The transgressions committed by Tertullian certainly do not amount to breaking a single commandment, even though it is the greatest. All Christians—but especially those who either applaud or excuse Tertullian—need to take a sober look at what was really involved and what really took place in the evolution from the God of ‘one He’ to the God of ‘three Hes in one substance.’ What follows is that sober look.

Deuteronomy 31:29: “For I know that after my death you will utterly corrupt yourselves… because you will do that which is evil in the sight of Yahweh…”

Acts 20:29–30: “For I know that after my departure, vicious wolves will enter in among you, not sparing the flock. Men will arise from among your own selves, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

Moses’s phrase “after my death” creates a clear parallel with “after my departing” in Acts 20:29, and together they establish the pattern. The parallel between them frames Tertullian’s compromise as a typical rebellion, unfortunately common among God’s people, that has afflicted God’s people across both Covenants. The word “Covenant” identifies our chief concern. That word represents what God equates to a marriage covenant with His people. More on that below.

“My People Love to Have It So”

Jeremiah 5:31 — “The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love to have it so. What will you do in the end of it?”

The closing question asked here is not rhetorical. It is a warning about the consequences. And it points to something Christianity as a whole has rarely been willing to face: the people (the so-called laity) are not passive victims of false teaching. They are willing participants in it. Jeremiah does not say the people were deceived against their will, nor that they had no responsibility. He says they loved to have it so.

Tertullian would have gained no ground if the majority continued to reject his two or three gods as resembling the world’s plurality of gods. But at some point, they caved, and Tertullian became a pivotal point in the evolutionary development of the Trinity.

This is the part of the story that is hardest for people to accept, because it implicates not just Tertullian but everyone who received his teaching and passed it on, including those of today.

For example, Tertullian is regarded as a “brilliant church theologian” by Trinitarians:

“It is completely misleading to say that the doctrine of the Trinity did not emerge until the fourth century… In the West, around A.D. 213, the brilliant church theologian and polemicist, Tertullian of Carthage, uses the term ‘Trinity’ (Lat. Trinitas, the cognate of the Gk. Term triados).” —Dalcour, 87

Trinitarians, as Dalcour attempted here, depend on men like Tertullian to try to prove the early existence of the Trinity. In reality, as history has shown, Tertullian is a liability to the Trinitarian argument rather than an asset. They cherry-pick his formula—‘one substance, three persons’—while ignoring his own admission that he introduced it from Valentinus the Gnostic.

Dalcour is the one misleading here, because he uses the word Trinity to refer to substantially different views and claims that it existed before Nicaea. Tertullian taught a subordinationist view and claimed there was a time when the Son was not, just as Arius, the foe of Nicene Trinitarianism, did.

We have this from the words of Tertullian himself:

“Because God is in like manner a Father, and He is also a Judge; but He has not always been Father and Judge, merely on the ground of His having always been God. For He could not have been the Father previous to the Son, nor a Judge previous to sin. There was, however, a time when neither sin existed with Him, nor the Son; the former of which was to constitute the Lord a Judge, and the latter a Father.” —Tertullian, Against Hermogenes, Chapter 3

It doesn’t get any clearer than comparing sin and the Son and saying, “there was a time when…neither…existed…nor the Son.” This is not, as some Trinitarians suggest, ambiguous.

In Against Praxeas, Tertullian repeats himself, making his position again perfectly clear:

“For before all things God was alone…God had not Word from the beginning, but He had Reason even before the beginning…Not that this distinction is of any practical moment. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him within Himself… when God says, ‘Let there be light.’ This is the perfect nativity of the Word, when He proceeds forth from God… The root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray…everything which proceeds from something else must needs be second to that from which it proceeds.” —Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapters 5–8

The Latin he used here confirms what the theology cannot conceal. God ‘had’ His Word—the language of possession, not co-existence. The Word was intra semetipsum—inside God’s very own self—which is the language of immanent capacity, not personal distinction. You cannot have one person inside another person. What you can have inside yourself is a faculty, a rational capacity, a mind. Tertullian is describing God’s own Reason becoming externalized as a distinct person at creation. That is not an eternal second person. That is a temporal event—a nativitas—exactly as his own Latin declares.

His use of the word “nativitas” by definition describes a birth—a point at which something that was not yet fully its own distinct self came to be so. You cannot have an eternal nativity. That would be an oxymoron, like a square circle or a married bachelor. The word itself refutes the claim that Tertullian taught co-eternal generation in the Nicene sense. The Son had a nativitas. That means the Son had a beginning.

Taken together across chapters 5 through 8, Tertullian’s own explanatory framework requires:

1. A state in which God existed as Reason without yet having sent forth the Word as a distinct person.
2. A moment at which it pleased God to put forth the Word, tied explicitly to creation.
3. A sequential relationship in which the source necessarily precedes what proceeds from it.

None of this is compatible with the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity. Therefore, it is misleading to say it was. Nicene theology requires that the Son be eternally begotten, meaning there is no prior moment when the Son did not exist as a distinct person. Tertullian’s own explanatory chapters explicitly describe exactly such a prior moment. The man who coined trinitas did not believe what Nicene Trinitarianism means by it.

Just decades before Tertullian was introducing his Valentinian projection of one God out of another, Irenaeus was condemning exactly that thought which the Gnostics put forth:

“If, again, they affirm that that (intelligence) was not sent forth beyond the Father, but within the Father Himself, then, in the first place, it becomes superfluous to say that it was sent forth at all. For how could it have been sent forth if it continued within the Father? For an emission is the manifestation of that which is emitted, beyond him who emits it. In the next place, this (intelligence) being sent forth, both that Logos who springs from Him will still be within the Father, as will also be the future emissions proceeding from Logos…” —Irenaeus, Against Heresies 2.13.5–6

Irenaeus aimed this argument at the Gnostics. But the logic lands equally on Tertullian, who borrowed the same emanation framework from Valentinus and applied it to the Father-Son relationship. If the Son proceeded from the Father as a distinct person, he went somewhere the Father was not, which is precisely what the majority of believers in Tertullian’s own day recognized as ‘two gods.’ If he did not go somewhere the Father was not, then Irenaeus’ question applies directly: in what sense was he begotten at all? Irenaeus calls it superfluous, and that is precisely what the Nicene doctrine of eternal generation amounts to: a Son begotten while remaining within the Father, before anything external existed to receive him. The Son had nowhere to go, which is exactly Irenaeus’ point. It would be like a pregnant mother saying her baby was born while it was still in her womb. Either the baby is born, or it is not; but it is not born while it remains in the womb.

In other words, the man Trinitarians depend upon to establish the early existence of their doctrine held a position on the Son that Trinitarians themselves would later condemn as heresy—a controversy so severe they prostituted themselves before a pagan emperor for the secular authority to renounce and silence it. But such major details don’t appear in Dalcour’s above claim because they undermine his historical dependence on Tertullian.

Was Dalcour misleading? Those who defend Tertullian will say no. But the details Dalcour omitted are not minor footnotes—they are the very facts that determine whether Tertullian’s testimony helps or hurts the Trinitarian case. And as this chapter demonstrates, they expose the deceptive nature of that dependence—a deception Trinitarian theologians find themselves compelled to perpetuate to this day in order to defend the error rather than expose the corruption from its inception to its propagation.

A return to Paul’s words, “from among your own selves,” is crucial in identifying this as an inside job—as it continues to be. Tertullian was a respected apologist, a church father, a man of genuine learning and zeal. The wolf Paul describes is not a pagan philosopher attacking from outside—he is dressed in Christian clothing. He was a leader rising from within the community and drawing disciples after himself through his Montanist “New Prophecy,” rather than after Christ. That is Tertullian’s profile precisely—and the indictment that follows will make it impossible to ignore, at least for those seeking truth rather than traditions of men.

The betrothal text

Paul provides us with yet another warning tying corruption of Christ to the covenant-breaking that Moses predicted:

2 Corinthians 11:2–3 — “For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy. For I married you to one husband, that I might present you as a pure virgin to Christ. But I am afraid that somehow, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so your minds might be corrupted from the simplicity and the purity that is in Christ… [preaching] another Jesus whom we didn’t preach…”

Paul’s fear is specifically that the church’s mind would be corrupted, and he frames it explicitly in marital-covenant language. Tertullian is almost a case study in what Paul feared: through sophisticated reasoning, through credentialed teachers, through arguments that seem compelling, he taught the people to view Christ in a manner the apostles never preached him to be.

Which leads us to the biblical word “harlotry” and its covenantal implications.

The Old Testament harlotry pattern:

Ezekiel 16:15 — “But you trusted in your beauty, and played the prostitute because of your renown.”

Israel’s harlotry began with those entrusted with God’s gifts using their position to reach for what was forbidden. So it was with the church. God gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers to guard the deposit of the kerygma, the authoritative preached word of the Apostles. Some of those entrusted with that guardianship instead reached for the philosophy God had warned against—because they desired to make themselves wise (Genesis 3:6).

Ezekiel 16:32–33 — “You adulterous wife, that takes strangers instead of her husband! They give gifts to all prostitutes, but you give your gifts to all your lovers, and bribe them to come to you from all around for your prostitution.”

The reversal Ezekiel identifies is the desperate pursuit—she paid them to come to her. So the church did not merely passively absorb pagan philosophy. She pursued it, granted it theological legitimacy, and gave it the seat of honor in her councils. She bought what should have been refused—the price was her spiritual virginity, reserved for Christ alone as her husband and lord.

Hosea 2:13 — “I will visit on her the days of the Baals, to which she burned incense, when she decked herself with her earrings and her jewels, and went after her lovers, and forgot me, says Yahweh.”

The forgetting is gradual and adorned—each philosophical category adds a new piece of forbidden jewelry to their adornment, making the departure look beautiful on the outside to the world, but it is a covenantal betrayal in the eyes of the bridegroom.

Jeremiah 2:13 — “For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the spring of living waters, and cut them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water.”

This is the precise movement: from the living water of apostolic testimony to the cracked cisterns of Stoic ontology and Neoplatonic metaphysics, cut out on the workbench of theologians.

The New Testament continuation:

James 4:4 — “You adulterers and adulteresses, don’t you know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Whoever therefore wants to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.”

Revelation 17:2 — “with whom the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality, and those who dwell in the earth were made drunk with the wine of her sexual immorality.”

The Constantinian settlement—the alliance of imperial power and Nicene theology—maps directly onto this image. The Homoousios was not hammered out in a room of humble Bible scholars. As Chapter Seven documents, scholars are in complete agreement that it originated among the Gnostics, who drew it from Egyptian Hermetic mythology, where it described divine substance passing from one being to another in an emanation chain. It arrived at Nicaea already carrying that meaning. The church did not create the term nor the concept it represented. She took it from the world through what Jesus spiritually identifies in Revelation as “sexual immorality.”

Revelation 18:3 — “For all the nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her sexual immorality, the kings of the earth committed sexual immorality with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from the abundance of her luxury.”

These passages describe what Tertullian accomplished from a covenantal perspective, and none of it was good. Jesus’ own warning seems most appropriate of all:

Revelation 2:14–16 — “But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to throw a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. So also you likewise have some who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore, or else I am coming to you quickly and I will make war against them with the sword of my mouth.”

The Bridegroom has expressed his judgment. We need to add no further commentary on his words.

Having established the stakes as covenantal and identified biblically as spiritual harlotry, we turn now to the specific charges. What follows are measurable violations according to the Bible’s own standards.

Claiming Additional Revelation Beyond the Apostles

This may be Tertullian’s most recognizable and widely agreed-upon violation; even Trinitarians fault him for this. In Against Praxeas Chapter 2, he explicitly states his Trinitarian development came because “we have been better instructed by the Paraclete”—again, meaning the heretical Montanist “New Prophecy.” He is claiming post-apostolic revelation as theological authority.

Galatians 1:8–9 — “But even though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you any gospel other than that which we preached to you, let him be cursed.”

The double repetition (“as we have said before, so I now say again”) signals that Paul considered this the paramount danger. Tertullian explicitly invoked a new prophetic voice to justify a doctrine that the majority of believers were actively rejecting.

Jude 1:3 — “contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.”

“Once for all (hapax)” is a permanent closed deposit. Tertullian’s Montanism treated it as still open.

Revelation 22:18 — “If anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book.”

Deuteronomy 4:2 — “You shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall you take away from it.”

Jeremiah 23:16 — “Don’t listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They teach you vanity; they speak a vision of their own heart, and not out of the mouth of Yahweh.”

All of these three commands are directly applicable to Tertullian’s Montanist sources.

Introducing Vocabulary and Concepts Not in Scripture

Tertullian coined the Trinitarian technical terms trinitas, persona, and una substantia. No apostle used them, nor—even more importantly—the concepts they represent. He then used those coined terms to define what Scripture must mean.

2 Timothy 1:13 — “Hold the pattern of sound words which you have heard from me.”

1 Corinthians 2:12–14 — “But we received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might know the things that were freely given to us by God. We also speak these things, not in words which man’s wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual things. Now the natural man doesn’t receive the things of God’s Spirit, for they are foolishness to him; and he can’t know them, because they are spiritually discerned.”

The standard is not identical vocabulary—it is conceptual origin. If the concept requires words and categories the apostles never used, the question is where those concepts came from. In Tertullian’s case, the answer is not the Holy Spirit.

1 Timothy 6:20–21 — “Guard that which is committed to you, turning away from the empty chatter and oppositions of what is falsely called knowledge; which some professing have erred concerning the faith.”

Falsely called knowledge is pseudonymou gnoseos—a direct hit on the Gnostic vocabulary Tertullian borrowed.

Hebrews 13:9 — “Don’t be carried away by various and strange teachings.”

Stoic ontology applied to the Godhead qualifies as a strange teaching by any apostolic standard.

Appealing to Gnostic Sources

This book documents that Tertullian explicitly appealed to Valentinus, the Gnostic, to justify introducing his view of the generation of Logos. That is not incidental—it is a methodological choice.

2 Corinthians 6:14–16 — “For what fellowship have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What agreement has Christ with Belial? Or what portion has a believer with an unbeliever?”

1 Timothy 1:4 — “neither to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which cause disputes, rather than God’s stewardship, which is in faith.”

Gnostic emanation chains—the Logos proceeding from the Father in the Valentinian schema—are precisely such “endless genealogies” Paul warns against.

Titus 3:9 — “Avoid foolish questionings, genealogies, strife, and disputes about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.”

Teaching Doctrine Rejected by the Majority of Believers

Tertullian himself admits in Against Praxeas Chapter 3 that the majority of believers rejected his Trinity as “preaching two gods and three gods.” He continued anyway.

Romans 16:17 — “Look out for those who are causing the divisions and occasions of stumbling, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and turn away from them.”

2 Peter 2:1 — “False teachers will also be among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them.”

These warnings, including Paul’s warning in Acts 20:29-30 above, are specifically about insiders, which Tertullian was.

Going Beyond Christ’s Own Teaching

Jesus never once used Tertullian’s vocabulary or framework to explain his relationship to the Father. Tertullian’s system cannot be derived from Jesus’ own self-testimony.

2 John 1:9 — “Whoever transgresses and doesn’t remain in the teaching of Christ, doesn’t have God. He who remains in the teaching of Christ has both the Father and the Son.”

This verse cuts with surgical precision: the standard is Christ’s teaching, not Tertullian’s teaching about Christ.

Matthew 15:9 — “They worship me in vain, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men.”

Imposing Stoic corporealism as the ontological foundation of Trinitarian doctrine by which views are to be judged is exactly a commandment of men.

Matthew 28:20 — “teaching them to observe all things which I commanded you.”

The commission is to teach what Jesus commanded, not what Tertullian inferred from Stoic physics.

Substituting Reason for Scripture

Tertullian’s defense of the substantial Son in Against Praxeas Chapter 7 proceeds entirely by philosophical reasoning, not by Scripture citation.

Isaiah 8:20 — “To the law and to the testimony! If they don’t speak according to this word, surely there is no morning for them.”

This is the Old Testament’s stated test for any teacher. And it is echoed in the New:

1 Corinthians 1:19–20 — “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise. I will bring the discernment of the discerning to nothing. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Hasn’t God made foolish the wisdom of this world?”

On Prophetic Dreamers

Deuteronomy 13:1–3 — “If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you, and he gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes to pass, of which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let’s go after other gods (which you have not known) and let’s serve them;’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet…for Yahweh your God is testing you.”

This passage deserves special attention and may be the sharpest of all. This text anticipates the exact scenario: a teacher with genuine credentials (Tertullian was a respected apologist and church father), whose doctrine nonetheless leads away from God as defined by the prior revelation. The test is not whether the teacher is knowledgeable, educated, or credentialed—it is whether the doctrine produced matches the God already revealed. By the Shema and First Commandment standard that God is “one He,” Tertullian’s “second person” fails that test, regardless of his standing.

These are, of course, transgressions in addition to breaking the first and greatest commandment. Taken together, they do not describe a humble, well-meaning man who stumbled into error and accidentally attributed it to a new and necessary revelation that all must submit to. They describe a man who ignored each of these commandments against exactly what he was doing.

The People’s Responsibility

The Bible never frames God’s people as innocent if their teachers lead them astray.

Ezekiel 14:10 — “They shall bear their iniquity: the iniquity of the prophet shall be the same as the iniquity of him who inquires.”

Revelation 18:4 — “Come out of her, my people, that you have no participation in her sins, and that you don’t receive of her plagues.”

These verses are sobering. The one who goes to the false prophet bears the same iniquity as the false prophet. Receiving false doctrine willingly is not a lesser sin—it is the same sin. And the call to come out presupposes that God’s people are in the system—and then warns of the consequences.

Matthew 15:14 — “Leave them alone. They are blind guides of the blind. If the blind guide the blind, both will fall into a pit.”

2 John 1:10–11 — “If anyone comes to you and doesn’t bring this teaching, don’t receive him into your house, and don’t welcome him, for he who welcomes him participates in his evil deeds.”

This was written in a time of house churches. We are taught that we are each responsible for examining what we are taught and how we use it.

Acts 17:11 — “Now these were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, examining the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.”

Luke calls these Bereans “more noble” precisely because they did not accept apostolic teaching without verification—and Paul approved.

1 Thessalonians 5:21 — “Test all things, and hold firmly that which is good.”

1 John 4:1 — “Beloved, don’t believe every spirit, but test the spirits, whether they are of God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.”

The test is always weighed against prior revelation—exactly the Deuteronomy 13 standard.

The Psychology of Comfortable Error

Scripture is remarkably candid about why people accept false teaching—it is not usually intellectual defeat but emotional preference.

2 Timothy 4:3–4 — “For the time will come when they will not listen to the sound doctrine, but, having itching ears, will heap up for themselves teachers after their own lusts; and will turn away their ears from the truth, and turn aside to fables.”

This is the most precise biblical diagnosis of the phenomenon: the people choose teachers who confirm what they want to hear.

2 Thessalonians 2:10–11 — “Because they didn’t receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved…God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a lie.”

This provides a judicial dimension. God permits strong delusion as a consequence of rejected truth. And he puts the responsibility of discerning truth from error on each of us.

Hosea 4:6 — “My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I will also reject you.”

The destruction is not imposed externally; it follows from a rejection made by the people themselves. And God was not unaware that this would happen. He built the test into the covenant itself:

Deuteronomy 13:3 — “for Yahweh your God is testing you, to know whether you love Yahweh your God with all your heart and with all your soul.”

The test God applies in Deuteronomy 13 is not intellectual—it is covenantal. Do you love God enough to refuse even a credentialed teacher whose doctrine contradicts the prior revelation? To whom is your loyalty when two opposing paths are being proposed?

The Sobering Conclusion

2 Timothy 2:2–5 “The things which you have heard from me among many witnesses, commit the same things to faithful men who will be able to teach others also. You therefore must endure hardship as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on duty entangles himself in the affairs of life, that he may please him who enrolled him as a soldier. Also, if anyone competes in athletics, he isn’t crowned unless he has competed by the rules.”

No competitor is crowned unless they compete by the rules. Imagine any sport in which the rules were so flagrantly violated as were done in the development of the Trinity.

The rules in theology are not set by councils, emperors, or gifted apologists. They were sealed in the blood of Jesus and his martyred disciples, written into the commandments and warnings God put on record as the terms of the New Covenant. No council, emperor, or apologist has the authority to revise them—and no believer has the liberty to ignore them.

Paul’s athletic analogy cuts directly to the heart of what Tertullian did. Tertullian did not compete according to the rules of the New Covenant established by Christ’s blood. He imported the rules of a different game entirely—Stoic physics, Gnostic emanation, Montanist prophecy—and played by those instead. But these were the very same elements of the world that Christ came to deliver us from, not to ratify as instruments of theological truth. By Paul’s own standard, whatever crown Trinitarians place on Tertullian’s head is not the one that counts.

The church’s descent from apostolic simplicity to Nicene complexity was not a sudden fall. It was a seduction, generation by generation, each accommodation making the next one easier, until the vocabulary of Stoic physics had so thoroughly infiltrated Christian theology that the bishops gathered at Nicaea in 325 AD could no longer discern when their sacred covenant was being violated. They no longer held fidelity to their bridegroom as a precious thing to be cherished and guarded; it became for them an unwelcome and unreasonable bondage.

The Bible has a word for that kind of union between the bride of Christ and the wisdom of this world. It is not a mere error. It is not confusion. The God of the Bible calls it harlotry. That’s a far cry from the Bible calling it “brilliant theology.” The doctrine born of that union came from pagan mythology, not from the God who demands that we worship Him in spirit and in truth.

If harlotry has taken place, then there was something from the world that the ‘dreamers of dreams’ carried into the church in the name of God. And for that, we will examine the source of the homoousios—the same substance doctrine—in the next chapter.

Summary—In this chapter, I have documented:

✦ That Tertullian violated biblical standards under six distinct categories, across more than twenty scriptural commands and warnings.

✦ That all the violations in this chapter are in addition to his violation of the first and greatest commandment covered previously.

✦ That biblical warnings against false prophets apply with precision to the new doctrines, and the manner in which they were introduced by Tertullian.

✦ That people who accept false teachings bear the same covenantal iniquity as the teacher who misled them.

✦ That what Trinitarians call “brilliant theology,” the Bible calls “harlotry.”

✦ That Trinitarians are misleading when they appeal to Tertullian as support for Nicene Trinitarianism, since his actual view of the Son was later condemned as heresy at Nicaea.

✦ That, according to Paul’s standard, competing outside the rules disqualifies the competitor—a standard that applies directly to Tertullian, who broke the rules and taught others to do the same.

Print This Post