The book itself gave a very telling experience of China, which is the place of my burden. I corresponded with Paul Hattaway, who is trinitarian, not because of doctrine, but because I wanted to know more of what is happening in China. This is also the reason I went and saw Bro Yun at Christ Church. It had nothing to do with my believing their doctrine. It had everything to do with my burden.


As far as the book, it is worth the read. I sat and devoured it in one sitting. Again, while I do not accept every wind of doctrine that comes along, the book was very little doctrine, and mostly experience of the underground church in China, and Bro Yuns experiences and persecutions.

That is if YOU are indeed a "one-God" person.

I'm not upset. I don't believe everything that is written by the enemies of different sects and you haven't proved anything.

What if the future was to look back at the present and they only could find opinions on Oneness believers written by Trinitarians? Would they find a fair and unbiased treatment of Oneness beliefs?

Not "all sources" agree with the sources you cited either. The Wiki article, that was later altered, suggested that the Paulicians were monarchian. Also, just a few posts ago there was another website that indicated the Paulicians were monarchian. It seems that the accusation of "dualism" is a misrepresentation... the Paulicians anathematized Mani, the leader of the Manicheans dualist sect. They did not embrace his dualistic teaching. The "Key of Truth" specifically identifies the Paulicians as monarchian, AND shows that they baptized in Jesus name. The effort to paint the Paulicians as a fringe heretical group by biased historicities are not sufficient.

Probably not. What would be most likely is that trinitarians would be represented in history as tritheist (which by some trini theologean's writing, it would indicate as much - i.e. Dake). The same goes by the monarchians in history. They have simply been represented as "heretical". But to whom are they heretical? The Roman Catholic church, and that's it.

The Paulicians were misrepresented as dualists, but this could simply be the Roman Catholic interpretation of their distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. The histories written about the Paulicians are not conclusive. The resources you cite and are looking to are not conclusive. The only thing that can be conclusive as to their teaching is their own statement of faith, "
The Key of Truth". Let's take a look at that and see if they were indeed dualist.

how exactly do you know exactly what a group who existed only 1700+ years ago believed???

We can conclude a historic group's beliefs from their writings, AND from those who wrote against them. How do you know what people from today beleive? How do you know what the apostles believed?

I find this statement hard to swallow.

I know the resources I cited are not conclusive. I found it interesting to note the different views held by the writers that gave their 'slant' on what the Paulinians believed. The wiki article is almost quoted word for word in a number of other writings I checked out. Perhaps Wiki got their version from an encyclopedie.

I should get a the book, The Key of Truth, in a week.

It never ceases to amaze me when someone starts insisting someone i supset or angry...especially when that person didn't swear or lash out or use all capital letters...but as though they could just "hear" the tone in their voice they claim they can sense the other person is upset. If the facts and the truth are enough there would be no reason to say things like that.

I agree with you, the book is worth reading.

I guess there are a lot of "what if's."

American Council of Learned Societies Dictionary of the Middle Ages. "According to the historians of the Macedonian dynasty, Genesus, George the Monk, and Theophanus Continatus, the Paulicions considered heretics- collaborated with the Muslim emir of Melitene....

I guess if you don't like what you read in history, you can always convince yourself it never happen...but that doesn't change the real world.

That sounds kind of odd. It takes a Bishop in order for the church to be in some place? I can see it's in use, that's assuming this article was genuine and not spurious and contained no interpolations. Im wondering though was it a "universal" (no pun) term and was it used here as a name? And was this doctrine that where the Bishop was there was the Catholic Church. That sounds very Roman Catholic. I wonder why he did not say where A Bishop was, unless by Bishop he meant Jesus. We find a lot of peculiar statements like that in these articles of antiquity

From the 5th century to the beginning of the Renaissance

Actually it was from about 476-1000 AD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages
In European historiography, the term Dark Ages or Dark Age refers to the Early Middle Ages, the period encompassing (roughly) 476 AD to 1000 AD. This concept of a dark age was created by the Italian scholar Francesco Petrarca and was originally intended as a sweeping criticism of the character of Late Latin literature. Later historians expanded the term to refer to the transitional period between Classical Roman Antiquity and the High Middle Ages, including not only the lack of Latin literature, but also a lack of contemporary written history, general demographic decline, limited building activity and material cultural achievements in general (for example, as shown in the impoverishment of a number of technologies, eg. in pottery). Popular culture has further expanded on the term as a vehicle to depict the Middle Ages as a time of backwardness, extending its pejorative use and expanding its scope. The rise of archaeology and other specialties in the 20th century has shed much light on the period and offered a more nuanced understanding of its positive developments. Other terms of periodization have come to the fore: Late Antiquity, the Early Middle Ages, and the Great Migrations, depending on which aspects of culture are being emphasized.
When modern scholarly study of the Middle Ages arose in the 19th century, the term Dark Ages was at first kept, with all its critical overtones. When the term Dark Ages is used by historians today, it is intended to be neutral, namely to express the idea that the events of the period often seem "dark" to us only because of the paucity of historical records compared with later times.[1]


It is true the corruption sparked Luther's reformation, but there were others before Luther that disagreed with Rome for one reason or another. The climate they were in at the time was nothing like it was in Luther's day, making it far easier to do what they did. BTW Luther still believed in baptismal regeneration and infant baptism.

What I find interesting is that there was no true Church in doctrine until the reformation. It's claimed by Trinitarians though that the church was built on the rock and never fell and the proof of this is the doctrine of the Trinity, as though that is the only doctrine that is necessary, yet we are handed with the reformation supposedly restoring back the doctrines the Roman Catholic church corrupted... something I just never understood

Yes you are! I can hear it in your voice...I sense it :hypercoffee

Bob, I challenge you to go to any library and check to see the history.

There are two varieties of Manarchianism. Adoptionist or Dynamic Manarchianism, both considered Second and third century heretics centered in Asia Minor and Rome. (Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity)

This is where you're wrong. The True Church is the believers, the same believers that were in the Reformations.



That may be true, but he still believe that God was Triune.


Now, its your turn to show me where the ONeness church was during this same period of time.

What do you mean this is where I am wrong? I was quoting YOUR quote where in he said where ever THE Bishop is there is the catholic church. I never made an assertion as to what the true church is or isn't. Where did I say the true church is not the believers? That is in fact what I would say...

So?

I've never asserted there was one. Arguments of antiquity don't mean much. I'm sola scriptura....my authority comes from the word, not from history. If I was going by history I'd not be a protestant.

Believer,

They collaborated with the Muslim leader, how? Praying for the sick? Feeding the poor?

The question here is WHO considered the dynamic monarchians as heretics? It wasn't the modalist monarchians... the only other groups of that time were the dualist arians, and the trinitarians... both opposed to the OLDER monarchian theology. (you have to understant that ALL the 1st century writers were monarchian of some type). I suggest that neither the arians nor the trinitarians have authority to consider someone a real heretic. In my book that has about as much authority as muslims getting together and declaring someone a heretic. If the dualists and trinitarians themselves have faulty theologies, their declarations of someone as heretics means absolutely nothing to me.

A key thing to understand is that the dynamic monarchians were indeed one-God people. They also believed that Jesus was God. Therefore I have no problem with their theology or christology based on these fundamental tenets.

I would be very interested in reading the Key of Truth. I cited some internet resources that suggest the Paulician's were monarchian.

Let me ask you a question Mizpeh. Do you understand that the idea of "adoptionism" or "dynamic monarchianism" does not contradict oneness theology and christology? I perceive that the historical perspective of adoptionism is a skewed view of what they actually believed. "Adoptionism" is a disparaging term used by the opponents of the dynamic monarchians, to try to misrepresent and undermine their teaching. There were MANY more dynamic monarchian than modalistic monarchian in the first two centuries of the church. Modalistic terms became widespread as an alternate way of viewing the incarnation besides dynamic, but both declare and preserve the monarch (numerical oneness) of God, AND the full deity of Jesus as the Son of God. If you declare these two truths, you would be in agreement with most oneness people (with few exceptions).

Where were the "believers" before Luther? Were they the followers of Roman Catholocism? Were the "believers" the Mary worshippers? Were the "believers" the ones who were infant baptized? Since there was no bible, and the priests gave their own interpretation, who was preaching and believing the real truth? Where were they before Luther?


Who believed God was "triune" in the first two centuries of the church? Justin Martyr? Justin Martyr wasn't even a preacher. All he was was a Greek philosopher and apologist that tried to combine elements of Christianity with Greek philosophy. Where was the doctrine of the trinity fully developed and declared in the first two centuries of the church? If it wasn't there, then who were the believers then and what did they believe? Were they perhaps monarchian? If the first two century believers were monarchian, why isn't that good enough for all the believers throughout history?


Groups of followers of Paul of Samosata, the Paulicians, Sabellians throughout the dark ages. etc. etc. etc.. history bears out that there were oneness people all along!

ONENESS BELIEVERS IN CHURCH HISTORY


95 AD....CLEMENT...the Bishop of Rome was pre-trinitarian (that means before the concept was developed and promoted) and said, .."Christ being originally Spirit became flesh."

115 AD....IGNATIUS...Pastor at Antioch (Turkey) was pre-trintitarian and had no logos doctrine (the greek logos concept was of a logos or Word being), he was never recognized by any of the great trinitarian writers, he said.."Our God, Jesus the Christ, was conceived in the womb of Mary.....There is one God who manifested himself through Jesus Christ.."

140 AD....JUSTIN MARTYR....said..." Jesus was 2nd and that "us" of Gen. 3:22 was the 2nd devine person.."For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy (sect) which is said to be among us is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that God spoke to angels.." He 1st mentioned "Trinity" in 140 AD.(7 years after his conversion to Christianity) He expounded the Greek idea of Logos, derived from Plato, as a devine person through whom God (another devine Person) created and arranged all things. He gave the1st trinitarian water baptism reference.."For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of the Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water."

150 AD....POLYCARP....Pastor at Smyrna (Turkey) ..was Apostle John's disciple...he personally knew Phillip & his 4 daughters ..corresponded with Ignatius and yet was never recognized by any of the great trinitarian writers...said, .."the coming of our Lord in flesh.."

177 AD....Athenagoras used the term "God the Son" in his Apology

180 AD.. NOETUS.. had a confrontation with Smyrna Presbyters (in Asia Minor) for preaching Jesus Christ was God, contrary to trinitarians...He said, "the Father took flesh of Mary and became son. The son was the Manhood, the Father was the Godhead."

180 AD. Theophilus, Syrian Bishop of Antioch, mentions the term, "Trinity."

190 AD... IRENAEUS ...a trinity Pastor in Gaul (France) said, "The Son of God became the Son of Man." "The Son of God existed before he appeared in the world and before the world was made." "One of the three angels which appeared to Abraham was the Son of God."...and said of water baptism.."we have received baptism for the remission of sins in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit."

200 AD....PRAXEAS...(the following are Tertullian's words about what Praxeas believed) ...."As in respect to the O.T., they hold to nothing else but "I am God and there is none other beside me, so in respect to the gospel they defend the response of the Lord to Phillip.."I and the Father are one, he who seeth me seeth also the Father" and again "I am in the Father and the Father in me". He (Praxeas) asserts that Jesus Christ is God and Father Almighty....so that all in one person they (the Praxeans) distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be the flesh , that is man, that is Jesus, and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ."....Praxeas views were said to be those of the majority of the Christians of that day.

200 AD. TERTULLIAN ..... "The Son I derive from no other source but from the substance of the Father. The Spirit is third from God and the Son." (a disciple of Justin Martyr's) Even Tertullian admitted that the "simple people..who always are a majority of the faithful..shy at the economy (ie..distinction of persons).

....."and indeed it (immersion) is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names.

210 AD... ZEPHYRINUS...Bishop of Rome..."The Father did not die but the Son....I know one God, Christ Jesus, begotten and susceptible of suffering and beside him I know no other."

213 AD. After Praxeas went to North Africa, the next Carthage Pastor commanded that all heretics be rebaptized into the Trinity.

215 AD....SABELLIUS...Preached in North Africa & the Middle East..(Gregory Thaumaturgas says of Sabellius) ...."But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert there are not three persons...Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says the Father and the Son are the same.".....He asserted that Father, Son and Holy Ghost were not distinct persons but modes of one divine person...hence the term modalistic monarchianism.

217 AD. Rome, Italy .... after the church split, Jesus name believers were allowd for a times to enter the Rome Church, even though the church practiced Trinity.

220 AD...CALLISTUS...Pastor of Rome Church said, ...."The Word is the Son Himself, the Father himself, there is only one and the same indivisible Spirit, except in name. The Father is not one and the son another, they are one and the same ...The Spirit, made flesh in the virgin, is not other than the Father, but one and the same hence the Scripture says, Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father in me."

220 AD... HIPPOLYTUS...presented Christ as subordinate to the Father and attacked Callistus..."For the Father indeed is One, but there are two persons, because there is also the Son; and there is the Third, the Holy Spirit.."

230 AD. Asia Minor ....Two different church councils convened and confirmed that hereitcal baptism (in Jesus Name not Trinity) was invalid.

240 AD...BERTYLLUS...of Bostra(Bozrah), Syria, ...Eusebius says of him, ...."Beryllus taught that our Lord and Savior did not exist as a distinct person before the incarnation; and that the divinity of the Father dwelt in him." ...thus Beryllus rejected Greek Logos teaching of the pre-existence and independent hypostasis (substance) of the Son.

265 AD... DIONYSIUS...Bishop of Rome....spoke of those who opposed Sabellius saying, ...many.."divide and cut to pieces and destroy that most sacred doctrine of the Church of God, the Divine Monarchy, making it as it were three powers and partitive substances and godheads three."

272 AD....PAUL of SAMOSATA.... (SYRIA) was ousted as Pastor of the Antioch Church in Syria by the Trinity believers. Accusations against him included: ....striking his thigh and stamping the platform when preaching, ...his congregation frequently clapping hands, ....waving hankerchiefs, ....shouting, ....dancing, or ....leaping during the preaching.

325 AD....COUNCIL OF NICEA .... required all Oneness, Monotheistic, or Jesus Name believers to be rebaptized for re-ordination or have their property confiscated; thus oneness beleivers went underground.

330 AD... MARCELLUS of Ancyra...he attacked Eusebius of Caesarea(see next note) by saying, " ...(He) is said to conceived God as one and believed that the one God expanded himself in the offices of Son and Holy Ghost and at the end of time there will be no distinction between these offices, and God will be all in all" ...he opposed Arianism (Jesus simply a man)

340 AD.... EUSEBIUS of CAESAREA...cites Matthew 28:19 eighteen times in his writings prior to the 325 AD. council of Nicea. His quotes before the council read, ...."Go ye and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in my name, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I commanded you. The phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son , and of the Holy Ghost." did not appear in Eusebius' writings until after the 325 AD. council.

345 AD....PHOTINUS...Bishop of Sirmium..(N.E. Yugoslavia) was a disciple of Marcellus and said, ...."that Jesus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of the Divine Substance, which he called the Word, descended upon and acted through the man Jesus Christ; that on account of this association of the Word with the human nature Jesus was called the Son of God, and even God himself ...and held that Jesus existed before the incarnation only in the mind of God."

380 AD....PRISCILLIAN....Bishop of Avila..& other Southern Spainish & French Bishops ...."affirms Christian faith in Father, Son, and Spirit to be belief in one God Christ: He is God, Son of God, Savior, was born in the flesh, suffered and rose for the love of mankind....In Christ the Father is known. God is invisible; none has seen him at anytime. So he came in name and form to such that he could make himself known."

400 AD?....COMMODIAN.... a Poet from Southern Gaul (France) ...revealed himself Sabellian in his "Carmen Apologeticum" in which he recognized Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be different designations given to the same person.

447 AD....POPE LEO....wrote a letter condemning the Sabellianism of Priscillianists...(thus it was still a prevalent teaching among many believers in that time )

450 AD?....BACHIARIUS.... of Galacia....held a Sabellian view of the Godhead.

538 AD....POPE VIGILIUS....wrote a letter to Profuturous of Bracara expressing concern over the persistence of Priscillianism (believers who rejected the Trinity idea) in northwest Spain.

645 AD.....BRAULIO.,..Bishop of Saragossa wrote a Galician presbyter, Fructuosus, who was curious about Priscillian beliefs and seeking Braulio's advice. (thus oneness was still being preached)

692 AD....The QUINISEXT.... speaks of how to admit SABELLIANS back into the Catholic faith

950 AD....BOGOMILS.....1st headed by a priest and propagated Sabellianism in the Byzantine Empire and were in Constantinople in the 11th century, moved west to Serbia, and had influence in Italy and France. They were catholic but rejected the Trinity. Basilius, who was a Bogomil martyr in Constantinople was quoted saying.."that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are merely titles ascribed to the Father."

1121 AD.... PETER ABELARD....an English nobleman whose writings were condemned as Sabellian by the Synod of Soisson of 1121. His students taught (this says Gerhoh of Reichersberg).." that God was not taken from the Virgin but that the human Jesus was only the dwelling place in which the full plentitude of divinity resided."

1441 AD. The COUNCIL OF FLORENCE condemned Sabellianism.."the holy Roman church condemns....Sabellius who unifies the persons and completely does away with the real distinction among them.'

...EUGENIUS IV said, ... the church condemns Sabellius for not distinguishing the Persons of the Trinity.

1531 AD....MICHEAL SERVETUS ...a Spainard wrote a paper entitled, ..ON THE ERRORS OF THE TRINITY, he said, "Christ is in the Father as a voice from the speaker. He and the Father are one as the ray and the sun are one light. An amazing mystery it is that God can thus be conjoined with man and man with God. A great wonder that has taken to himself the body of Christ that it should be his peculir dwelling place." John Calvin encouraged the Geneva council to condemn Servetus to death because of his non-belief in the Trinity and infant baptism, ....which they did.

1646 AD....REV. THOMAS EDWARDS....as an English minister he published a list of heresies prevalent in England at that time, ...."#24 (is) That in the Unity of the Godhead there is not a Trinity of Persons; and that the doctrine of the Trinity is a Popish tradition, and a doctrine of Rome. #25.(is) That there are not three distinct persons in the divine essence, but only three offices and that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not Persons but offices."

1668 AD....WILLIAM PENN.... & the QUAKERS in England....Penn gave in his tract,.THE SANDY FOUNDATION SHAKEN, ...a denial of the Trinity doctrine which resulted in his imprisonment in the tower during which time he wrote, "...Must I deny his Divinity because I justly reject the Popish School Personality? It is manifest, then, ...that though I may deny the Trinity of separate persons in one Godhead, yet I do not consequentially deny the Deity of Jesus Christ."

1790's....DR. NATHANAEL EMMONS....a Congregational minister and Pastor of the Franklin, Mass. church for 54 years....was said to believe, ....."Father and Son are names assumed to set for activities of the one Absolute God and cast aside eternal generation of the Son."

1820's....EMMANUAL SWENDENBORG.... of Sweden wrote , THE ONENESS OF GOD AND THE MIGHTY GOD IN CHRIST, ...in it he stated, ..."Passages from Scripture showing that there is one God, ..."He is the Redeemer and Savior, ...He came into the world, ...As to his Humanity, He called Himself Jesus Christ, ...Jehovah Himself came into the world and became the Savior and Redeemer."

1849.....HORACE BUSHNELL....a Congregational minister, theologian, & writer, pastored the North Church of Hartford, Ct. for 28 years and wrote in 1849 a book entitled.. GOD IN CHRIST.. (which almost brought him charges of heresy) ...He was teaching a "unipersonality of God, but introduces a trinity of developments of God in time for purposes of Divine manifestation in creation and redemption. These developments are in personal modes, but not such as constitute three personal beings."

1875....H. B. SMITH.....a Presbyterian clergyman and teacher at the Union Theological Seminary for 24 years said, ...."The one Supreme Personality exists in three personal modes of being, but is not three distinct persons."

1880..... HENRY WARD BEECHER, .....pastor of the Plymouth Congregational Church in Brooklyn, New York, said, ..."Could Theodore Parker worship my God? Jesus Christ is his name. All that there is of God to me is bound up in that name." A Dr. Abbot said of Beecher, ..."the heart of Mr. Beecher's teaching was this: that Jesus Christ was God manifest in the flesh."...and I hold no less earnestly."

1880's....JOHN MILLER ...a Presbyterian minister wrote a book entitled, .. IS GOD A TRINITY? In it he said, "The question is, Is the deity in Christ the Second Person of the Trinity, or the One Personal Jehovah.....for the Trinitarian believes in but one of three Persons as in Christ, whereas we believe in the Sole Person of the Almighty as present in our Great Redeemer...Christ is distinctly called the Father (in) (Isa.9:6; Jn.14:9), He is distinctly called the Son (in)(Rom 1:3), and He is distinctly called the Holy Ghost (in)(2 Cor 3:17)."

If both types of Monarchism affirm the bolded statement then I would be in agreement with them.
http://www.basictheology.com/definitions/Monarchism/

This definition makes Dynamic Monarchism/Adoptionism the same as Unitarianism. If the two teachings were synthesized, then that would be what I believe. Jesus is God become man as well as being full of the Holy Ghost or endowed with the Holy Spirit without measure. Jesus called himself a man and attributed his words and works to the Father (the Holy Spirit) who dwelled in him.

It's annoying when Trinitarians say, So you believe Jesus is just a man indwelled by the Father, implying that Jesus is not God. Or they may put it another way like this: Father/Spirit" and "Son" represent Jesus' divine and human natures respectively. It's difficult for them to get past their theological perception of 'person' which they apply to our view of Father and Son.

You need proof, not just words. Until you have something other than one persons opinion there isn't anything worth talking about. All the proof beside perhaps one person that you reference from, all point to the fact that Paulicians were dualist.


History already shows that the Church remained Trinitarian down through the ages, up to the Reformations and down until the Oneness came out of the AOG. I'm not attacking the Oneness doctrine, but I can't help but show you the history. If you don't agree with history, there is nothing I can do about that. Even David Bernard has admitted that the modern day Oneness came from the AOG. Of course, I haven't seen him write where the Oneness church was prior to coming of the AOG, other than name a few individuals in history.

We could go through each of these and I can point out discrepancies, (and I have) but it doesn't matter at this point, because they are only individuals not churches. We could also go through history and posts thousands of people that had different beliefs. This really doesn’t prove anything.

Actually, modalistic monarchianism was a response to the accusation that dynamic monarchians deny the deity of the son. Dynamic monarchianism, the oldest form of monarchianism from the first and second centuries, emphasized the humanity, but it DID NOT deny Jesus' deity (as their opponenets accused). Modalism was simply terminology used to express the deity more clearly (so as to respond to their detractors)... then the anti-monarchians accused the modalists of "patripassionism" (father suffered). When you contrapose dynamic monarchianism (emphasizing the humanity of Christ) with modalisitic monarchianism (emphasizing the deity of Christ), you have an accurate historical picture of what the early monarchians really believed. It's also interesting to note that the modalistic monarchians always spoke favorably of the dynamic monarchians, and vice versa. They were in "fellowship" with one another. This is indicative of the close bond between the doctrines of dynamic and modalistic monarchians. They believed almost exactly, if not exactly, the same way you and I believe.

You left this out. Both Monarchianism Adoptionist and Dynamic Monarchianism considered Jesus Christ as a unique man energized by the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism and called to be the Son of God for a limited time. (Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity pg. 467)

What do you mean I need proof and not just words? I simply asked you some questions to test the veracity of what you claim. You are trying to shift the burden of proof on me. The problem for you is that there is absolutely no proof that before the Greek Philosopher Justin Martyr, there was not mention or thought of a "trinity" in the eary believers writings.

I showed two sources, the Wiki article, and the other article from the website I cited on the last page. Two witnesses should be enough to cast doubt on the assertion of dualism upon the Paulicians. Really, it's not even important to the discussion at hand. If you would even attempt to handle some of the questions I proposed respectively, we would probably get somewhere in the discussion.

What church? The Roman Catholic church? This was the only "church" history suggests was the true church between 400AD and 1500AD. I hardly think that the Roman Catholics were the true church. The true church would not worship babies, sprinkle baptize, demand penance, teach purgatory and praying people out of hell... etc. etc. etc. The Roman Catholic church was the mother of harlots... the true believers through history were always monarchians, from the first century believers such as Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome, to Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius, to Paul of Somasata etc. etc... these were the real believers in history.

Yes, the oneness movement in this country in the last century came out of the Spirit baptized AOG movement of the early 1900's, noone is disputing that. But throughout history, there have been oneness groups who professed the absolute indivisible monarch of God, and the full deity of Jesus. These are the true believers in history.

I don't disagree with history. I do disagree with the subjective interpretations of history.

I don't deny that the "modern" oneness movement of the western hemisphere sprang out of the AOG... but even then there were oneness people through the ages. William Penn and the Quakers were oneness people... etc. etc. etc. Many of Church of christ in their inceptions were onenss and Spirit filled. The list goes on and on and on....


You need to read William B. Chalfant's book "Ancient Champions of Oneness", and "Anient Monarchians in Church History". He is very thorough and includes exhaustive references to his sources.

I didn't leave that out because I wrote that myself. But I do like what you bring up here... but it doesn't fully represent the monarchian position accurately. Yes, Jesus was a unique man, who in identity was indeed YHWH himself. He was God/YHWH, come in flesh as a real human being. Perhaps the "energized by the Holy Spirit" is referencing the fact that his ministry didn't actually begin until after his baptism. Nevertheless, I believe that the realization of the "son of God" is only a temporal role that began at the incarnation, and will resolve completely at the fulfillment of 1 Cor 15:28. Ulitmately, any description of dynamic or modalistic monarchianism that does not include their affirmation of of the indivisible oneness of God AND the full deity of Christ, is a misrepresentation of their positions.

His research doesn't agrees with all the evidence from many different sources, such as the library, and dictionaries and so forth. That are many different sources against one Oneness person who is trying to prove his doctrine existed somewhere in ancient past. It is dangerous to take one persons opinion as truth without checking it for yourself ….for example look at Joseph Smith and the millions that follow him even after he died with a gun in his hand! Again, it’s a dangerous thing to take one persons opinion on any given subject.

I'll look into William Penn and the Quakers, but I bet there are not the Oneness you might hope them to be.

Two witness? come on Bob D. I challenged you to go search for yourself, but in stead you chose to trust in another witness over the abundant other sources that disagree with you?

note that in 1441, the council of florence condemns "Sabellianism". This council wouldn't have convened to condemn "Sabellianism" if it wasn't a widespread and major issue for the perpetuation of the Roman Catholic heresy of that time. This shows that there was an enourmous contengent of "Sabellians" extant at that time! WHAT??? You mean that from 200 AD when Sabellius began preaching his versian of monarchianism, all the way to 1441, there were followers of "Sabellian" theology? the answer........*drum roll*........ A RESOUNDING YES!!! There have been Sabellians (oneness) throughout the history of the "church".... PRAISE GOD!!!!

:shockamoo

Right, because he doesn't appeal to the subjective commentaries of biased historian... Bro. Chalfant goes directly to the writings themselves and shows where, and gives the address, of the early believer's real doctrines and motivations. Once the "Roman Catholic Church" declared something a "heresy" or "dualist", all the dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world will parrot what "history" (i.e. Roman Catholic history) declared. This is not the true history. The only way to get to the bottom of real history is to go directly to the source, which is what Bro. Chalfant does. He quotes Polycarp, Ignatius, Clement of Rome, etc. etc. etc... and shows what they really believed, and not just what the Roman Catholic church says they believed.

or look at the Roman Catholic heresy, and the BILLIONS that followed them....

Well, if you appeal to the Roman Catholic church "history", they were heretics!


The "abundant other sources" are simply parroted rote blurbs that are common in any regular encyclopedia. They all say the same thing without going into objective scrutiny of the history. This approach, in my opinion, is not even a witness, just a parroted rhetorical blurb. Chalfant did original research. Plus I now him personally. He is a man of impeccable character! I challenge you to disprove ANY of his statements with original research (not appeals to parroted encyclopedic references).

The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of Sabellian.

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

Remember you are suppose to post resoruces!!!

And, just because a council condemned "Sabellianism" isn't proof there was an nourmous contengent of "Sabellians." Beside, what happen to this teaching if it was so wide spread? Did the gates of hell over power them? :clap

This remnant "Oneness preservation throughout history" doctrine is extremely flawed ... especially since most traditional Oneness believers tout a 3 step process to salvation ... REPENTANCE, WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST W/ EVIDENCE IN SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES as requisites to be FULLY SAVED and RAPTURE READY ... as the truth to obeying the Gospel

BD, has made a futile effort to align today's Oneness movement w/ various individuals, who may have or may have not, held similar views to today's Oneness movement.

One problem w/ this approach is that some of these "Oneness" individuals held heretical views regarding the Godhead and other issues that would not be accepted or tolerated by either Oneness or Trinitarian believers today.

Others are equated to being Oneness believers ... with the suggestion that God has preserved his Truth through the generations through these men and those that followed them ... yet apparently THE CHURCH varied wildly on their views on salvation? .... can't be ... either they had THE TRUTH OR DIDN'T. EITHER THAT TRUTH SAVED THEM OR DIDN'T ....

For example, BD presents William Penn as a Oneness adherent ... therefore we are to believe he was in THE TRUTH [albeit as perceived by PAJC Oneness believers]...

REALLY?

Early Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, did not practice water baptism AT ALL... let alone did a baptizer utter the proper name of Jesus over a believer for the remission of sins ....

which means they weren't saved as many OPs would define saved .... and of course we know they didn't all speak in tongues ... although some believe they did.

Wiki states:
----------------------------------------

Early Friends did not believe in the reliance upon practice of the outward rites and sacraments, believing that holiness can exist in all the activities of one's life—all of life is sacred. They experienced baptism by the Holy Spirit as an inward, transforming experience and knew communion with Christ in the midst of gathered worship in the expectant silence. Thus they did not perform baptism as a rite of membership. These Friends also believed that any meal with others could be a form of communion.


At various times some individuals or small groups of Friends have published corrective cautions against adopting the prohibition of some rite as itself being creedal. The focus should be upon God as Present Teacher, rather than on some human ritual, or the absence of a ritual. Most Friends therefore do not prohibit rites or ceremonies, but they do counsel against allowing these human inventions to take the place of direct experience and leading by God.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends
--------------------------------------------

Here are William Penn's own words on Water Baptism:

--------------------------------------------

Perversion 14: The Quakers deny the two great sacraments or ordinances of the Gospel, Baptism and the Supper.

Principle: Whatever is truly a Gospel ordinance, they desire to own and practice. But they observe no such language in the Scriptures as in the reflection. They do confess the practice of John's baptism and the Supper is to be found there; but practice only is no institution, nor a sufficient reason for continuation. That they were then proper, they believe, when the mysteries lay yet couched in figures and shadows. But it is their belief that no figures or signs are perpetual or of institution under the Gospel administration, when Christ, Who is the Substance of them, is come.

It were to overthrow the whole Gospel dispensation, and to make the coming of Christ of no effect, to render signs and figures of the nature of the Gospel, which is inward, spiritual and eternal. If it be said, but they were used after the coming of Christ, and His ascension too: they answer, so were many Jewish ceremonies. It is sufficient to them that water baptism was John's, and not Christ's; that Jesus never used it; that it was no part of Paul's commission, which if it were evangelical and of duration, it certainly would have been; that there is but one baptism, as well as one faith, and one Lord; and that baptism ought to be of the same nature with the kingdom of which it is an ordinance, and that is spiritual The same holds also as to the supper, both alluding to old Jewish practices, and used as a signification of a near and accomplishing work, namely, the Substance they represented.
If any say, but Christ commanded that one of them should continue in remembrance of Him, which the apostle to the Church of Corinth explains thus: that thereby they do show forth the Lord's death till He comes. We allege that He said so. told His disciples also He would come to them again; that some should not taste death till they saw Him coming in the kingdom: and that He Who dwelleth with them, should be in them; and that He would drink no more of this fruit till He should drink it anew with them in the kingdom of God, which is within. He was the heavenly bread that they had not yet known, nor His flesh and blood as they were to know them. So that though Christ came to end all signs, yet till He was known as the Great Bread of life from heaven, signs had their service to show forth in remembrance of Christ. Paul says expressly of the Jewish observations, that they were shadows of the good things to come, but the Substance was of Christ.


Hence it is that the Quakers cannot be said to deny them, but they, truly feeling in themselves the very thing which the outward water, bread and wine signify, leave them off, as fulfilled in Christ, Who is in them the hope of their glory, and henceforth they have but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one bread, and one cup of blessing, and that is of the kingdom of God, which is within.

http://www.tractassociation.org/AKey.html#SEC10

How will a person answer to God as to why they weren't baptized?

What excuse or reason (outside of not knowing) would be acceptable when the command and example is so straight forward and clear in scripture?

Believer,

I'm not sure why BD is still talking with you since you have yet to answer his questions that he asked you over 14 pages ago. Why don't you do so now?


You were asked these questions numerous times:

You would gain respect from people here is you would simply answer "I don't know" or give an answer that truly answers these questions instead of being evasive. BD even gave you examples of how to answer these questions acceptably. You act like you know what you are talking about but I think you are grandstanding.

This is really getting old. It's obvious you have not been reading the stuff BD is posting. Here is the resource he listed back on post 125? http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=125

Nice rebuttal Daniel, well done and to the point. :poloroid

well, ask the thief on the cross!