Evidence that Apostolic Truth Reached Britain By

[Le Penseur]

So did they speak in tongues as well? Was their soteriology the same as the three-step doctrine of today's OP? This article only addresses what appears to be a strain of Sabellian Modalism.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Le Penseur

So did they speak in tongues as well? Was their soteriology the same as the three-step doctrine of today's OP? This article only addresses what appears to be a strain of Sabellian Modalism.

That is because that is what we are interested in documenting. It has been long thought that such died out entirely around the year 350 and was rediscovered between 1901-1912. However, more research is showing that this was plainly not the case.

[Le Penseur]

My point is that you can't say "Apostolic Truth Reached..." if you're only talking about a piece of it. OP preachers have been known to trumpet that the gates of hell did not prevail against the truth (the 3-step doctrine) and there has always been "a remnant" that taught it all along. The challenge is proving it historically. You might find pockets of Sabellianism, or other groups who may have spoken in tongues, but I have yet to see someone point to groups all through history that taught and practiced both, and they were both vital components of their soteriology.

[Jay]

Originally Posted by Le Penseur

My point is that you can't say "Apostolic Truth Reached..." if you're only talking about a piece of it. OP preachers have been known to trumpet that the gates of hell did not prevail against the truth (the 3-step doctrine) and there has always been "a remnant" that taught it all along. The challenge is proving it historically. You might find pockets of Sabellianism, or other groups who may have spoken in tongues, but I have yet to see someone point to groups all through history that taught and practiced both, and they were both vital components of their soteriology.

This is only partly true. To make an argument that our position is false only because of a lack of historical documentation is a false premise. We have actually found more documentation than had been known, because we have now taken more time to study groups that were accused of heresy. As long as they were ignored, many of their teachings, and their similarities to ours went unnoticed.

We have evidence that various groups during the reformation period did speak in tongues, and some baptized in Jesus' name, and we are not sure how many did both (it would seem likely that they did). Further, it can be seen that in the mid 1700s there were many in New England who denied the Trinity. Jonathan Edwards wrote against such people.

[Sabby]

Originally Posted by Jay

This is only partly true. To make an argument that our position is false only because of a lack of historical documentation is a false premise. We have actually found more documentation than had been known, because we have now taken more time to study groups that were accused of heresy. As long as they were ignored, many of their teachings, and their similarities to ours went unnoticed.

We have evidence that various groups during the reformation period did speak in tongues, and some baptized in Jesus' name, and we are not sure how many did both (it would seem likely that they did). Further, it can be seen that in the mid 1700s there were many in New England who denied the Trinity. Jonathan Edwards wrote against such people.

Jay,

"...a lack of historical documentation is a false premise..."?

Good grief, Jay.

[Sabby]

Jay,
PLEASE provide your historically factual evidence that the PAJC oneness position has continually existed even through the 4th century.
You are simply propagandizing...PROVE IT!

[Michael The Disciple]

The Bible is the best and only historical evidence of the truth I need.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by Jay

This is only partly true. To make an argument that our position is false only because of a lack of historical documentation is a false premise. We have actually found more documentation than had been known, because we have now taken more time to study groups that were accused of heresy. As long as they were ignored, many of their teachings, and their similarities to ours went unnoticed.

We have evidence that various groups during the reformation period did speak in tongues, and some baptized in Jesus' name, and we are not sure how many did both (it would seem likely that they did). Further, it can be seen that in the mid 1700s there were many in New England who denied the Trinity. Jonathan Edwards wrote against such people.

Think long and hard: What does one need in order to make such an argument then? I mean history isn't going to come right out and say: "there was no group that ever believed and taught both oneness and believed the three step plan to salvation". History doesn't work that way. History doesn't tell us what did not happen. It tells us what did happen. So until you can provide history that such a thing did happen then you are no different than all the crazy the conspiracy theorists who have no proof of their claims but still insist that they are right.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by jfrog

Think long and hard: What does one need in order to make such an argument then? I mean history isn't going to come right out and say: "there was no group that ever believed and taught both oneness and believed the three step plan to salvation". History doesn't work that way. History doesn't tell us what did not happen. It tells us what did happen. So until you can provide history that such a thing did happen then you are no different than all the crazy the conspiracy theorists who have no proof of their claims but still insist that they are right.

The bible

An argument based on history is a logical fallacy

[Jay]

Will respond when not trying to type on my new nook tablet (very annoying when attemptig to give a compex explanation).