Have you ever heard a Trinitarian claim, “it’s impossible for Man to imagine or conceive anything not based on one or more of the five senses (sight, smell, touch, hearing and smell)”? Well, I have, and I’m here to tell you that it is a false and misleading claim, and the opposite is the truth.

So, let’s now turn our attention to the evidence that the philosophers, Gnostics, and the Trinitarians did exactly that to deduce or conclude the Trinity of persons in the Godhead. That is, they used carnal reasoning, not biblical revelation, to arrive at the conclusion of the Trinity. This means that, contrary to the Trinitarians’ claim, what they didn’t do was understand things spiritually, which I will also address later in this Part.

Recall that we have already quoted two philosophers (see Part Four) who concluded three persons in the godhead based on human reasoning and sensual observations. Those two were Numenius and Plotinus. And if we add Plato himself (and all the philosophers between them who held similar views) then we have many more than three examples of what Trinitarians think wouldn’t have been possible for the ECTD’s.

“For, as the Pythagoreans say, the world and all that is in it is determined by the number three, since beginning and middle and end give the number of an ‘all’, and the number they give is the triad. And so, having taken these three from nature as (so to speak) laws of it, we make further use of the number three in the worship of the Gods.” Aristotle, On The Heavens, Book 1, Part 1, https://library.uoh.edu.iq/admin/ebooks/4654-aristotle-on-heavens_compressed.pdf

So here we have concrete evidence going all the way back to Aristotle (384-322 BC), that from nature men were “concluding” God as a triad and using “the number three in the worship of the Gods”. Again, they concluded this not by spiritual revelation, but by natural observation. Trinitarians do the same thing by changing from faith in the word of God to walking by sight, meaning, by human reasoning. And thereby also rejecting revelation by inspiration from God to embrace instead reasoning in men’s hearts toward the way which seems right but which is the way that ends in death.

And that explains why Trinitarians look to things like “water, ice, and steam,” “an eggshell, egg white, and egg yolk,” and “a human body, soul, and spirit” to try to describe and make sense of, the Trinity. It is because they are trying to make sense of God through that which can be understood naturally and materially through the five senses.

One of the first steps in the process of the adoption of the pagan Trinity into Christianity was to likewise conceive of God in materialistic terms. Materialistic terms mean things that have physical properties that can be perceived and understood by the five senses (sight, smell, touch, hearing, and smell). The ECTD’s explain that is what they did and what enabled them to do so! Tertullian even made a very big deal of just that fact in defending his justification for introducing the idea of two or more persons in one literal substance. So it is by no means a subtle fact…

“…I am introducing…one thing out of another, as Valentinus does…wherein we declare that the Son is a prolation from the Father, without being separated from him. For God sent forth the Word, as the Paraclete also declares, just as the root puts forth the tree, and the fountain the river, and the sun the ray. For these are…emanations, of the substances from which they proceed.” Tertullian, Against Praxeus, Chapter 8.

Tertullian had no other options or recourse than to refer to trees, rivers, and the sun to explain his view of the Trinity. This isn’t an “excuse” he is making nor an analogy; it is a “comparison.” Tertullian is talking literally about the type of emulation of one substance out of another substance that he is contending for. This is clear evidence that they were using terms relatable to the five senses and thus well within their human ability to make stuff up. These are the types of “imaginations” that 2 Cor. 10:5 tells us are our enemy and need to be thrown down.

Furthermore, Tertullian didn’t claim that viewing the godhead in materialistic terms came from the apostles or that “the majority” of Christians conceived of God materialistically. Rather, Tertullian is openly contending against mainstream Christianity for the very fact that he was introducing the idea of a multi-personal deity…

“The simple, indeed, (I will not call them unwise and unlearned,) who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation (of the Three in One) , on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only true God.” Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 3.

Here’s a part of the big Trinitarian cover-up and deception. Trinitarians today want you to believe that the Trinity is what mainline, apostle-trained Christians always believed. But in Tertullian’s time “the majority of believers” did not. They knew better. They believed Jesus when he said, speaking to the Father…

“This is eternal life, that they should know you, the only true God, and him whom you sent, Jesus Christ” (John 17:3).

After all, that’s an incredibly clear and concise statement and needs no “interpretation.” The words “only” and “true” are incredibly explanatory and declarative and exclusive. Those who need to “reinterpret” this truth to add to it or take away from it are merely demonstrating that they don’t believe it.

If the Trinity had always been believed before Tertullian, why would his “introducing” it be such a startling shock to his detractors, “the majority of believers”?

And why would the idea of an incarnation of a deity be a shock in Acts 14:11?

Biblically speaking, the Jews were shocked about Jesus over basically three main things,
1. he didn’t restore the natural kingdom and
2. he didn’t affirm the traditions of the Pharisees, and
3. he mentioned that the temple would be destroyed and indicated the temple of his body would be raised in 3 days.

But nowhere in scripture or history was the idea of the Jewish monotheistic view of God one of the points of contention raised against Jesus or the apostles. In fact, Jesus firmly reiterated it!

“Jesus said… ‘You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews.’” (John 4:21–22; NKJV).

The only “shock” that the apostles felt they needed to convene a council over was in Acts 15 regarding the position of Gentiles in the body of believers. This was indeed a new thing. Before Acts 10, with the conversion of Gentiles, it was expected by Jews that Gentiles would be converted to Judaism to be partakers in the promises of God. But under the NT, God no longer requires Gentiles to either convert to Judaism or even obey the law that God had given through Moses to the Israelites. The NT was a new thing that needed to be dealt with and authorized through the apostles.

But the specific idea of God Himself being “a multi-person being” never entered the conversation in the Bible. While the apostles were alive, the Jewish view of monotheism, as explicitly affirmed by Jesus, continued to be the standard and the rule of faith.

This is precisely why Tertullian’s detractors knew he was introducing something new, and it sounded to them, specifically, like the “world’s plurality of gods” (thus not Jewish mysticism) and therefore they were openly shocked by the idea. But Tertullian wasn’t! For Tertullian, going after the gods round about him was the natural, logical, scientific, and philosophical thing to do.

It must also be noted that Tertullian himself provided another confession (like Gregory would later do) that he didn’t get the idea of a multi-personal deity from Jews or the apostles or apostolic procession, rather, he got the idea from Valentinus the Gnostic! Along with that, he further confessed and admitted, that “the majority of believers” criticized him for his new doctrines which they accused him of getting from Valentinus the Gnostic. This was what led Tertullian to say, “…I am introducing…one thing out of another as Valentinus does…” quoted above. He was attempting to defend himself for doing so, just as “the majority of believers” were accusing him of.

Thus, it is evident that the Trinity was not always believed like Trinitarians falsely claim. Nor did it come from Jewish thought. Notice what else Tertullian said, as if to emphasize his contempt for Jewish monotheism. He says, in effect, “Oh, and another thing, that One God thing of yours is too Jewish!” …

“But, (this doctrine of yours bears a likeness) to the Jewish faith, of which this is the substance—so to believe in One God as to refuse to reckon the Son besides him, and after the Son the Spirit. Now, what difference would there be between us and them, if there were not this distinction which you are for breaking down? What need would there be of the gospel, which is the substance of the New Covenant, laying down (as it does) that the Law and the Prophets lasted until John the Baptist, if thenceforward the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not both believed in as Three, and as making One Only God?…” Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 31.

Not only did Tertullian openly reject Jewish belief, but he provided his explicit reason for doing so. In no way can an honest person claim this indicates he got his views from Jews.

Tertullian was contending against someone named Praxeas. In this passage, Tertullian was clearly complaining that Praxeas wouldn’t allow God to have a physical substance. This shows us clearly that it was the non-Trinitarians who wouldn’t rely on the five senses, but the Trinitarians did for the very purpose of being able to conceive of and describe their man-made deity. In this writing, Tertullian, was speaking directly to Praxeas. He notes a question that Praxeas had asked him, which was if Tertullian granted that the word is “a certain substance.” Tertullian then goes on to criticize and ridicule Praxeas for not allowing God to have a “substance” in the same manner that God’s creation has substance. This is a clear admission on Tertullian’s part that he had to view things from his senses before he could imagine or describe his “multi-person-deity.” …

“He (the word) became also the Son of God, and was begotten when he proceeded forth from Him. Do you then, (you ask,) grant that the Word is a certain substance, constructed by the Spirit and the communication of Wisdom? Certainly I do. But you [speaking to Praxeas, his detractor] will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of His own; in such a way that he may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word. For you will say, what is a word, but a voice and sound of the mouth, and (as the grammarians teach) air when struck against, intelligible to the ear, but for the rest a sort of void, empty, and incorporeal thing. I, on the contrary, contend that nothing empty and void could have come forth from God, seeing that it is not put forth from that which is empty and void; nor could that possibly be devoid of substance which has proceeded from so great a substance, and has produced such mighty substances: for all things which were made through Him, He Himself (personally) made. How could it be, that he Himself is nothing, without whom nothing was made? How could he who is empty have made things which are solid, and he who is void have made things which are full, and he who is incorporeal have made things which have a body?” Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 7

In this passage, Tertullian clearly drew his understanding from “what can be known by the five senses.” This is not spiritual revelation, but rejection of it! He argued against the majority view of Christians that the word of God was merely “a voice and sound…empty, and incorporeal…” Thus, according to Tertullian, if the word of God does not have actual substance, it could have no real existence. This is pagan philosophy. For Tertullian God was corporeal, not incorporeal like, for example, love or faith. Tertullian could not believe or accept God’s own explanation of Himself that He is what He does [“I am that I am”], nor the Jewish view that God is immaterial and incorporeal. Thus, Tertullian’s Trinity is built squarely on a rejection of God’s explanation of Himself. Tertullian displaced that explanation with pagan philosophical concepts of metaphysics. Imagine having the gall to “correct” God Himself! Isn’t that what the serpent did in the Garden? Isn’t that what all false doctrines do? Tertullian’s god was the god of philosophy all dressed up with some Christian-sounding names.

The implications cannot be understated that Tertullian adamantly believed that God’s nature was an actual material substance. He compared and likened that substance to other great substances that God created. He said this emphatically. It is not an assumption. Tertullian clearly understood and explained God’s substance as being very much like the substance of created beings. This was a major part of his argument for the ability to view God in two or three persons. This is why Tertullian said that God had to have substance in order to produce other substances. The Bible refers to these “substances” as, “…man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” Of course, Tertullian brought himself, and all Trinitarians who ascribe to his reasoning as well, under the condemnation of the Scripture. For it is written again,

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up…” (Romans 1:22–24)

Tertullian is one of the Early Christian Trinity Designers who was instrumental in changing the glory of God into an image made like corruptible man. This is precisely what happens when men presume themselves to be wise in taking up pagan philosophical views of the Godhead. Tertullian seems to have believed he thought more highly of God by perceiving God as not devoid of material substance. In fact, for Tertullian, if God did not have substance, like that of the “mighty substances” which He created, He would be a “void, empty, and incorporeal thing.” Against this view, note the Jewish view…

“G-d is Incorporeal. Although many places in scripture and Talmud speak of various parts of G-d’s body (the Hand of G-d, G-d’s wings, etc.) or speak of G-d in anthropomorphic terms (G-d walking in the garden of Eden, G-d laying tefillin, etc.), Judaism firmly maintains that G-d has no body. Any reference to G-d’s body is simply a figure of speech, a means of making G-d’s actions more comprehensible to beings living in a material world. Much of Rambam’s Guide for the Perplexed is devoted to explaining each of these anthropomorphic references and proving that they should be understood figuratively.
“We are forbidden to represent G-d in a physical form. That is considered idolatry. The sin of the Golden Calf incident was not that the people chose another deity, but that they tried to represent G-d in a physical form. This is very clear because upon the presentation of the idol, they said, “this is your G-d who brought you up from the land of Egypt.” (Exodus 32:4).” https://www.jewfaq.org/nature_of_god#Incorporeal

So, Tertullian’s whole theology goes against that monotheism which Jesus commended in John 4:21–22. Tertullian’s materialistic doctrine of God is considered idolatry by Jewish and Biblical standards. Thus, we see Tertullian, long before Gregory of Nyssa, beginning to destroy Jewish monotheism, NOT embrace it. He did this through redefinition, by first giving God substance and corporeality; and having done that, then divide that substance into persons. Materiality is something God did not have according to the Jewish knowledge of God. That kind of thinking about God came straight from pagan, and anti-Christian sources.

Let there be no mistake about where Tertullian got his idea of God’s material corporeality: it existed in Stoic philosophy:

“Stoicism was one of the most important and enduring philosophies to emerge from the Greek and Roman world… The pneuma of the human soul (pneuma psychikon) is said to be a mixture of air and fire. Some Stoics saw this soul as a literal mixture of fire and air, others associated it with a refined fire (similar to aether) or vital heat. The pneuma permeating the body was held to be a portion of the divine pneuma permeating and directing the cosmos. The human soul is a portion of God within us, both animating us and endowing us with reason and intelligence.” Stoic Philosophy of Mind, https://iep.utm.edu/stoicmind/

One historian explains Stoic corporeality for us this way:

“The doctrine that fire and spirit are corporeal is Stoic in origin… In Stoic metaphysics, existence is defined by body; there is no incorporeal reality. The word “spirit” designates a bodily reality which is of the purest sort. Thus in the Stoic reading, the Christian Scriptures, inasmuch as they describe God as spirit, were interpreted to support a corporeal conception of God.” Peter Widdicombe, The Fatherhood of God from Origen to Athanasius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 15.

Be careful to note that scriptures weren’t written to support a Stoic view, that’s not what is being implied here. Rather, it is saying Stoics “interpret” scripture to support their views. This is also what Trinitarians do (following after what Tertullian had done). They “interpret” the Bible rather than accept it at face value. Interpreting in itself isn’t wrong. Interjecting ideas that are contrary to the Bible is wrong.

I have previously quoted (see Part Seven) a scholar who said the so-called “Fathers” inherited the substantialist concepts from the substance metaphysics of Aristotle. For example, in Aristotleian metaphysics…

“Substances are unique in being independent things; the items in the other categories all depend somehow on substances. That is, qualities are the qualities of substances; quantities are the amounts and sizes that substances come in; relations are the way substances stand to one another. These various non-substances all owe their existence to substances—each of them, as Aristotle puts it, exists only ‘in’ a subject. That is, each non-substance “is in something, not as a part, and cannot exist separately from what it is in” (Cat. 1a25). Indeed, it becomes clear that substances are the subjects that these ontologically dependent non-substances are ‘in’.” https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-metaphysics/

Compare what Tertullian said, that God had to be and have substance, and what you just read about Aristotleian metaphysics, to what the Bible says: that God spoke and there was. In the Bible it is 180 degrees reverse to Stoic metaphysics. In the Bible, all substances owe their existence to an invisible, non-substance, namely God (Hebrews 11:3). Clearly, Tertullian left the Bible for philosophy.

So, it was through substance metaphysical philosophy such as this (where nothing can possibly exist outside of “substance” or “corporeality”) that the pagan world conceived of God as being some type of ethereal substance. According to Justin Martyr, Plato described this as “a fiery substance.” This notion is different than saying, “our God is a consuming fire” (Deuteronomy 4:24), which refers figuratively to the action rather than the substance. Justin writes…

“For Plato…says that the most high God exists in a fiery substance. But Aristotle…overthrows the opinion of Plato, saying that God does not exist in a fiery substance: but inventing, as a fifth substance, some kind of aetherial and unchangeable body, says that God exists in it. Thus, at least, he wrote: ‘Not, as some of those who have erred regarding the Deity say, that God exists in a fiery substance.’” Justin Martyr Hortatory Address to the Greeks, Chapters 5, see also 31, and 36) https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0129.htm

So, there’s the pagan philosophical view of understanding and conceiving of God as a corporeal substance that Tertullian adopted.

Most importantly, Tertullian had admitted that he was introducing something new, inspired by the Gnostic Valentinus, that “the majority of believers” were not accepting due to his doctrine resembling the world’s plurality of gods. So, it is fair to ask, what was the belief previous to Tertullian’s novel view?

In contrast to a “corporeal” view, the earlier Christians, like Irenaeus, spoke of God in non-compound and non-corporeal terms, just as is found in conservative Judaism. So, it was the non-Trinitarians who were maintaining the Jewish view, not the ECTD’s. Irenaeus wrote against the anti-Christian Gnostics in his Against Heresies (c. 180). In doing so, he wrote against the exact concepts that Tertullian (AD 160–220) adopted and reintroduced. Irenaeus tells us that view was that there simply was no “multi-personality” within the Godhead because God is non-compound and incorporeal:

“But God being all Mind, and all Logos, both speaks exactly what He thinks, and thinks exactly what He speaks. For His thought is Logos, and Logos is Mind, and Mind comprehending all things is the Father Himself. He, therefore, who speaks of the mind of God, and ascribes to it a special origin of its own, declares him a compound Being, as if God were one thing, and the original Mind another. So, again, with respect to Logos, when one attributes to him the third place of production from the Father; on which supposition he is ignorant of His greatness; and thus Logos has been far separated from God. As for the prophet, he declares respecting him, ‘Who shall describe his generation?’ But ye pretend to set forth his generation from the Father, and ye transfer the production of the word of men which takes place by means of a tongue to the Word of God, and thus are righteously exposed by your own selves as knowing neither things human nor divine.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 28, par. 5

According to Irenaeus, God “the Father Himself” is all mind and all logos; He cannot be separated or distinguished from His mind or His logos, just as He is logos. Yet this is exactly what the Gnostics did with God—they created a compound being by dividing Him into distinct persons according to His attributes, particularly mind and logos. Irenaeus rebukes the Gnostics for this in another place also, and thereby demonstrates that the idea of God as a compound (or corporeal) being first existed among “Christians” with the Gnostics and later found its way into Trinitarianism. According to Irenaeus:

“…The Father of all is not to be regarded as a kind of compound Being, who can be separated from His Nous (mind), as I have already shown; but Nous is the Father, and the Father Nous.” Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book 2, Chapter 17, par. 7

This was the earlier view of the assembly when God was not considered a compound being as the later Trinitarians would envision him. So, in addition to Tertullian’s own witness, we have Irenaeus as a second witness, that Tertullian’s position was contrary to the earlier Christian view, and he was indeed introducing something new, not repeating something that was already known, let alone widely known or accepted. And certainly not something that was derived from Jewish mysticism.

Historically, it wasn’t until Origen (c. 185 – c. 253) that the “eternal generation” of the son was invented. Even then, it must be remembered that Origen believed in the same preexistence for all souls, including you and me.

Origen’s doctrine of the preexistence of the soul can be summed up thus: “Human souls originally flourished in a discarnate state prior to a transgression that led to their subsequent embodiment.” Peter William Martens, “Embodiment, Heresy, and the Hellenization of Christianity: The Descent of the Soul in Plato and Origen” (Harvard Theological Review 108 no. 4 2015): 595.

Doesn’t this sound like “gods come to earth in the form of man” (Acts 14:11) to you? Of course it does, because that is exactly what it is and where it comes from.

Do you remember living before you were born? No? So, Origen’s view is thus shown to be carnally derived, and fraught with pagan influence. Apparently, as far as I can tell, all theories of literal preexistence of souls ultimately rely on pagan ideas of “incarnation”.

And yet Origen, another philosopher-Christian, is who all Trinitarians owe the doctrine of “eternal generation” to. Since Origen predated Athanasius in Alexandria, Egypt, by many years, it was true Athanasius could say the doctrine of “eternal generation” was the tradition they received. But it didn’t come from Jesus or his apostles. And Irenaeus testifies that it wasn’t a concept that he knew of other than with the antichristian Gnostics.

As we can see from Irenaeus and Tertullian’s detractors (who, by Tertullian’s admission, were earlier and in the majority), the earlier Christian view was that God was not compound and did not project one personal deity from another. So, when we hear Trinitarians claim Nicaea was just codifying what was always believed, we know without a shadow of a doubt that it is just a flat-out lie and deception. Any “scholar” of history knows this! That is why Tillich is so important. He openly admits this “development” had to happen in order for Trinitarian Christianity to get where it is. Which is, in bed with pagan philosophy through the legal heirs of Satan.

People can “kick against the pricks” of history and the facts of the development of the Trinity all they want, but that won’t change these facts.

There is one more witness to the fact that Jesus, the son of God, was not the preexistent “person” of the “word” of God as Trinitarians assume (which idea they adopted from paganism). And that witness is Jesus himself…

“…The words that I tell you, I speak not from myself; but the Father who lives in me does his works” (John 14:10).

“The word (G3056 – logos) which you hear isn’t mine, but the Father’s who sent me” (John 14:24).

“¹⁶Jesus therefore answered them, “My teaching is not mine, but his who sent me. ¹⁷If anyone desires to do his will, he will know about the teaching, whether it is from God, or if I am speaking from myself. ¹⁸He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory, but he who seeks the glory of him who sent him is true, and no unrighteousness is in him” (John 7:16-18).

“He who sent me is true; and the things which I heard from him, these I say…” (John 8:26).

“…I do nothing of myself; but as my Father taught me, I speak these things” (John 8:28).

“I say the things which I have seen with my Father; and you also do the things which you have seen with your father… But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God. Abraham didn’t do this” (John 8:38, 40).

“⁵⁴Jesus answered, “If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing. It is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is our God. ⁵⁵You have not known him, but I know him. If I said, ‘I don’t know him,’ I would be like you, a liar. But I know him, and keep his word” (John 8:54-55).

“For I spoke not from myself, but the Father…he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak… The things therefore which I speak, even as the Father has said to me, so I speak” (John 12:49-50).

“Now…the words which you have given me I have given to them, and they received them…” (John 17:7-8).

“For he whom God has sent speaks the words of God…” (John 3:34-35).

Contrary to the pagan idea of “incarnation” (an unbiblical word and concept), Jesus himself constantly and consistently denied that he was the “person” of God’s “word”, but instead that he was a “man” who “spoke” God’s word. That is the biblical way of understanding Jesus as the word made flesh.

People who claim to love Jesus and have a “relationship” with Jesus need to learn to “hear” what Jesus himself explains of himself rather than what these “philosopher-Christians” claim the Bible means but actually contradicts when you let the Bible interpret itself.

Jesus could not say such things about himself if he were indeed the preexistent “person” of the “word” made into a human being because “…He cannot deny himself” (2 Timothy 2:13).

Jesus told us who he was…

“But now you seek to kill me, a man who has told you the truth, which I heard from God” (John 8:40).

To be a man who speaks God’s word is not the same as “being the person of the word.” As we’ve seen it is a carnally derived and concluded idea of pagans and Gnostics to give God’s words, His “logos” literal eternal personality! And Jesus criticizes, not condones, those who reason things in their hearts rather than take his words on faith…

“…Why do you reason these things in your hearts?…” (Mark 2:8).

As with the idea of “a multi-person deity”, the concept of Jesus as an “incarnation” of God never entered the conversation in the Bible; it was never a biblical topic of conversation of the apostles. Rather, they explained Jesus as a man who had been exalted above his fellows, and the firstborn among many brothers.

“You have loved righteousness and hated iniquity; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows” (Hebrews 1:9).

“For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers” (Romans 8:29).

We will discuss Jesus’ birth more fully later. But for now, let’s get back to Irenaeus’ view. Before Tertullian’s time, Irenaeus refuted, rebuked, and rejected Valentinus’ “projection of one thing out of another” that Tertullian afterward adopted. In doing so, Irenaeus wrote perhaps one of the best refutations outside of the Bible against the idea of an immanent (indwelling) Trinity, and Arian preexistence as well. Although Irenaeus was writing against the anti-Christian Gnostics, his words apply equally well to these same ideas when held by Tertullian and Trinitarians.

“…He is spoken of in these terms according to the love (we bear Him); but in point of greatness, our thoughts regarding Him transcend these expressions. If then, even in the case of human beings, understanding itself does not arise from emission, nor is that intelligence which produces other things separated from the living man, while its motions and affections come into manifestation, much more will the mind of God, who is all understanding, never by any means be separated from Himself; nor can anything (in his case) be produced as if by a different Being.
“For if He produced intelligence, then He who did thus produce intelligence must be understood, in accordance with their views, as a compound and corporeal Being; so that God, who sent forth (the intelligence referred to), is separate from it, and the intelligence which was sent forth separate (from Him). But if they affirm that intelligence was sent forth from intelligence, they then cut asunder the intelligence of God, and divide it into parts. And whither has it gone? Whence was it sent forth? For whatever is sent forth from any place, passes of necessity into some other. But what existence was there more ancient than the intelligence of God, into which they maintain it was sent forth? And what a vast region that must have been which was capable of receiving and containing the intelligence of God! If, however, they affirm (that this emission took place) just as a ray proceeds from the sun, then, as the subjacent air which receives the ray must have had an existence prior to it, so (by such reasoning) they will indicate that there was something in existence, into which the intelligence of God was sent forth, capable of containing it, and more ancient than itself. Following upon this, we must hold that, as we see the sun, which is less than all things, sending forth rays from Himself to a great distance, so likewise we say that the Propator sent forth a ray beyond, and to a great distance from, Himself. But what can be conceived of beyond, or at a distance from, God, into which He sent forth this ray?
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, Book 2, Chapter 13, par. 4-6.

Here Irenaeus is talking about Numenius’ pagan philosophical and Gnostic idea of God-Persons who were “emitted” (begotten) from the Father. He points out that even though the Gnostics said they were emitted, such emissions remained within the Godhead (or pleroma). Irenaeus points out how superfluous that would be. If they didn’t have anywhere to go, in what sense were they begotten? If the sun sent forth a ray of light, but it had nowhere to go out from the sun, what would be the point of calling it a ray? And if it remained within the sun, it would be superfluous to say the sun sent forth a ray. This is how ludicrous the Gnostic antichristian, Trinitarian, and Arian ideas of a projection of one thing out of another within the Godhead before creation was to Irenaeus. Obviously, according to this detailed description, he stated that he did not believe in a literal preexistent son, one way or another. That’s because, for Irenaeus, “word” still simply meant “word” not the philosophical baggage that later theologians would adopt from pagan philosophy.

So, before Tertullian’s time, and roughly contemporary with Justin, we have Irenaeus clearly refuting the doctrine of a projection of one god from another god before creation as a Gnostic invention that he was quite adamantly in opposition to.

 Print This Post