Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[Praxeas]

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.

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

The medieval period existed from A.D. 590-1517 when the Reformation began.

From the 5th century to the beginning of the Renaissance

The period from 500-1500 is frequently called the Dark Ages because of the ecclesiastical corruption.

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 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).

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.

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)

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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.

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

Originally Posted by Praxeas

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

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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Believer

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

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...

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

So?

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

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.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

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

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?

Originally Posted by Believer

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

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?

Originally Posted by Believer

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

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!

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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!

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.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Believer

History already shows that the Church remained Trinitarian down through the ages,

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.

Originally Posted by Believer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Believer

If you don't agree with history, there is nothing I can do about that.

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

Originally Posted by Believer

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.

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.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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.

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.

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.

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?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

His research doesn't agrees with all the evidence from many different sources, such as the library, and dictionaries and so forth.

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.

Originally Posted by Believer

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.

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

Originally Posted by Believer

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

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

Originally Posted by Believer

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?

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).