Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

So then Tertullian and Praxeas would be third century.

Praxeas is recorded to have preached in Rome circa 190 AD, which would be in the concluding years of the 2nd century.... Praxeas doctrine was clearly monarchian... (i.e. oneness)

Tertullian wrote against Praxeas' teaching in the 200's somewhere, which would be the 3rd century...

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Praxeas is recorded to have preached in Rome circa 190 AD, which would be in the concluding years of the 2nd century.... Praxeas doctrine was clearly monarchian... (i.e. oneness)

But Tertullians argument "Against Praxeas" is later isn't it?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But Tertullians argument "Against Praxeas" is later isn't it?

I just edited my post to include that information. You are correct, in the third century, but I am not sure of the exact year...

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

But Tertullians argument "Against Praxeas" is later isn't it?

Tertullian of Carthage (145-220), said of Jesus, "Christ is also God" because "that which has come forth from God [in the virgin birth] is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one... in His birth. God and man united." Jesus is "both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God."9

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Article...s/AP0707W2.htmTertullian joined the Montanist's who were considered heretics as well. I think the word, heretic, was slung around pretty freely by the early church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Tertullian of Carthage (145-220), said of Jesus, "Christ is also God" because "that which has come forth from God [in the virgin birth] is at once God and the Son of God, and the two are one... in His birth. God and man united." Jesus is "both Man and God, the Son of Man and the Son of God."9

http://www.johnankerberg.com/Article...s/AP0707W2.htmTertullian joined the Montanist's who were considered heretics as well. I think the word, heretic, was slung around pretty freely by the early church. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

Sorry folks, but my account was temporary turned off! Don't ask...because I don't know!

Yes, Tertullian believed that Jesus the Son was deity and eternally with the Father. Lord only knows what happen to him after he because a senior citizen!

[BobDylan]

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!

I want to focus on this statement here.... Believer, from about the 5th century to about the 14th century, there was no "church" historically outside of the Roman Catholic church. From your perspective and arguments here, you seem to suggest that the only way to be avoid heresy and be saved during this period is to be a part of the Catholic Church! Is this what you are suggesting?

There IS historical evidence of numerous groups that were not roman catholic, who held "heretical teachings" (i.e. sebellianism etc.). Either you are saying that during this period of time, the Roman Catholic church is the only "church" who had the right doctrine and all these other groups were heretics, OR maybe some of these other groups WERE in fact teaching truth while the Catholic church was teaching heresy. Which do you believe? From 600 to 1300 AD, did the Roman Catholic church teach truth or heresy? Ok, what about the Greek Orthadox? Which chruch group from 600AD to 1300AD taught the truth?


Also, this is a response from an earlier post:

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)