Tertullian said there was a time when the Son didn’t exist and that God wasn’t a Father previous to the Son. How much clearer can you get? You can’t. If a JW said exactly those same words you’d say it was heresy plain and simple, but because Tertullian said it you somehow feel obligated to argue that he didn’t really mean what he said.
The point of existence and how it refutes the Trinity
by slimboyfat 64 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
aqwsed12345
@slimboyfat
Well—not very clear at all, if you ignore the context, genre, intent, and overall theology of the author.
This is what you're doing: lifting one rhetorical phrase from Against Hermogenes (3), where Tertullian is refuting a heretic, and then ripping it from both its argumentative context and Tertullian's wider Trinitarian theology—as if a 2nd-century apologist who explicitly taught the Son's eternal origin from the Father, and called Him “God of God” (Adv. Prax. 13), suddenly became an Arian in one line. That is not honest exegesis. That is quote-mining. Let me show you why this doesn’t hold up.
In Against Hermogenes 3, Tertullian writes that there was a time “when… the Son [did not exist]”—but this is not a metaphysical statement about the Son’s ontological origin. It’s part of a rhetorical argument against the idea that God was always “Lord” because He ruled over matter from eternity. Tertullian refutes this by pointing out that titles like “Lord,” “Father,” and “Judge” are relational designations, not essential names:
“God is the designation of the substance itself… but ‘Lord’ is not a designation of substance, but of power.” (Adv. Herm. 3)
So when he says “there was a time when… the Son [did not exist],” he means: from our human vantage point, the name “Father” only applies after the begetting of the Son is revealed—not that the divine Word/Logos had a beginning in time. Just four chapters later, in Against Hermogenes 5, Tertullian explicitly denies that the Son came into existence from nothing:
“Yet even not then was [God] alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself, that is to say, His own Reason [Logos]… which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” (Adv. Herm. 5)
And in Against Praxeas 5–7:
“The Word was always in the Father… even before all things, God was not alone… He had with Him that Reason which was His own.” (Adv. Prax. 5–7)
So your interpretation—if taken at face value—contradicts Tertullian himself. He cannot mean in Hermogenes 3 that the Son was not, ontologically, because he clearly teaches elsewhere that:
- The Word is eternal in God’s substance.
- The Word is not created, but begotten from within God’s own Reason.
- The Word is God, not an angel or creature (Adv. Prax. 14).
You're treating temporal-sounding rhetoric as if it were doctrinal metaphysics. That’s a false equivalence.
Yes—if a Jehovah’s Witness said “there was a time when the Son was not,” and meant it ontologically, as if the Son were a created being, that would be heresy. But Tertullian did not mean it ontologically. That’s the point. He’s not a Jehovah’s Witness. He’s a 2nd-century Christian writer who affirms over and over again:
- The Word is “God from God.”
- The Son is of the same divine substantia as the Father (Adv. Prax. 9, 13).
- The Son is “always in the Father” (Adv. Prax. 5).
- The Son is not an angel but the Lord Himself (De Carne Christi 14).
You are projecting later Arian categories onto someone who would have anathematized Arius for denying that the Son is eternal, divine, and uncreated. You’re trying to weaponize a quote from a Trinitarian against Trinitarianism, without regard for his own consistent teachings.
St. Thomas Aquinas settled this clearly:
“In God, generation is eternal, not temporal, since God is outside time.” (ST I, q.27, a.2)
And:
“If God were not eternally Father, then His essence would have changed at some point—something impossible for the immutable God.” (ST I, q.9)
So yes—God is eternally Father because the Son is eternally begotten, not in time, but in the divine nature. Tertullian points to the Son's economic revelation and names—not His ontological origin.
Let’s be honest. You wouldn’t accept a Jehovah’s Witness quote from Athanasius or Augustine where they speculate pastorally about Christ’s mission, and then ignore everything else they wrote about His divinity and eternal Sonship.
So don’t do it to Tertullian.
If you want to reject the Trinity, then do so. But don’t pretend you’re doing it with the backing of Tertullian—he taught the divinity, preexistence, eternal generation, and consubstantiality of the Son, long before Nicaea canonized the vocabulary.
He was not Arian. He was not a Modalist. He was, as even Protestant scholars like J.N.D. Kelly admit, a pre-Nicene Trinitarian working out the mystery with the vocabulary available to him.
-
Halcon
1 Corinthians 11:3 does not imply inequality of nature, but order of relation. Christ is eternally from the Father (ex Patre), not in rank or value, but in origin. Just as in the Trinity, the Son proceeds from the Father without inequality. Subordination according to origin does not imply inequality of essence. The same passage says “man is the head of woman.” Does that imply women are ontologically inferior? No. It refers to a relational ordering, not a difference in dignity or essence.
Based on the above, it would appear that the point of contention isn't recognition of the order of relation. The son is clearly subordinate to the Father, as we all agree.
But in what way is salvation lost by understanding the subordination to the Father (by will of God) and not the (much more complex) 'non-created' and equality of essence of Father and son?
-
Vanderhoven7
Hi Kale,
Contacting angels for fellowshipping is spiritism. JWs can't even talk to Jesus. It's prayer to them. They can't address him and/or come to him with their burdens as he invited us to do.
I had a young lady from work (Joan) call me for help a while back. There was an angel in her room that was asking to be her guide. I asked her to describe him for me. She said he was dressed in white and had golden hair. She also told me that she couldn't see his face, that she could see through him, The Holy Sprit warned me that she was dealing with a control demon and that the reason he hid his face from her was so she would not see the hatred he had for her in his eyes. I told her to send him packing in the name of Jesus which she did.
She called me that same afternoon and asked me to come to her home and pray for her. I did and I never saw someone ask Jesus to be their saviour so quickly.
-
slimboyfat
Tertullian believed God always had his Reason or his Word AND that God was alone before he brought his Son into existence. He said both things and clearly believed both. It’s only if you impose a strict idea that Word=Son that there is a problem and you have to negate one or the other of Tertullian’s statements. Tertullian made a distinction between God’s Reason which he always had, and his Son which he brought into existence and thereby became a Father. Tertullian did believe that Jesus is divine in some sense, just as JWs do, even God from God, if you like. This sits alongside his view that there was a time when the Son didn’t exist and that the Son is distinct from God and subordinate to him. Tertullian is eminently clear on these points:
I am, moreover, obliged to say this, when (extolling the Monarchy at the expense of the Economy) they contend for the identity of the Father and Son and Spirit, that it is not by way of diversity that the Son differs from the Father, but by distribution: it is not by division that He is different, but by distinction; because the Father is not the same as the Son, since they differ one from the other in the mode of their being. For the Father is the entire substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole, as He Himself acknowledges: My Father is greater than I. Against Praxeas 14
-
KalebOutWest
Vanderhoven7:
The Holy Sprit warned me that she was dealing with a control demon and that the reason he hid his face from her was so she would not see the hatred he had for her in his eyes.
How do you or someone with a similar experience verify that you or they are having contact with the Holy Spirit and not with a demon or not having a focal seizure or suffering from psychosis? How does one move from being a brainwashed member of the Watchtower to becoming an authority on spiritual phenomenon from Heaven?
How long after leaving the Watchtower did this special ability happen to you?
-
aqwsed12345
@Halcon
You're absolutely right to note that there is a "subordination" in some sense between the Son and the Father. The real question, as you’ve pinpointed, is: in what way is the Son subordinate—and does it matter for salvation? Classical theology makes an essential distinction:
- Subordination of origin: The Son proceeds eternally from the Father (John 1:14; "begotten not made"). This procession implies a real relation of origin (the Son is ex Patre), but not a subordination in essence. The Father communicates the whole divine essence to the Son, such that the Son is consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father.
- Subordination of essence or will: This would mean that the Son has a lesser or derivative will, power, or nature compared to the Father. That is heresy, historically condemned in Arianism, Subordinationism, and Unitarianism.
Thomas Aquinas clarifies this in the Summa Theologiae:
“The Son is said to be less than the Father in His human nature, but not in His divine nature. For in the divine nature, there is no inequality, because the essence is one and the same.” (ST I, q.42, a.4)
You ask why salvation would be lost if we see the Son as subordinate by will. If the Son is not fully God—equal in power, will, and essence with the Father—then He cannot be the Savior. The Psalmist declares: “None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him” (Ps. 49:7). If Christ is a creature, even the highest, He is still finite. A finite being cannot offer infinite atonement for the sins of the world. Only God can. St. Gregory of Nazianzus expressed it succinctly:
“That which He has not assumed, He has not healed.” (Ep. 101)
Only true God taking on true humanity brings about the reconciliation of man to God.
If we misunderstand Christ's divine nature, we risk idolatry on one hand (if we worship a creature), or denial of His rightful worship (if we refuse to honor Him equally with the Father). Yet Scripture explicitly shows the Son receiving worship (cf. Hebrews 1:6, Revelation 5:13), and He accepts it (cf. John 20:28) without rebuke—something no faithful creature would ever do. If Christ is not consubstantial with the Father, then worship of the Son is either blasphemy or a violation of monotheism. The Scriptures teach unity, not separation of will:
- “I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)
- “All that the Father has is mine” (John 16:15)
- “The Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing” (John 5:19)—not because the Son is less, but because He is one in will and nature with the Father.
The will of the Son is numerically the same divine will as the Father, not a separate will that voluntarily aligns with the Father's. If that were the case, it would imply the Son had a nature separate from the Father’s—thus falling into tritheism or Arianism.
The relational roles in the economic Trinity (how God acts in salvation history) reflect the immanent Trinity (God in Himself). The Son is sent, the Father sends. This does not mean inequality—being sent does not entail inferiority (cf. Gal 4:4). Rather, the Son’s mission reflects His eternal generation: He is from the Father, not inferior to Him. Aquinas again:
“Mission implies origin, not inequality.” (ST I, q.43, a.3)
To reduce the Son’s subordination to merely a matter of "will" or "functional hierarchy" (as some semi-Arian or modern subordinationist theologies do) undermines:
- The reality of the Incarnation,
- The power of Christ's redemptive act, and
- The unity of God Himself.
The Church's insistence on the Son’s co-equality, co-eternity, and consubstantiality with the Father is not speculative philosophy, but a direct guardrail against heresy that protects the truth of our salvation. As St. Athanasius proclaimed:
“If the Son is not truly God, then we are not truly saved.”
And that is why denying the full divinity of the Son—even under the guise of "order" or "will"—is not a harmless speculation, but a fatal error.
@slimboyfat
The JW position hinges on the idea that the Son began to exist. But Tertullian consistently denies this. In Against Hermogenes 5, he explicitly states that God was never alone because He always had His own Reason within Himself, and that this Reason was internal until it was expressed as the Word:
“Even then [before creation] God was not alone, for He had with Him that which He possessed in Himself—His own Reason… which He made second to Himself by agitating it within Himself.” (Adv. Hermog. 5)
That is, the Word/Son was not a separate creation, but the eternal, interior Logos of God who is later expressed outwardly in the economy of salvation. Tertullian uses temporal language (e.g., "God became Father") not to describe a literal beginning of the Son’s existence, but to emphasize that the names “Father” and “Son” become relevant when God’s eternal Word is expressed—just as “Lord” becomes a relevant title once creation exists. This is perfectly in line with Trinitarian theology, which affirms that the eternal generation of the Son is not temporal, even if economic revelation (in time) reveals it gradually.
You say: “It’s only if you impose a strict idea that Word = Son that there is a problem.” But Tertullian himself equates the Word (Logos) with the Son:
“The Word was always in the Father, just as your own reason is in yourself... That Word, therefore, is in the Father, always in the Father... He then sent the Word to be His Son.” (Adv. Prax. 5)
So no—this is not an “imposition” by later theologians. It’s Tertullian’s own theological framework. The Son is the Word made manifest, eternally present in the divine substance. Therefore, if God always had the Word, and if the Word is the Son, then the Son is eternally in God, even if the relation of paternity becomes conceptually clear only later in the economy.
You say: “Tertullian said the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. That means the Father is greater.” But again, this misunderstands how Tertullian (and the entire tradition) uses the term “derivatio”. Tertullian is not saying that the Son is a separate essence or a lesser deity, as Arius would claim. Instead, Tertullian explains that the Son is derived from the Father’s own substance—that is, the Son is consubstantial, not separate. He literally says:
“The Father is the whole substance, but the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole... not by division... but by distinction.” (Adv. Prax. 9)
He’s not dividing God’s essence into parts, but articulating real distinction of Persons within the one divine substance. The Son receives the same divine essence by eternal generation. The Father is the principle without principle, and the Son is from the Father, but not after Him in time or less in nature. Portio is used imperfectly to describe a mode of distinction, not ontological inferiority. Later theology clarified this as homoousios (of the same essence) and rejected all misunderstandings of “subordinationism” precisely to affirm what Tertullian intended: distinction without division.
Tertullian quotes John 14:28 (“The Father is greater than I”) to show the distinction of Persons. But as St. Augustine, St. Thomas, and the Church Fathers all taught, this refers to the Son’s mission and humility—not to His divine essence. Tertullian’s functional subordination is economic: the Son is sent, the Father sends. This fits exactly with orthodox Trinitarian theology, which distinguishes:
- Immanent Trinity: The Father eternally begets the Son—equal in being.
- Economic Trinity: The Son is sent into the world and submits in the plan of salvation.
Even in Adv. Prax. 2, Tertullian is adamant that this distinction does not divide the Godhead:
“All are of one: by unity of substance. While the mystery of the economy is still guarded, which distributes the unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.”
You say: “Tertullian believed Jesus is divine in some sense, just like JWs do.” No, he didn’t. Tertullian repeatedly says that the Son is God Himself:
“The Word was with God and was God... The Son is also God.” (Adv. Prax. 13)
He explicitly denies that Jesus is:
- A created being (like the angels),
- A mere creature (De Carne Christi 14),
- Or lesser in nature.
He affirms that:
- The Son is “true God from true God” (Adv. Prax. 13)
- The Son is eternal, as the inner Reason of God (Adv. Hermog. 5)
- The Trinity is one substance, three Persons (Adv. Prax. 2, 5, 9, 13)
This is exactly what the Nicene Creed affirms:
“God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten not made, consubstantial with the Father.”
That’s not Jehovah’s Witness theology.
You are trying to force Tertullian into a Jehovah’s Witness mold—suggesting he believed the Son was a lesser god who came into being. But his theology—though expressed in pre-Nicene terms—clearly teaches:
- The eternal existence of the Son as God’s Word and Wisdom.
- The Son is from the Father’s own divine substance.
- There is one divine essence, fully possessed by three distinct Persons.
- The Son is divine in nature, not merely in title.
- He is not a created being like the angels (see De Carne Christi 14).
Tertullian anticipated Nicene orthodoxy, not Arianism or JW Christology. If anything, his terminology paved the way for the clearer articulations of Athanasius and the Cappadocians. The Catholic tradition receives him as an early defender of the Trinity, and rightly so.
-
slimboyfat
Eusebius of Caesarea argued similarly:
But the Father precedes the Son, and has preceded Him in existence, inasmuch as He alone is unbegotten. The One, perfect in Himself and first in order as Father, and the cause of the Son's existence, receives nothing towards the completeness of His Godhead from the Son: the Other, as a Son begotten of Him that caused His being, came second to Him, Whose Son He is, receiving from the Father both His Being, and the character of His Being .
-
Halcon
And that is why denying the full divinity of the Son—even under the guise of "order" or "will"—is not a harmless speculation, but a fatal error.
Yet from 1st John-
'22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father
further in John's letter-
14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God.'
Then, according to this scripture, to acknowledge that Jesus is the Son of God is sufficient.
Further attested by Jesus himself-
'15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”
17 Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by my Father in heaven.'
No additional explanation of the extent of his divinity (as we may or may not understand it) is required.
-
Touchofgrey
You would think that a all knowing god who supposedly inspired the bible would have defined himself clearly and in a unambiguous manner ,instead of in a confusing manner that has had and still having people debating if he is a single god with a created son or three persons in one where they are all equal..
Both versions can't be right but they can both be wrong.