Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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....

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."

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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!!!!)...

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?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Believer

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?

They didn't tell you??? ... the "full" true doctrine just reappeared about 100 years ago.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

They didn't tell you??? ... the "full" true doctrine just reappeared about 100 years ago.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

They didn't tell you??? ... the "full" true doctrine just reappeared about 100 years ago.

Oneness agree that there is one God and God is one. There is no concensus on how the one God became man just many theories. So why should we be surprised there is not a concensus on this mystery in the early church? 1 Tim 3:6..without controversy great is the mystery of godliness...

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:NIV

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: NASV

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Oneness agree that there is one God and God is one. There is no concensus on how the one God became man just many theories. So why should we be surprised there is not a concensus on this mystery in the early church? 1 Tim 3:6..without controversy great is the mystery of godliness...

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:NIV

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: NASV

Are you suggesting even if their Godhead theory or other doctrinal theories are heretical they are still Oneness brethren?.. as long as the ends justify the means then it's okay? ....

Let's not forget that demons, Muslims and even *gasp* Trinitarians believe God is one ..

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Are you suggesting even if their Godhead theory or other doctrinal theories are heretical they are still Oneness brethren?.. as long as the ends justify the means then it's okay? ....

Let's not forget that demons, Muslims and even *gasp* Trinitarians believe God is one ..

I'm only commenting on Oneness theories concerning the Son, God manifest in flesh. The oneness doctrine of God has to do with who and what God is. I'm not sure what you mean by 'other doctrinal theories'

Trinitarians believe in one God but not that God is one, as in one singular consciousness who declares Himself to be "I AM". Their one God is three persons. I'm also narrowing this down to the God of the Bible so that eliminates Muslims. Demons know who God is, what does that have to do with mankind and our understanding of God?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm only commenting on Oneness theories concerning the Son, God manifest in flesh. The oneness doctrine of God has to do with who and what God is. I'm not sure what you mean by 'other doctrinal theories'

Trinitarians believe in one God but not that God is one, as in one singular consciousness who declares Himself to be "I AM". Their one God is three persons. I'm also narrowing this down to the God of the Bible so that eliminates Muslims. Demons know who God is, what does that have to do with mankind and our understanding of God?

To Daniel:
If someone affirmatively declares that there is only ONE God in all eternity, and that One God is absolutely and indivisibly ONE... in his eternal essense and nature, I would suggest that person is oneness.

"Heretical" doctrines about the incarnation (i.e. adoptionism, dualism, divine flesh, monophysitism) etc. may be subjective of the individuals involved in the discussion. For instance, an individual who emphasized the humanity of Christ might be labeled "adoptionist" by an opposing group. Or someone who emphasizes the deity of Christ might be called "patripassion" or "nestoria" by another group... Both of which ARE Monarchian "theories". The problem here is that many times egos, and agendas get involved, debate tactics are employed, and in an effort to "win" the argument, one or the other is labeled a "heretic", when in fact they hold to ONE GOD... this is the misfortune of dealing with limited humanity on this subject!

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Oneness agree that there is one God and God is one. There is no concensus on how the one God became man just many theories. So why should we be surprised there is not a concensus on this mystery in the early church? 1 Tim 3:6..without controversy great is the mystery of godliness...

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:NIV

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: NASV

But do they agree on how God manifested Himself in the three modes? Do you believe what Sabllius taught?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Believer

But do they agree on how God manifested Himself in the three modes? Do you believe what Sabllius taught?

More importantly did some of these "remnant" groups and teachers baptize in Jesus name, speak in other tongues, and practice standards holiness ... if not ... they aren't even saved!!!!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

But do they agree on how God manifested Himself in the three modes? Do you believe what Sabllius taught?

I don't disagree with the description below. I might word it differently but for the most part, I agree. I believe God manifested himself in two modes of existence, Spirit and Man. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are relationship-type manifestations in His dealings with man as well as the Father/Son relationship of God and Christ whereas Sabellius dealt with manifestations that describe the works of God.

Sabellianism


In Christianity, a sectarian doctrine (see heresy) promoting an ultimate definition of monotheism in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
Sabellianism, or Modal Monarchianism as it also can be called, defined God as a single unity; that the Heavenly Father, the Resurrected Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit were different modes or aspects of the one, single God, as if they were "faces" or "masks". Hence these three were not distinct persons or representations. God was a monad, an indivisible unity, and as Father he had expressed himself in Creation; God as the Son he had expressed himself in redemption of man; and God as the Holy Spirit he had expressed himself in sanctification.
In effect, Sabellianism claims that it was God himself who died on the cross. From this element in the doctrine, has another name been derived: Patripassianism.
Sabellianism points out that to God in the Bible, only the number One is ascribed. There is no mention of God being of the number Three.
Sabellianism was a rebellion against the Trinity, which often has been criticized as being a defection from Christian monotheism.
Sabellian doctrines would reoccur within Christianity up until modern times.
Information on Sabellianism is very uncertain, as the only surviving sources are from its opponents. Therefore, scholars judge the exact definitions of Sabellianism in a variety of ways.
HISTORY
Around 220: The ideas of Sabellianism is declared by Sabellius, who probably was a presbyter in Rome.
— Bishop of Rome, Calixtus, briefly expresses favourable reactions to the doctrines of Sabellius. He would change his mind, and turn against him.
250: Sabellianism emerges in Cyrenaica, representing an opposition to the influence of Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria.
Early 4th century: Arius accuses the bishop of Alexandria, Peter, of Sabellian sympathies.
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/sabellianism.htm