most christians believe that god entered into a sexual union with their mother in order to produce them? i can easily claim that most muslims i speak to worship muhammad but this in no way is justified nor could i back this up from authentic muslim sources. so please get to proving your point.

Muslims believe in a temporary reign of Christ in his Kingdom. Christians as well believe in the "Millenial Reign," after which God the Father himself sits on the Throne. Read Tertullian, as has been frequently quoted in this thread. He is very adamant that the son sits on the Throne only until the Father comes, after which he subjects himself to the father and the Father sits on the throne. You should also re-read Revelations with this verse in mind (which Tertullian is astute to point out):

"then the end will come, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father after he has destroyed all dominion, authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For he “has put everything under his feet.”[c] Now when it says that “everything” has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself, who put everything under Christ. 28 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all. " 1 Corinthians 15

And what does God say when he is on the Throne in Revelations? "The one who conquers will inherit these things, and I will be his God and he will be my son." Revelations 21:7

note that at the end of revelation christ sits on the very throne of god (while god is himself present on the throne) and no one else does. god and christ are described as the temple in the holy city of jerusalem and no one else is. there will be no need for a sun because the glory of god and christ will illuminate the earth and no one else. god calls himself the alpha and the omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end and christ later on says the very same things about himself and no one else does likewise. the angels in heaven worship both christ and god but no one else do they worship. now given all of the above, let us suppose that the book of revelation still speaks of muhammad being the conqueror. you would still ask muslims to accept a prophet who is subservient to christ. that is a slap in the face to muslims and islam! how many crowns is the conqueror wearing and how many crowns does christ wear? does the book of revelation say that the conqueror ushers in god's kingdom or is it christ? let us not even mention that muslims do not believe that god would make them his sons even figuratively! the question then becomes, what exactly are you trying to do with your post because it is quite clear that your argument only works if we ignore large parts of the bible and the qur'an. in your bid to unite both these books you readily sacrifice that which makes them distinct and the fundamental teachings which set them apart.

nowhere does the book of revelation claim that the son sits on the throne of god only until the father comes:

1 Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, as clear as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb 2 down the middle of the great street of the city. On each side of the river stood the tree of life, bearing twelve crops of fruit, yielding its fruit every month. And the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations. 3 No longer will there be any curse. The throne of God and of the Lamb will be in the city, and his servants will serve him. 4 They will see his face, and his name will be on their foreheads. 5 There will be no more night. They will not need the light of a lamp or the light of the sun, for the Lord God will give them light. And they will reign for ever and ever. ---revelation 22:1-5 NIV

the text is quite clear that the single throne belongs to god and christ! furthermore, his servants will need no light of the sun or of a lamp because god himself will be their light but notice that in the chapter directly preceding this one christ and god are referred to as the lights of the city. not only does the text insinuate that christ is himself god but it says that he sits on the throne of god while god is himself on the throne. is this true of any other individual within this book? once again you are not presenting the book of revelation appropriately and in trying to make muslims accept the idea that muhammad is the conqueror (notice that the conqueror does even conquer the world for god but it is christ) you actually want them to accept that christ is far higher than muhammad and that he will sit in the very throne of god while muhammad and the rest will serve him.

You might argue that this verse refers to Jesus, but that doesn't "harmonize" the second verse. It seems, then, that it refers to all believers.

SO, I'm not convinced that Muslims wouldn't accept this. In fact, it seems to me that they could accept it, but certainly not your interpretation.

Peace

you forget that tertullian believed in subordination within the trinity and this could in fact harmonize this verse (i tend to lean towards subordination as well). let us also remember that the single throne of god is called the throne of god and that of christ and not that of any other believer! god and christ are the light of the city and christ claims the very prerogatives of god ("i am the alpha and the omega"). the angels worship him in the same breath that they worship god. salam, who are you kidding here? are you seriously going to tell me that christ is not elevated far above the conqueror? i would very much like for muslims to accept the gospel but i do not believe that your method is true to the text nor is even a compliment to muslims. what in fact are you trying to do because in your argument you take neither the bible nor qur'an seriously in what they say about themselves. this should not be a case of whether one could accept something but whether our respective holy books are in harmony with your argument? both muslims and christians will readily admit that your argument could not be true. once more i do wish for muslims to believe what christians believe, but not at the expense of truth.

be that as it may, i am convinced that muslims will not accept it and it would in fact be an insult both to muhammad and the muslim deity for them to believe such a thing and if i am wrong i would very much like for muslims to correct me.

edit: i have just read fivesolas' post and i must concur, especially with the revelation 12:11 reference. the conquering comes from holding fast to the faith in the blood of jesus even unto death. once again a muslim could not agree to this. with that, the book of revelation itself has explained what conquering means and as such the white horseman is not a figure representing good but fits more properly with the thematic context of evil.

edit2: i just want to let you know that i'm not in fact angry or trying to insult you salam. i do enjoy such discussions and although i sincerely believe you to be wrong, i'm doing all of this in peace and charity and if it does seem like i've misspoken, then i sincerely apologize.

 

[Fivesolas]

Can any one give me a single example where the Holy Spirit spoke and what words were used in what language? If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

MustafaMc,

One of the tools that might be helpful for you is to use biblegateway or another online Bible search engine that allows you to do key word searches. For example, when I search for the phrase "Holy Ghost" using the KJV (King James Version) of the Bible, I find that phrase appearing 89 times in the New Testament. It appears most frequently in the book of Acts. What you could do is look through those different passages to test your hypothesis.

I do this with the Qur'an. I have not found a good key word searcher yet, but I have found the Qur'an online. So, when I have a question or a hear a claim made about the Qur'an's message, I go to the Qur'an and check it out.

If you search a modern translation, such as the NKJV, NASB, ESV, or NIV, then use the phrase "holy spirit" If you think the Holy Spirit is Gabriel, then substitute in your mind the word Gabriel for every instance you find the phrase "holy spirit" and see how it works....you could also treat the Bible as a whole, and do this for the OT as well. Here are some examples:

Psalm 51:11 "Cast me not away from your presence, and take not your Gabriel from me."

Matt 1:18 "Now the birth of Jesus Christ took place this way. When his mother Mary had been betrothed to Joseph, before they came together she was found to be with child from the Gabriel."

Mark 1:8 "I have baptized you with water, but he will baptize you with the Gabriel."

Luke 11:13 "If you then, who are evil, now how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Gabriel to those who ask him!"

I simply inserted Gabriel to where I found the phrase Gabriel. Doesn't make much sense does it...

"If the Holy Spirit is God, then wouldn't He speak of His own and not what He heard from someone else?"

Why not asked the question, "If the Holy Spirit is God, then how is this explained within the trinitarian vewpoint that He does not speak of His own, but whatever He hears He speaks."

Why would I re-phrase the question? But it would be improper to ask that it be answered from a Modalist viewpoint. It must be granted to the trinitarian to reason from his/her viewpoint, and not anothers. Agree?

 

[SalamChristian]

I have been reading your replies to Sol with an open mind. I do not see how you in your last reply actually addressed what he shared with regard to Christians being conquerors.

What I saw was in regards to Muslims being conquerors, not Christians? Did I miss something? I just re-read his post again, and the conquering stuff is all about his opinion that it is an insult to Muslims, as far as I can see. BUT, I will respond to your concerns about this subject.

While we can show how people in the name of Christ took up arms against others, it cannot be shown biblically that a Christian has a duty to fight carnally.

We are battle ready. Our feet are shod with the Gospel of peace.

we do not love our lives, even unto death.

Fair enough. There are some warriors who would say the same thing.

This is a serious failing that I see in Christian Theology, in my opinion. We wobble back and forth between pacifism and acceptance of violence, and we are too easily swayed. You are aware that Nazi Germany made use of Romans 13 to take power? You are aware that many Lutheran ministers in Nazi Germany got on board with Hitler and started theologically arguing that it was the duty of Germans to support their government? Of course, there were Christian heroes--there were those Preachers who refused to stop speaking out against the government, even after they were jailed by the Nazis. You are aware that the Pope made diplomatic deals with Napoleon, Mussolini, and Hitler, and that he used his authority as Pope to support them theologically?

This is why the Republican Party gets the most Christian support in America. They are able to sway the public via theological manipulation. This is why a significant portion of Christians vote on one moral issue in America--abortion. And which party panders to it? The same one that has consistently started violent wars over the last 50 years! From Guatemala to Iran 1953 to Chiapas to Nicaragua to Somalia--and the list goes on. And what was the prime motivation in EVERY one of these cases I mentioned? Profit. Shameless profit. Lol. Weaaaaaak. "You cannot serve two masters. You cannot love both God and Money."

Actually, however, I would argue that there are theological under-pinnings for self-defense biblically. If our hand sins, we are to cut it off. If our eye sins, we are to pluck it out. If our brother sins, we are to remove him from among us, and treat him like a "gentile" or "tax collector." If someone won't leave us alone, and won't leave our peaceful organization when we ask them to, then we probably ought to cut them off.

Also, I believe this is definitely off-topic, but I didn't bring it up. I simply responded to your question. And I'm not too strict about staying on topic anyway--if somebody has a question, I figure go ahead and answer it.

Peace, Shalom

 

[SalamChristian]

I simply inserted Gabriel to where I found the phrase Gabriel. Doesn't make much sense does it...

If you take out the article it's fine. Imagine, if I were to say who is "the holiest son of Israel?" Would you say "the Jesus?" No, lol. We don't do that with names.

You are aware that his ideas were considered heresy at the time, but these heretical ideas becamd for foundation for the "Official" concept of the Trinity.

Didn't you just agree that his trinity was different than the one accepted today? So, his trinity is not the "official" trinity. Foundation, perhaps. The same?--nope.

Woodrow, Mustufa, & the other Muslims on this thread, a question:

Do think that the "paraclete" could be referring to Gabriel, who gives the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh), and not Muhammad? Yes? No? Maybe?

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

"If you take out the article it's fine. Imagine, if I were to say who is "the holiest son of Israel?" Would you say "the Jesus?" No, lol. We don't do that with names."

You can only make this assertion if you ignore the text of Scripture. You can take the article out. I am not making the point that it just doesn't read well. You have yet to interact with the text of Scripture. Until you do, I will conclude that you cannot answer and are unable to cope with the text. Quoting Tertullian does not constitute actually dealing with the Scripture. How is it that Gabriel is with us, and in us for ever...if Gabriel is the Holy Spirit?

Come on Salam, let's get some real interaction with the text.

 

[Sol Invictus]

salamchristian, i believe that you may have missed my post. it is number 62 i believe.

 

[Woodrow]

Woodrow, Mustufa, & the other Muslims on this thread, a question:

Do think that the "paraclete" could be referring to Gabriel, who gives the Qu'ran to Muhammad (pbuh), and not Muhammad? Yes? No? Maybe?

Peace

No because Jibreel is an Angel, with no self will or freedom of choice. The Angels have no choice except perfect obedience to Allaah(swt).

No matter who we believe the Paraclete to be I think we can agree the Paraclete has freedom of choice and that eliminates an Angel from being the Paraclete.

-

 

[SalamChristian]

How is it that Gabriel is with us, and in us for ever...if Gabriel is the Holy Spirit? Come on Salam, let's get some real interaction with the text.

When we think about the Holy Spirit, we say that it is in all of us. It is in many places at once, and is not constrained by any limits. That's basic Holy Spirit theology. The burden of proof is not on ME to prove that it is impossible. It is on YOU. It is not specified as impossible in the text, and you are rejecting it solely on the basis of distaste, not that it is textually impossible. This means that you are isogetically reading your distaste for particular interpretations into the text, and not even specifying what natural basis you might have for making such an isogetical reading (and I am honest enough to realize that everyone isogetically reads into the text--it's called translation).

The fact that you have not yet proven that it is impossible is apparent in your speech. This is why you keep saying "how is it possible" instead of proving how it is not possible. If the holy spirit is in all of us (and in the Father), then it is not constrained by limits. Nothing in this precludes it from also taking physical form.

Moreover, you and I both know that there are preachers who have argued that when we see "3 figures" in the OT, they are F, S, HS. Look at Genesis 19--you have surely heard this interpretation. We need to grow some balls and conviction and realize that if a textual interpretation can be true when we like it and are familiar with it, it can also be true when it seems strange and unfamiliar. You who accept bodily incarnation of the Holy Spirit in the OT figures reject it when I link it to the Qu'ran. What's the basis for this inconstancy?

You can only make this assertion if you ignore the text of Scripture. You can take the article out. I am not making the point that it just doesn't read well.

I'm saying that you are not conscious of simple linguistic rules--the ones you yourself follow in your own language when you speak and which (as far as I know) all languages follow. I don't know of any languages which exhibit personal names with articles, and certainly I have no reason to believe that Aramaic does this.

Q:"Who is the king?" A:"George V"
Q: "Who is the president?" A: "Barack Obama"
Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: "Gabriel"

These are all linguistically correct responses. If we were to replace the names of these improper noun referents with their respective Proper nouns, the linguistically correct rendering is:

"George V is the king."
"Gabriel is the Holy Spirit."

Notice how we don't say "The Gabriel is the Holy Spirit," because that is incorrect according to basic grammatical rules.

Or, if you were given a worksheet by a teacher which had these sentences:

"The president speaks softly and carries a big stick."
Fill in the blank with the proper name answer to the question:
"___________ speaks softly and carries a big stick."

Answer? I'll tell you what it's not! It's not "The Teddy Roosevelt!"

Lol. This is called Universal Grammar. And, unless someone shows me that proper names have an article in Aramaic, I'm rejecting your interpretation as unawareness of the basic rules of grammar which we all follow. One of my majors here at school is English and I am done with it. I have taken linguistics courses and courses on textual criticism and the theory of textual criticism, and what I have written above is firmly based in linguistic and literary theory and knowledge of the way language works. If you apply your same rules of interpretation to your daily speaking and reading, you will find out that you will no longer be able to coherently respond to or understand any language you interact with.

Peace

 

[Sol Invictus]

No because Jibreel is an Angel, with no self will or freedom of choice. The Angels have no choice except perfect obedience to Allaah(swt).

No matter who we believe the Paraclete to be I think we can agree the Paraclete has freedom of choice and that eliminates an Angel from being the Paraclete.

-

salam, this all the more shows that if muslims and christians are to take seriously the claims of their repective religions, then they could not arrive at your conclusion much less go along with your argument. while your intent is to be commended, your method forces you to simply ignore a wide spectrum of truth claims which both these holy books say concerning themselves.

that said, could anyone tell me in what way tertullian's trinity differs from the one we have today? i'm sorry I was under the impression that we still believed in the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

 

[SalamChristian]

No matter who we believe the Paraclete to be I think we can agree the Paraclete has freedom of choice and that eliminates an Angel from being the Paraclete.

He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears

Didn't we already establish this? If he only speaks what he hears, and not on his own, doesn't that fit your idea of an Angel as perfectly submissive anyway? And isn't that how the "paraclete" is described?

No because Jibreel is an Angel, with no self will or freedom of choice. The Angels have no choice except perfect obedience to Allaah(swt).

Good point. I'm not going to argue with this, because it would sidetrack us. However, I just would like to drop in one quick thought about this. Iblis. Some scholars say that he is a "fallen Angel." Sura 7:11 leads me to believe he was a fallen angel. Allah (swt) commands the angels to prostrate to Adam, and Iblis refuses. Of course, you will probably say he is a Jinn.

salam, this all the more shows that if muslims and christians are to take seriously the claims of their repective religions, then they could not arrive at your conclusion much less go along with your argument.

Theology and Tafsir are not concrete, immoveable structures. They are man-made and what is man-made can be destroyed by God. There are a wide range of opinions and interpretations, both among Muslims and Christians. There are many denominations both within Christianity and Islam, and neither is homogeneous. What you believe is Islam and what you believe is Muslim is your perception--and surely one which is not comprehensive! I doubt there is even a Muslim in this world who has a comprehensive view of what every Muslim believes. The same goes for the Christian community.

that said, could anyone tell me in what way tertullian's trinity differs from the one we have today? i'm sorry I was under the impression that we still believed in the father, the son, and the holy spirit.

It has been said. Scroll up ^

Peace

 

[SalamChristian]

i just want to let you know that i'm not in fact angry or trying to insult you salam. i do enjoy such discussions and although i sincerely believe you to be wrong, i'm doing all of this in peace and charity and if it does seem like i've misspoken, then i sincerely apologize.

No worries, brother! I don't distrust you, and I have forgiven you already for any small phrases which might seem superficially to be offensive. I enjoy this discussion too! And, of course, I am really enjoying pushing everybody to think more critically!

Peace

 

[Sol Invictus]

hey Salam, i'm not at home right now but could you please answer my post (#62).

as far as subordination is concerned it does not give you a different trinity. it still consists of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. i for one do not think that subordination is completely unbiblical and would very much like to see some arguments to the contrary when you get around to answering my post.

 

[SalamChristian]

as far as subordination is concerned it does not give you a different trinity.

Subordination is considered one of the 3 great heresies of trinitarianism, along with modalism. The position of the church has been anti-subordinationist since the Aryan-Athanasian controversy. Church historians of Tertullian point out that this heresy is the logical endpoint of his theology. Today, the position of the church is considered by many to be predominately anti-subordinationist, as "subordinationist influences" have been creeping into the church, as they say. If you want to argue that heresies are not different than orthodox stances, be my guest.

If you don't see subordination as being a heresy at all, I recommend you google some of this stuff. James R. White's book "The Forgotten Trinity" has a wonderful diagram of the 3 big trinity heresies: modalism, polytheism, and subordinationism. If you have trouble finding stuff, I will help you (as long as you are actually trying to look).

could you please answer my post (#62).

Yes, I will answer it. The theme is not necessarily bad--you are reading it into the text. Like I said, seal # 5 is pretty darn cool, and I wouldn't mind if that was about ME. In fact, I would be honored. Also, the Qu'ranic verses I quoted quite a bit earlier in this thread say that God liked some prophets more than others. I'm not saying that a Muslim would accept that God liked Isa more than Muhammad, but in my modest reading of the Qu'ran I am not seeing it as exegetically impossible. Of course, there are lot of people who would doubtless get angry for me saying this, but my first loyalty is to the scripture, and to giving those texts which claim to be scripture a chance to be interpreted as truth.

We claim that Jesus has literal sonship. As far as I understand, Muslims do not. From what I perceive, they believe he is God's Word blown into Mary's womb, as John's Gospel also contends, but that this does not imply sexual union.

The Throne belongs to God and Christ, but if the Holy Spirit from God promises that he who conquers (meaning all believers who conquer) will be able to sit on the throne, then wouldn't this be fitting? Again, my exegesis of those two verses in Revelations show that an interpretation that "he who conquers" refers in a neutral tone to any believer, and that this is the preferred interpretation unless another arises. That it is the Throne of Christ and God as well does not disprove the interpretation, because, as I said, these verses also have God promising to share his throne with believers.

both muslims and christians will readily admit that your argument could not be true.

I have made it a lot farther than any of us expected on creativity and an open mind. Lol. A lot farther than I expected, too. Who knows the Truth? Only God! Let God be proven true and every man be proven false!

Peace brothers

P.S. I hope none of you get mad at me for being very critically minded! I just don't reject or accept someone else's viewpoint as conclusively proven without, well, conclusive proof!

 

[Fivesolas]

When we think about the Holy Spirit, we say that it is in all of us. It is in many places at once, and is not constrained by any limits. That's basic Holy Spirit theology. The burden of proof is not on ME to prove that it is impossible. It is on YOU. It is not specified as impossible in the text, and you are rejecting it solely on the basis of distaste, not that it is textually impossible. This means that you are isogetically reading your distaste for particular interpretations into the text, and not even specifying what natural basis you might have for making such an isogetical reading (and I am honest enough to realize that everyone isogetically reads into the text--it's called translation).

It is not a matter of distaste Salam. It is a matter of textual integrity. Now, I have reviewed the 89 places in the NT that the phrase "Holy Ghost" appears. What I am telling you is that what is spoken of the Holy Ghost cannot apply to an angelic being. Jesus was not anointed with Gabriel, we are not commanded to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son, and Gabriel, Christians are not indwelt and sealed by Gabriel. Gabriel is not promised to be with us and in us forever.

I am showing you that it is textually impossible. There is not a hint from the NT or OT that the Spirit of God is Gabriel. It you that has brought this idea to the discussion, so, actually, the burden of proof is on you to prove the assertion, not for me to prove its not possible.

Concerning your linquistic argument, its irrelevant to the discussion. We are not discussing how language works. We are discussing what the Bible says.

Let me make this clear to everyone. I will use your illustration:

Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: "Gabriel"

Is this liquistically possible/correct? Of course. So is this:

Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: Mickey Mouse
Q "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: Geoge W. Bush
Q: "Who is the Holy Spirit?" A: Santa Clause

All of these are linquistically possible. But this has no bearing on the content or truthfulness of their statements.

So, while you may have some training in liquistics, how about we get back to exegesis and start dealing with the text of Scripture. Linguistics is a part of good biblical hermeneutics. And I have had some training in that...

I am willing to use the whole Bible. I suggest we look at all the salient passages related to the Holy Spirit and Gabriel.

Gabriel: Daniel 8:16, 9:20-21, Luke 1:19, Luke 1:26

"Holy Ghost" - 89 occurances from Matthrew - Jude.

 

[JPR]

that said, could anyone tell me in what way tertullian's trinity differs from the one we have today? i'm sorry I was under the impression that we still believed in the father, the son, and the holy spirit

Tertullian's belief of the trinity is the same as we do now. From the book I'm reading from the original post, Tertullian is showing that Praxeas was teaching that Jesus was God Himself, thus why he says "...and crucified the Father" (p.27). The reason why he writes "He put the Paraclete to flight" (p.27) is shown in the sentence just before "he drove out prophecy and brought in heresy". So he definitely thought that the Paraclete was amongst them as the Holy Spirit and allowing them to "prophecize" or however you want to interpret it, and the heresy he talks about is that Jesus was God Himself "...and crucified the Father".

I'm also going to quote from page 29 because I think Tertullian view on the Paraclete is very "to the point" for this discussion:

"...who afterwards, according to His promise, sent from the Father the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, the sanctifier of the Faith of the who believe in the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

There, Tertullian view of the trinity is made very clear, for any who doubted what the earlier meaning of the trinity is, and what the Paraclete was, and is. Therefore I don't think that saying that the Paraclete is Muhammad is very plausible, according to Tertullian, because, well, muslims don't believe in the Son, Father or the Holy Spirit!

 

[SalamChristian]

Tertullian's belief of the trinity is the same as we do now.

Nope. It's subordinationist. He is anti-modalist, sure. But the phrase "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" does not apply to theological heresies, lol. Look at the footnotes in the book, they point out that Montanus has declared he is the "paraclete," and they make this connection between Tertullian and Montanus. Look up Tertullian's relation to Montanus. Tertullian accepted Montanus' claims to have a special access to the prophecies of the "paraclete," or to be the paraclete, or whichever of these two possibilities was the true case.

I don't think that saying that the Paraclete is Muhammad is very plausible

Okay, but what about Gabriel?

muslims don't believe in the Son, Father or the Holy Spirit!

what exactly do you mean by this phrase? crucifixion? Messiahship? Muslims certainly believe that Jesus is Messiah. From what I understand, they believe the Holy Spirit exists. And they believe the Father exists, but they refuse to call him Father, and call him Allah (swt) instead. A name is a name.

Peace

 

[SalamChristian]

believe in the Son, Father or the Holy Spirit

I would also like to point out that, if you think this means professing the concept of "trinity," you are way off base. Certainly saying "I believe the trinity," was never a biblical requirement for salvation. It wasn't until Athanasius in the 4th century that the church decided that those who don't believe in the trinity are certainly ****ed to hell. Many critics have rejected this as haughtiness and holier-than-thou condescension. John Wesley rejected this creed on the basis that it was too self-assured about who was going to hell and who isn't. C.S. Lewis rejected it for similar reasons.

Peace

 

[Fivesolas]

Subordinationism is a heresy concerning the Trinity. Subordinationism (Jesus is different in nature than the Father) should not be confused with subordination (the Son submitting to the Father). Subordinationism is a heresy concerning the Father and Son, though sometimes the Holy Spirit is included. The error has different forms, but it is primarily the teaching that the Son is not eternal and divine (Arian Subordinationism), and is, therefore, not equal to the Father in being and attributes. This is, of course, wrong and it is in contrast to the biblical doctrine of the Economic Trinity (relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) which does not deny their equality of nature and attributes. Another form of Subordinationism states that though the Son is divine, he is not equal to the Father in being, attributes, and rank. This error was rejected at the Council of Nicea. Essentially subordinationism states that the Son is inferior to the Father.

Subordinationism is not the same as Christ's subordination to the Father (1 Cor. 15:28) which concerns Jesus' continued state of being a man (1 Tim. 2:5) by which he lives forever to intercede for us as a high priest (Heb. 6:20; 7:25).

The above is taken from the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, or CARM. I know Matt Slick, the founder of the ministry. So, even though this isn't referenced, I trust the source. This should clear up some things with regard to subordinationism.

 

[Fivesolas]

I would also like to point out that, if you think this means professing the concept of "trinity," you are way off base. Certainly saying "I believe the trinity," was never a biblical requirement for salvation. It wasn't until Athanasius in the 4th century that the church decided that those who don't believe in the trinity are certainly ****ed to hell. Many critics have rejected this as haughtiness and holier-than-thou condescension. John Wesley rejected this creed on the basis that it was too self-assured about who was going to hell and who isn't. C.S. Lewis rejected it for similar reasons.

Peace

It is not historically correct to suggest the doctrine of the Trinity was invented post-apostolic. It was simply dealt with in-depth by the 4th century. Why? Like most cases, apostolic doctrine was being challenged by heresies. Since the advent of the Christian church, I don't think there has been a single doctrine of our faith that hasn't been challenged.

Praise the Lord