Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians
 

Which concept of the Godhead was older? Who were the first writing monarchian teachers, and who were the first writing trinitarian teachers? What does this say for the veracity of modern concepts on the Godhead?

Hyppolutus quoted excerpts of "Praxaeanisms" and "Noetusisms" in his writings. Their teachings were available to Hyppolytus, just not later after they were destroyed!

Well you know, with the thing about Justin, it seems that one can refer to Monarchians or Modalist monarchaisn and Trinitarians, but literary speaking it does not seem there was any full developed doctrine that resembles either exactly until later.

BTW I have heard refer to Modalist Monarchism as a Trinitarian heresy and then there is Economic Trinitarianism. In fact there were many Trinitarian heresies throughout the centuries. Nestorius was a Trinitarian. The Monophysite controversy was Trinitiarian as far as still seeing three persons in the godhead

yes, but what did Noetus teach? Who did Noetus believe he was? Remember, this is the first known modalist and Praxeas was his student.

To the victors belong the spoils of war. Since the Trinitarians eventually
ruled the day (climaxing with the council of Nicea), all of the modalist writers
works were destroyed. This is very sad. I would love to read their perspective
on things, but instead all we are left with for the most part are the writings
of their trinitarian opponents.

I don't deny there were many within the Trinity church through the centuries that were wrong. If you recall Gnosticism was trying hard to make its way into the church.

Did the gates of hell over power the church? Can you provide any writings that were from the Oneness church writings prior to 325 AD? Better yet, where was the Oneness church before it emerged out of the AOG in 1916?

No the gates of hell did not over power the church, but the Bible does say
that there would be a great falling away in 2 Thessalonians.
How about the Bible? :killinme I believe Paul had a oneness concept of the
Godhead. Ignatius was one of the early church fathers. His writings seemed
to have a oneness tone to them. We really don't read of any writers who
had a trinitarian tone to them until Justin Matyr came along and even then
the trinitarian concepts were very vague and just beginning to spring forth.

Ignatius: Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end revealed...He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotton Son, and remains the same forever. (Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians, 6, in ANF, vol 1)

Oneness do not believe that the Son was with the Father before time began, Ignatius did as well as all the other Early church Fathers

Monarchianism is a Christian heretical doctrine of the 2nd and 3rd centuries opposed to the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity; it strongly maintained the essential unity of the Deity and was intended to reinforce monotheism in Christianity. Monarchians were divided into two groups, the Adoptionists, or Dynamic Monarchians, and the Patripassians, or Modalistic Monarchians.

http://mb-soft.com/believe/txn/monarchi.htm

In oneness theology God existed throughout eternity as one being, not two,
and not three. The Bible says that Jesus was the begotten Son. As a man,
Jesus was begotten and born in Bethlehem. As God he has existed throughout
eternity.
Jesus existed with the Father as the eternal Word, which is an inseperable
part of God, not as a second person who existed with the Father throughout
eternity. Before the birth of Christ, the Son existed only in the mind of God and in the foreknowledge of God. When Christ was born the incarnation took
place. God came to us in the form of a man. Not God the Son incarnating into
a man, but Yahweh God, our everlasting Father. As Isaiah 9:6 says"Unto us a
child is born (begotten), unto us a Son is given, ...... and His name shall be
called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, THE EVERLASTING FATHER,
The Prince of Peace.
As for the writing of those whom we call the Early Church Fathers, it does
not really matter what they say, for their writings are not scripture or
divinely inspired. We also know they have been tampered with throughout
the centuries. Even Trinitarian theologians will acknowledge such.
As for Ignatius, it is thought by most theologians that his writings had a
modalist tone to them. He most certainly wrote in terms that Trinitarian
writers such as Tertullian would be most uncomfortable with.
Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 7. "There is one Physician who is
possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; Go existing in
flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then
impassible - even Jesus Christ our Lord. Tertullian later ridiculed the modalists
for this very teaching.

Orthodox according to who, the Roman Catholic Church or the Council of
Nicea? It is certainly not orthodox according the the Bible, the only writings that really matter in the big scheme of things.
Again, trinitarianism makes up the majority of the church world, so since they are the majority they have the power to define the rules. But, the majority is not always right, and I am not one to condemn or judge trinitarianism it
simply is not a Biblical concept.

Sir, You're using the 20th century meaning of begotten. The Greek meaning of this word is entirely something else. In the Greek the word is monogenes and is derived from mono meaning "alone," or "one of a kind' and genos meaning "class," or "kind. Hence, ho monogenes huios simply means the "one and only Son." Or as the NIV says, "unique Son".


Not according to the bible. Not only was the Word with God, but was God. There isn't anywhere in the Bible that states that the Son existed in the mind of God. I realize you might have been taught that, but that simple isn't true. And with all due and respect, using Isa 9:6 only hurts your doctrine, unless you believe that the Father is the Son.


The truth is my friend, the doctrine of Christ didn't stop with the Apostles. The truth was passed on through men that followed the Apostles, just like it is today. If you disagree with the teaching of these men who were disciples of the Apostles then there isn't much more I can say. Ignatius isn't the only church father, there are many.

The Epistle of Barnabas (A.D. 70)

And, further, my brethren if the Lord (Jesus) endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, 'Let Us make man in our image. and after our likeness,' understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men. (Eusebius, history of the Church 3.4)

If the Trinity Church is not Biblical then where was God's true Church in history?

You've taken Ignatius out of context. I have no problem as a Oneness believer with what he said, unless he means the Son is ETERNALLY begotten.

The Son was in the plan of the Father before time and since God isn't subject to time constraints, the future is real to God. He can speak about things that will happen as though they already happened.

Ignatius: Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end revealed...He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotton Son, and remains the same forever. (Ignatius, letter to the Magnesians, 6, in ANF, vol 1)

Its not taken out of context. The consensus with all the early church father is that Jesus Christ/Son/Word was with the Father. Not one has ever said (as far as I've read) that the Son was in the mind of God.

When Ignatius says being begotten, he is not speaking of the 21st century meaning of the beget.

To be clear, Ignatius did not say begotten. We'd need to look at the greek or latin of this (depending on which version).....also if it was monogenes and begotten is not the correct translation then we need to take a look at the rest of it

It's hidden d/t persecution.

The "remnant every generation theory"... plausible ... yet wrought w/ heretics intertwined.

How can we know? We can only read his beliefs through the eyes of his enemies.

yeah, this is the response I was taught as well, but it doesn't hold any water.

God is good and his mercy is everlasting and his truth endures to all generations.

The righteous hide during persecution.

Proverbs 28:12 When righteous men do rejoice, there is great glory: but when the wicked rise, a man is hidden. and

28 When the wicked rise, men hide themselves: but when they perish, the righteous increase.

Why is that? Where are the holes?

Will this work?

Chap. VI. — Preserve Harmony.

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony,13 while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time,14 and in the end was revealed. Do ye all then, imitating the same divine conduct,15 pay respect to one another, and let no one look upon his neighbour after the flesh, but do ye continually love each other in Jesus Christ. Let nothing exist among you that may divide you; but be ye united with your bishop, and those that preside over you, as a type and evidence of your immortality.16

Actually, some have suggested that Praxeas was a "derogatory term" coined by Hyppolytus to refer to Noetus (if I am remembering correctly). The name "Praxeas" simply means "troublemaker"... haha....

The only thing that we know about Noetus and Praxeas' teachings were what the "victors" wrote about them... i.e. Hyppolytus primarily. Again, I have some resources available to me, but not at my immediate disposal, that peices together the doctrine of Noetus and Praxeas from the antagonistic writings against them.

You keep mentioning the 1st and 2nd century writings, I have suggested several times that they were destroyed along with the 3rd and 4th century "heretical" writings... that is "heretical" according to the Roman Catholic church. Now we know that EVERYTHING the Roman Catholic church teaches and holds to are biblical absolutes, and EVERYTHING that disagrees with the Catholic dogma is "heresy" right? Are we in agreement with that? :happydance

because you don't have any proof of what you claim. :coffee2

Yet some of these supposed Oneness remnant generation groups had the Godhead down but the Truth escaped them in other ways ... it doesn't hold water .... They were Holy Ghost filled as perceived by the 20th century PAJC view but the Spirit did not bring them to all truth ... nope.

Why doesn't it hold water? It's holds more wather than the Catholic dogma of Mary Veneration, transubstantiation, and sprinkle baptism. Why in the world would you take a ROMAN CATHOLIC biased historian's word over the clear concise teachings of scripture?

Also, there have been some very bright scholars peice together early oneness believer's positions from their antagonist's writings. Again, I don't have those resources immediately available, I wish I did. I have read them and they are VERY convincing!

Im not sure, but I think you meant that for Mizpeh? She asked for the context. I was wondering about the greek or latin for begotten

What truth did the Spirit not bring them to?

It would be helpful if you could prove that these document were destroyed. Honestly, it is a weak argument. I agree that the Roman Catholic church teaches some heresies. Which is why we have the reformations, all of which were Trinitairan.

Please name some the "hidden" remnants of the 15th, 16th, 17th century and we can use them as springboards.

And you can't disprove it either. Your argument is from silence and would contain the same holes mine does.

Except I believe Oneness and the new birth are the truth....and truth endures forever.

So far I'm the only one that has posted proof and you tell me my argument is from silence.... please!!! End of discussion :beatdeadhorse

That is because the "Reformations" came our of the Catholic church. Already, it was established by the Catholic church, that unless you believed in trinity in unity, and unity in trinity, you cannot be saved...

But you also had to be a member of the Catholic church. Which the Lutherans weren't, the Epicospals weren't... but they held to the same basic tenets. They sprinkle baptized, believed in the trinity... etc.

Then the "anabaptists" came along, and according to the Roman Catholic church, they were "heretics".... the Calvinists, and the list goes on and on... ANY group that didn't hold to the catholic dogma and look to the pope were heretics.

But now we have a NEW scenario.... ANYONE who holds to the doctrine of the "trinity", are "Catholic" (I believe a pope decreed that some time ago, perhaps John Paul II). So the "mother of harlots" has a lot of baby "harlots", that hold the most fundamental tenet and dogma of the Roman Catholic system, that of the blessed holy (unscriptural) trinity....

Again, I have resources, and I wish I had them at my disposal, but it pieces together very effectively the teachings of the early modalist monarchian. But this resource also cites WRITINGS of dynamic monarchian, and messianic essene writings, that are convincingly monarchian... they held a "dynamic monarchian" concept rather than the later "modalistic" monarchianism held by Noetus and Sabellius, but irregardless, they wre still MONARCHIANS (one -God!!!!)...

What "proof" have you cited? Because a catholic reposit declared that Noetus was a heretic? Again, I agree with the Catholic church on EVERYONE they have declared as heretics... NOT!!!!!

We can easily scrap history, and just get back to the book and see what the book says about the nature and numerical attributes of God, now couldn't we!!!!!

The reformation was all about getting back to the bible, and forgetting about what the Catholic's decreed. So let's get back to the bible!!!!! Forget noetus, forget Hypolytus, forget Justin....

Let's get back to the bible!!!!!

:shockamoo

Was there Trinity before the 3rd century? Ignatius did not sound like he was teaching trinity. Could have been arian...for that matter we have Oneness that teach the Logos was with God as God's visible form or something, but not a second person...I don't see the Trinity in doctrine spelled out in those writtings anymore than one would not see Oneness spelled out

Great point Prax.... Where are the trinitarian writings before the 3rd century????

Hey guys, this is the first thread on AFF that I actually started! :)

There is a lot that happen in history, some of which we'll never understand. I don't agree with all that the Catholic church has done. But that doesn’t change the fact that the only Church in recorded history is Trinitarian, not Oneness. History only shows us that there were sporadic list of people that believed that Jesus was the Father. One of these is Emmanuel Swedenborg, and I certain you don't want to use him as an example as David Bernard did ini his book "The Oneness of God."


Those such as Sabellius and Noetus did not teach the same Oneness theology as what is taught today. The problem I see, maybe you could shed some light here, if today’s Oneness teach that their doctrine is the true doctrine, then how come it doesn't match up with the teaches of the first modalist? which is true Sabellius or todays Oneness Doctrine?