Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

I'm deleting some of this because its to long.

lets be clear... the church are not heretics, it is heretics that try to enter into the church and change its doctrine.

i.e. the catholic church and the trinitarian doctrine??? If you AGREE with the catholic church and dogma, then anything disagreeing with it would be heresy... but if you DO NOT agree with the catholic dogma, then NOT EVERYTHING that isn't compliant is necessarily heresy. Now let me ask you a question. Do you agree with, and wholeheartedly subscribe to, the dogma, decrees, and doctrines of the Catholic church? If not, then YOU sir (and ME) are a heretic in their eyes!!!!

Originally Posted by Believer

You seem to think that the 6th or 7th century Catholic church was the same church as the 1st-5th? The Church was given the name Catholic because it was universal. You're beef is with the Roman Catholic church.

The 6th or 7th century Catholic church preserved and venerated writings and teaching that supported it's conclusions then, and destroyed and disregarded writings and teaching that opposed it's perspective. The "history" was in effect "rewritten" in retrospect to support the 6th-7th century Catholic church's dogma...

This type of rewriting history has occurred many times in history. Think of the library in Alexandria being set ablaze? Entire volumes of human history was wiped out, to be rewritten by the victors.

Originally Posted by Believer

These men you hold in high esteem were consider heretics and were given the boot, just as the Oneness were by the AOG in 1916. The difference is, the teachings of Sebellius, Noetus died out. No matter how you slice this, the teaching of Oneness theology in whatever form you wish to present it, was only taught by very few men. It was never a Church doctrine!

Let's start by saying this: the men, whose early writing many trinitarians appeal to, were given the boot as well. For instance, Hippolytus was rejected and led a schismatic movement against Biship Callistus or Rome. Tertullian became a Montanist and the church of his day excommunicated him, Origen was excommunicated by the bishop of Alexandria etc. etc. etc. Which one of the "highly esteemed" trinitarians are we to appeal to in support of what is ecclesiastical doctrine? Actually, if you do a thorough study of history, Sabellius, Noetus, and monarchians were very properous in many areas of the world throughout history. Monarchianism WAS the only church doctrine until around the late 2nd century...

Originally Posted by BobDylan

i.e. the catholic church and the trinitarian doctrine??? If you AGREE with the catholic church and dogma, then anything disagreeing with it would be heresy... but if you DO NOT agree with the catholic dogma, then NOT EVERYTHING that isn't compliant is necessarily heresy. Now let me ask you a question. Do you agree with, and wholeheartedly subscribe to, the dogma, decrees, and doctrines of the Catholic church? If not, then YOU sir (and ME) are a heretic in their eyes!!!!

Its hard to discuss a subject with someone about the Catholic church when they lump the entire Church history into one time period because they don't care for the Roman Catholic dogma. Please understand, the term Catholic is applied to the Church for the first time in Ignatuis' letter to the Smyranaeans in A.D. 105.

No, I do not subscribe to the Catholic dogma and neither did Martin Luther.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Its hard to discuss a subject with someone about the Catholic church when they lump the entire Church history into one time period because they don't care for the Roman Catholic dogma. Please understand, the term Catholic is applied to the Church for the first time in Ignatuis' letter to the Smyranaeans in A.D. 105.

No, I do not subscribe to the Catholic dogma and neither did Martin Luther.

Martin Luther didn't show up on the scene until the 16th century. So what about before that? Who were the "real church" from say 500 AD to 1500 AD? And who determined that the "real church" must hold to the concept of the trinity? When and where and by whom was this decision made?

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Martin Luther didn't show up on the scene until the 16th century. So what about before that? Who were the "real church" from say 500 AD to 1500 AD? And who determined that the "real church" must hold to the concept of the trinity? When and where and by whom was this decision made?

Just so know, I'm here, but my account goes off and on. I can reply once then getting booted off.

I'll get back to this.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

i.e. the catholic church and the trinitarian doctrine??? If you AGREE with the catholic church and dogma, then anything disagreeing with it would be heresy... but if you DO NOT agree with the catholic dogma, then NOT EVERYTHING that isn't compliant is necessarily heresy. Now let me ask you a question. Do you agree with, and wholeheartedly subscribe to, the dogma, decrees, and doctrines of the Catholic church? If not, then YOU sir (and ME) are a heretic in their eyes!!!!



The 6th or 7th century Catholic church preserved and venerated writings and teaching that supported it's conclusions then, and destroyed and disregarded writings and teaching that opposed it's perspective. The "history" was in effect "rewritten" in retrospect to support the 6th-7th century Catholic church's dogma...

This type of rewriting history has occurred many times in history. Think of the library in Alexandria being set ablaze? Entire volumes of human history was wiped out, to be rewritten by the victors.



Let's start by saying this: the men, whose early writing many trinitarians appeal to, were given the boot as well. For instance, Hippolytus was rejected and led a schismatic movement against Biship Callistus or Rome. Tertullian became a Montanist and the church of his day excommunicated him, Origen was excommunicated by the bishop of Alexandria etc. etc. etc. Which one of the "highly esteemed" trinitarians are we to appeal to in support of what is ecclesiastical doctrine? Actually, if you do a thorough study of history, Sabellius, Noetus, and monarchians were very properous in many areas of the world throughout history. Monarchianism WAS the only church doctrine until around the late 2nd century...

I want to comment on the above statement. I have studied this subject and many scholars have studied and wrote extensively on this subject and very few if any agree with your assertion.

You're attempts to rewrite history is astounding to say the least. You only bring your opinion that Manarchianism was the only church doctrine until the late 2nd century. As my signature states, there is no one arguing for or against this until the late 2nd or early 3rd century.

Let me give you some more proof that the first century Christian held to the plurality within the Godhead. Lets discuss Hermas (A.D. 120)

Church Historian says of Hermas: But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epsitle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.3)

The Shepherd, Hermas clearly contradicts the Oneness doctrine of the non-eternal Son.

“The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is Ancient.” (Hermas, The Shepherd, Ninth Similitude, 12, in ANF, vol 2)

Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 130-150) He claimed to have been a Christian for eighty six year.
And according to Irenaeus, a disciple of the Apostle John. Eusebius also made this claim.

“…wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14, in ANF, vol 1)

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

I want to comment on the above statement. I have studied this subject and many scholars have studied and wrote extensively on this subject and very few if any agree with your assertion.

You're attempts to rewrite history is astounding to say the least. You only bring your opinion that Manarchianism was the only church doctrine until the late 2nd century. As my signature states, there is no one arguing for or against this until the late 2nd or early 3rd century.

Can you bring anything indicating a "trinity" until the late 2nd century? All the Jews were "monarchian" one God people. It is WELL substantiated in history, for 2000 years prior to Christ. Should we expect the Jewish believers to have changed their "monarchianism" simply because of Christ's advent? If so, then there would have been extensive early writing detailing why they are scrapping monarchianism for "trinitarianism"... but there is NONE until some "greek philosophers" came on the scene in the late 2nd century. I believe you quited someone who used the term trinity in 180 AD.... I guess that's the first time. Up to that time, for two thousand years, the Jews believed and taught ONE GOD... This is very well documented and substianted in writted history. I have rewritten nothing.

Originally Posted by Believer

Let me give you some more proof that the first century Christian held to the plurality within the Godhead. Lets discuss Hermas (A.D. 120)

Church Historian says of Hermas: But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epsitle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed. (Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.3)

The Shepherd, Hermas clearly contradicts the Oneness doctrine of the non-eternal Son.

“The Son of God is older than all His creation, so that He became the Father’s adviser in His creation. Therefore also He is Ancient.” (Hermas, The Shepherd, Ninth Similitude, 12, in ANF, vol 2)

Polycarp of Smyrna (A.D. 130-150) He claimed to have been a Christian for eighty six year.
And according to Irenaeus, a disciple of the Apostle John. Eusebius also made this claim.

“…wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Spirit, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.” (Martyrdom of Polycarp, 14, in ANF, vol 1)

You are taking excerpts from people who are misrepresenting Hermas, Iraneaus, and Polycarp (all of whom were monarchian). Hermas details his theology and Christology. Again, I have the resources, but not at my immediate disposal, to bring other renderings from "Shepherd" that show's Hermas' monarchian theology.

The problem is that you are appealing to trinitarian biased "historians" for their interpretation of the early writings....

Let me ask you again, who was the "real church" from 500AD to about 1500 AD? Who determined that the "trinity" was the official doctrine of the "real church"? When, where, and by whom was this "decision" made?

Originally Posted by BobDylan

You are taking excerpts from people who are misrepresenting Hermas, Iraneaus, and Polycarp (all of whom were monarchian). Hermas details his theology and Christology. Again, I have the resources, but not at my immediate disposal, to bring other renderings from "Shepherd" that show's Hermas' monarchian theology.

The problem is that you are appealing to trinitarian biased "historians" for their interpretation of the early writings....

I’ve been lurking for the last few weeks, and I’ve enjoyed reading through some of the discussions. They contain a lot of helpful information, and some very humorous things as well. However, what sparked my attention and inspired me to briefly join were the posts written by the person behind the name “Believer.” He is passionate about what he believes and this far is able to show proof to what he believes, which was not well received. With that said, I want my journey to finding the truth to be as passionate, forthright and honest, even if it hurts.

I'm discouraged by the answers given to “Believer” on the subject “The Early Church Fathers,” as the answers lack any real weight. Answers such as, “all our records were destroyed,” or “that is not what they meant when they said that,” or “the writings were changed by the Catholic heretics” are not valid answers. For one, there isn’t any proof that any records were destroyed, or that all the writings were changed by the Catholic church. By making these assertion without any proof only perpetuate a lie. Their needs to be actual proof, not unfounded information. We should not have to make stuff up in order to be right. That is clearly dishonest. Don’t misunderstand, this is not in support of “Believer” or his doctrine, as it may appear. The truth is not found behind excuses and “pet” answers.

I’m not saying that I have the answers yet, but I want to seek them out, and to do so honestly. I truly believe if the Oneness doctrine was held by the Early Church Christians the answers will be there. God Bless.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I’ve been lurking for the last few weeks, and I’ve enjoyed reading through some of the discussions. They contain a lot of helpful information, and some very humorous things as well. However, what sparked my attention and inspired me to briefly join were the posts written by the person behind the name “Believer.” He is passionate about what he believes and this far is able to show proof to what he believes, which was not well received. With that said, I want my journey to finding the truth to be as passionate, forthright and honest, even if it hurts.

I'm discouraged by the answers given to “Believer” on the subject “The Early Church Fathers,” as the answers lack any real weight. Answers such as, “all our records were destroyed,” or “that is not what they meant when they said that,” or “the writings were changed by the Catholic heretics” are not valid answers. For one, there isn’t any proof that any records were destroyed, or that all the writings were changed by the Catholic church. By making these assertion without any proof only perpetuate a lie. Their needs to be actual proof, not unfounded information. We should not have to make stuff up in order to be right. That is clearly dishonest. Don’t misunderstand, this is not in support of “Believer” or his doctrine, as it may appear. The truth is not found behind excuses and “pet” answers.

I’m not saying that I have the answers yet, but I want to seek them out, and to do so honestly. I truly believe if the Oneness doctrine was held by the Early Church Christians the answers will be there. God Bless.

You are leveling some fairly general accusations here willyjack... nothing too specific in your post per-se either. I am not certain what of Believer's positions he has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. If you can show me where he has proven conclusively something that he has said, then I would like to see it.

I asked Believer a couple of very valid questions:

1. Where was the fully developed doctrine of the trinity referenced in any writing in the first three centuries of the church?

2. When, where, and by whom was the doctrine of the trinity established as the official dogma of the "real" church?

3. Who and where was the real church between the years of 400AD to 1500AD? Was it the Roman Catholics? The Greek Orthadox? African Orthadox?

Believer never answered any of these question, so I don't see where you can even suggest that he "proved" his point? The only thing he has done is reference trinitarian biased historical writings on the internet.

Back on page 12 or so of this thread, I posted a copy of several writings and church figures throughout history, from 95AD (Clement of Rome) all the way down to the 1800's of people who were monarchian and wrote in favore of the monarchian theology and/or against trinitarianism. I have yet to see any of these citations refuted. Again, how can you suggest that Believer has "proven" his point, when he really hasn't proven anything? I cited a wikipedia article that shows the monarchian and other true doctrines of the Paulicians, and what did Believer do? He goes to wikipedia and "edits" the part he disagreed with. (in the same way the Roman Catholic church has "edited" parts of history it disagrees with). Proof of editing in history? What about the "comma Johanneam"? It is an obvous "edit" in the actual text of the scriptures themselves. But thank God there are thousands of manuscripts that give us a clear picture of the actual text of the scripture. Many of the "historical" texts of the early church fathers are spurious and questionable. They are not inspired, and you cannot base doctrine on those texts. The Bible is really the only thing that can "prove" anything. If Believer is going to "prove" he is right, the only way he is going to be able to do it is from the Bible itself. History, and commentary on history, is ALWAYS subjective to the bias of the commentator...

Originally Posted by BobDylan

1. Where was the fully developed doctrine of the trinity referenced in any writing in the first three centuries of the church?

2. When, where, and by whom was the doctrine of the trinity established as the official dogma of the "real" church?

3. Who and where was the real church between the years of 400AD to 1500AD? Was it the Roman Catholics? The Greek Orthadox? African Orthadox?

According to history, the worldwide church was given the name “the Catholic Church” in the second century, and it remained this until after the Reformations starting in 1517.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

The medieval period existed from A.D. 590-1517 when the Reformation began. The period from 500-1500 is frequently called the Dark Ages because of the ecclesiastical corruption. It was, in fact, this corruption that sparked the Protestant Reformation under Martin Luther. Roman Catholic doctrine developed considerably during the medieval period: purgatory in 593; prayer to Mary, saints, and angels in 600; kissing the pope’s foot in 709; canonization of dead saints in 995; celibacy of the priesthood in 1079; the rosary in 1090; transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest in 1215; and the seven sacraments in 1439. A number of controversies confronted the medieval church. The iconoclastic controversy emerged in which the use of images in worship became an integral part of the Western church. The filioque controversy (did the Father alone or the Father and the Son send the Spirit) split the Eastern and Western church. The predestination controversy resulted in rejection of Gottschalk’s predestination view. The eucharist controversy led to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Controversial views over the atonement aso emerged. The medieval period developed scholasticism, which trained scholars to defend the faith from a rational viewpoint. One scholastic, Thomas Aquinas, became prominent in the formulation of Catholic doctrine. Other doctrinal views emerged as the Roman Catholic church increasing moved away fro Augustinian doctrine. Man was viewed as cooperating with God both in salvation and sanctification. Works became an important part in salvation and sanctification, especially with the adoption of the seven sacraments. The authority of the papacy also emerged during this time, the pope being termed “vicar of Christ.” Submission to the pope was essential in both religious and political matters. Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, sparked the Reformation when he nailed the ninety-five theses opposing the Catholic church on the church door at Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31,1517. Luther stresses a return to the Scriptures as ultimate authority in the believer’s life. This marked a return to a study the Scriptures, particularly with the publication of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus. (The Moody handbook of Theology pg 404,405 Introduction of Historical Theology).


The English churches from the Anglican Reformation. The list of churches for this study is are follows: Methodist Episcopal Church - Wesleyan Holiness doctrine (John Wesley) Holiness Movement - Church of the Nazarene (1895) Pentecostal Movement (1901) - Assemblies of God (1914) - Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (1913-1916) - United Pentecostal Church International (1945).


The church doctrine was a progressive doctrine, depending on the events surrounding the time period. First we need to understand the purpose of the Church. Two overriding purposes of the Church can be delineated: gathered, ministering to the body, and scattered, ministering to the world. It is important to distinguish these two purposes. On one hand, the Church gathers as a body of believers wherein believers minister to one another; on the other hand, the Church is to minister to both believers and unbelievers. This is important because Jesus said, I WILL build My Church. In order for this to be fulfilled there has to be some evidence that this took place in history.

The Nicene Creed was in response to the Arian controversy.

The Nicene Creed as approved by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)

The Council of Sardica Canon V (A.D. 343)

The Definition of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)

Canons of the Council of Orange (A.D. 529)

Quicumque vult (Athanasian Creed) (ca. A.D. 500)

Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 533)

Creeds and Statements - from the Period after A.D. 600

Later Creeds:

Eleventh Council of Toledo (675 AD)

The Statement of Faith of the Third Council of Constantinople - (681 AD, Sixth Ecumenical)
The Image Controversy (the Iconoclasts)

The Synod of Constantinople (Hiera, 753 AD)

Council of Nicaea (7th Ecumenical,787 AD)

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

According to history, the worldwide church was given the name “the Catholic Church” in the second century, and it remained this until after the Reformations starting in 1517.

Around the year A.D. 107, a bishop, St. Ignatius of Antioch in the Near East, was arrested, brought to Rome by armed guards and eventually martyred there in the arena. In a farewell letter which this early bishop and martyr wrote to his fellow Christians in Smyrna (today Izmir in modern Turkey), he made the first written mention in history of "the Catholic Church." He wrote, "Where the bishop is present, there is the Catholic Church" (To the Smyrnaeans 8:2). Thus, the second century of Christianity had scarcely begun when the name of the Catholic Church was already in use.

The medieval period existed from A.D. 590-1517 when the Reformation began. The period from 500-1500 is frequently called the Dark Ages because of the ecclesiastical corruption. It was, in fact, this corruption that sparked the Protestant Reformation under Martin Luther. Roman Catholic doctrine developed considerably during the medieval period: purgatory in 593; prayer to Mary, saints, and angels in 600; kissing the pope’s foot in 709; canonization of dead saints in 995; celibacy of the priesthood in 1079; the rosary in 1090; transubstantiation and confessing sins to a priest in 1215; and the seven sacraments in 1439. A number of controversies confronted the medieval church. The iconoclastic controversy emerged in which the use of images in worship became an integral part of the Western church. The filioque controversy (did the Father alone or the Father and the Son send the Spirit) split the Eastern and Western church. The predestination controversy resulted in rejection of Gottschalk’s predestination view. The eucharist controversy led to the doctrine of transubstantiation. Controversial views over the atonement aso emerged. The medieval period developed scholasticism, which trained scholars to defend the faith from a rational viewpoint. One scholastic, Thomas Aquinas, became prominent in the formulation of Catholic doctrine. Other doctrinal views emerged as the Roman Catholic church increasing moved away fro Augustinian doctrine. Man was viewed as cooperating with God both in salvation and sanctification. Works became an important part in salvation and sanctification, especially with the adoption of the seven sacraments. The authority of the papacy also emerged during this time, the pope being termed “vicar of Christ.” Submission to the pope was essential in both religious and political matters. Martin Luther, a Roman Catholic priest, sparked the Reformation when he nailed the ninety-five theses opposing the Catholic church on the church door at Wittenberg, Germany, on October 31,1517. Luther stresses a return to the Scriptures as ultimate authority in the believer’s life. This marked a return to a study the Scriptures, particularly with the publication of the Greek New Testament by Erasmus. (The Moody handbook of Theology pg 404,405 Introduction of Historical Theology).


The English churches from the Anglican Reformation. The list of churches for this study is are follows: Methodist Episcopal Church - Wesleyan Holiness doctrine (John Wesley) Holiness Movement - Church of the Nazarene (1895) Pentecostal Movement (1901) - Assemblies of God (1914) - Pentecostal Assemblies of the World (1913-1916) - United Pentecostal Church International (1945).


The church doctrine was a progressive doctrine, depending on the events surrounding the time period. First we need to understand the purpose of the Church. Two overriding purposes of the Church can be delineated: gathered, ministering to the body, and scattered, ministering to the world. It is important to distinguish these two purposes. On one hand, the Church gathers as a body of believers wherein believers minister to one another; on the other hand, the Church is to minister to both believers and unbelievers. This is important because Jesus said, I WILL build My Church. In order for this to be fulfilled there has to be some evidence that this took place in history.

The Nicene Creed was in response to the Arian controversy.

The Nicene Creed as approved by the Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381)

The Council of Sardica Canon V (A.D. 343)

The Definition of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)

Canons of the Council of Orange (A.D. 529)

Quicumque vult (Athanasian Creed) (ca. A.D. 500)

Anathemas of the Second Council of Constantinople (A.D. 533)

Creeds and Statements - from the Period after A.D. 600

Later Creeds:

Eleventh Council of Toledo (675 AD)

The Statement of Faith of the Third Council of Constantinople - (681 AD, Sixth Ecumenical)
The Image Controversy (the Iconoclasts)

The Synod of Constantinople (Hiera, 753 AD)

Council of Nicaea (7th Ecumenical,787 AD)

This doesn't answer a single question that I asked.... are you attempting a snow job? Trying to avoid answering directly? What I was in school, when I answered a question, they taught us to use part of the question in an answer.. here let me give you an example:

1. The fully developed doctrine of the trinity was referenced in these early church writing from the first two centuries... (writing a., writing b. and writing c.)...

2. The doctrine of the trinity was established as the official dogma of the "real" church (by that time the Roman Catholic chruch) by the Council of Constantinope in 381 AD....

3. Between the years of 400AD to 1500AD the real believers were called _________ and were located ________ (etc. etc. etc.)

I don't see why it is so hard to simply answer the quesiton, instead of pulling some selection from a historical writing somewhere and pasting it into the post. What do YOU believe about these questions. Where were the true believers? Where did Polycarp, Bishop Clement of Rome (95AD), or Ignatius refer to a fully developed trinity? Or where did they even reference a "primative" trinity concept? When was the trinity officially established as the universal church doctrine?


It's really prety simple to answer these questions....