Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

This is an Apostolic forum. We do not allow the promotion of the trinitarian doctrine here in any shape or form. We will allow Believer to come back in 7 days, but we will not allow the promotion of this doctrine here.

With all due respect... he wasn't proselytizing. How can a Trinitarian engage here with giving his side of the argument?

I think the ban is unfair and counter-productive.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

With all due respect... he wasn't proselytizing. How can a Trinitarian engage here with giving his side of the argument?

I think the ban is unfair and counter-productive.

Since you are still fairly new, I would like to remind you that if you feel Admin has done something wrong, or unjust, please feel free to use the report button and let us all know.

Now, the issue here is this is not an Apologistic forum. It is a place where folks that believe in the very basic core doctrine of the Oneness of God, and Jesus name baptism (Apostolic). We may differ on when salvation occurs. We may differ whether standards are biblical. We may even differ whether Jesus is still a man, or completely God at this point. But Oneness and Jesus name baptism being scripturally correct is not up for debate here. This is where we have drawn our line.

We are, however, reviewing this within the Admin Area, and because Believer is a new poster will likely remove his ban, and allow him to return.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Since you are still fairly new, I would like to remind you that if you feel Admin has done something wrong, or unjust, please feel free to use the report button and let us all know.

Now, the issue here is this is not an Apologistic forum. It is a place where folks that believe in the very basic core doctrine of the Oneness of God, and Jesus name baptism (Apostolic). We may differ on when salvation occurs. We may differ whether standards are biblical. We may even differ whether Jesus is still a man, or completely God at this point. But Oneness and Jesus name baptism being scripturally correct is not up for debate here. This is where we have drawn our line.

We are, however, reviewing this within the Admin Area, and because Believer is a new poster will likely remove his ban, and allow him to return.

Allowing trinitarians on here, IMO, would be a good thing to help the oneness thinkers keep their skills sharp, and help us prepare answers for trinitarians that we are to encounter in the real world. I have always appreciated dialogues that I have had with JW's, Baptists, various other denominational and trinitarian groups because they all bring different angles of arguments to the table. Much of my learning and understanding truth is the responses I have had to prepare in real-life encounters with people who don't believe just like me.

Also, there are numerous apologetic diatribes on everything to pants/skirts, TV/noTV etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on. This IS an "apologistic" forum like it or not. I would have enjoyed continuing the conversation with our good friend "Believer".... although in private e-mails I have exchanged with him he sounds like he was more interested in debating than really understanding truth...

[mizpeh]

It appears Believer is unbanned. Maybe he'll come back and answer your question.

The Reformer's doctrines weren't around during the centuries when orthodoxy was defined by the Roman Catholic Church. The 'church' of history was the Roman Catholic church. Believer needs to reconsider what is the church and where was it in history? Unless of course, he's a member of the RCC.

Believer isn't able to find his 'church' during the rule of the RCC before the reformers. He can't find a Oneness church nor a reformers church from 500-1500 so what has he proved in trying to discredit that Oneness died out with Sabellius and has only had a recent resurgence post Azuza street since he can't find his 'church' among the orthodox in that time frame?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

It appears Believer is unbanned. Maybe he'll come back and answer your question.

The Reformer's doctrines weren't around during the centuries when orthodoxy was defined by the Roman Catholic Church. The 'church' of history was the Roman Catholic church. Believer needs to reconsider what is the church and where was it in history? Unless of course, he's a member of the RCC.

Believer isn't able to find his 'church' during the rule of the RCC before the reformers. He can't find a Oneness church nor a reformers church from 500-1500 so what has he proved in trying to discredit that Oneness died out with Sabellius and has only had a recent resurgence post Azuza street since he can't find his 'church' among the orthodox in that time frame?

I asked him in a personal e-mail and on this thread. I would genuinely like to see what he believes.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I asked him in a personal e-mail and on this thread. I would genuinely like to see what he believes.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

I replied to your email stating that when I had the time I would post my answers. During the week my schedule is busy and my time limited. Not to mention I have to be careful what I say so I don't get banned again. But, its all good.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

With all due respect... he wasn't proselytizing. How can a Trinitarian engage here with giving his side of the argument?

I think the ban is unfair and counter-productive.

No comment.