examining the Ante-Nicene era - quotes & doctrines

[Steven Avery]

Here is one closed thread that looked at this type of examination.

Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...6&postcount=46

What resource and recorded history are you alluding to? Can you include the writings and writers of trinitarians prior to the writings against Noetus and Praxeas? It is certain that Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, who were successive Bishops of the churches in Rome from @ 190 to 225 AD or so were ALL monarchian (onenss). They wrote in favor of modalism. The fact that there was so MUCH writing AGAINST oneness, dynamic and modalistic monarchians, IS EVIDENCE of the huge influence of the monarchian church in history prior to Nicea and Constantinople. ... Actually, their theology was very similar to what is taught today. But the fact that there are different concepts of the mechanics of the incarnation, does not negate that all of these teachers, past and present, hold the absolute monarch (oneness) of God ... The differences in Sebellius, Noetus, and earlier monarchians, and todays monarchians only revolved around the "mechanics" of the incarnation of that ONE GOD in human flesh. "to wit, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh"... (1 Tim 3:16) ... Other than that, all monarchians hold to the basic belief that God is eternally numerically, substantially, and personally ONE!

==========================

There may be a bit on a David Bernard thread as well.

David Bernard´s book on oneness
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=35904

Searching for Chalfant (William Bergen Chalfant, author of Ancient Champions of Oneness: An investigation of the doctrine of God in church history) I found some other threads that I might have really good info. Also the material by Marvin M. Arnold (1921-2005) may be helpful. Also Thomas Weisser.

And I also like to look at what the opponents of any oneness perspective might write. Not sure if Fudge goes into all this.

Interesting comment on Chalfant's book about the Montanists

Ancient Champions of Oneness - Amazon
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ancient-Cha...=books&sr=1-16

==========================

Here is a quote that I just ran into today:

Hippolytus - Refutation of All Heresies (Book IX)
https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050109.htm

Now Callistus brought forward Zephyrinus himself, and induced him publicly to avow the following sentiments: "I know that there is one God, Jesus Christ; nor except Him do I know any other that is begotten and amenable to suffering."

This translation is less reliable. You really do not find this quote referenced much on the net.

Academy of Christian Theological Studies
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.p...09713659585427

"Now Callistus [Bishop of Rome] brought forward Zephrinus himself [successor Bishop of Rome] and induced him to publicly avow
"I know that there is one God Jesus Christ."
And we becoming aware of his sentiments,
did not give place to him but reproved and withstood him for the truth's sake.
And he hurried headlong into folly and called us worshippers of TWO gods."

==========================

This thread can be a spot where various quotes can be posted and discussed. e.g. Clement of Alexandrian and even Polycarp have quotes that been looked upon as "naive modalism". We have the Origen and Tertullian references that indicate a fervent support of a more oneness approach among the Christian believers. And there is a lot to examine.

We can also look at the attacks on Sabellius, Noetus et. al., even if those attacks came later, like the Panarion of Epiphanius. An earlier example would be Hippolytus, who supplied the quote extract above.

This thread can be the one-stop shopping.
Try to only go up to the Council of Nicea on this thread.

A favorite related topic would be various quotes that indicate the phrasing used in the heavenly witnesses, 1 John 5:7.

why did the heavenly witnesses drop from Greek mss
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=54086

Thanks!

===============

Added: some threads to check, a couple started by BobDylan, last posted here in 2014.

Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians - 2007 - 27 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=7472

Monarchians in History - 2007 - 11 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=7723

Oneness Pentecostal Propaganda - 2013 - 10 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ad.php?t=43273

Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History? - 2007 - 5 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php

[Esaias]

Thanks, brother Avery, for putting this together.

[Steven Avery]

yw.

Here is the panarion of Epiphanius writing and accusing the Sabellians .. why they used the Shema as part of their scripture apologetic!

Epiphanius Panarion Bks II & III (2013)
Translated by Frank Williams
https://archive.org/details/Epiphani.../n141/mode/2up

2,1 They use all the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, but [especially] certain texts which they select themselves in keeping with the idiocy and stupidity of their own which they have introduced. (2)

First, God’s words to Moses, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God, the Lord is one.” 7
“Thou shalt not make to thyself other gods.”8 “
There shall not be unto thee new gods,”9
for “I am God, the first and the last, and beside me there is no other.”10

And whatever of this sort < they find, < they alter > to suit themselves, and advance it as proof of these doctrines. Again, [they use] the saying from the Gospel, “I am in the Father and the Father in me, and we two are one.”11

7 Deut 6:4.
8 Cf. F.xod 20:3.
9 Ps 80:10.
10 Isa 44:6.
11 Cf. John 10:38; 30.

Then, after a reference from a Gospel to the Egyptians that Epiphanius thinks they used, we have a very interesting paragraph.

2,6 Then, when they encounter simple or innocent persons who do not understand the sacred scriptures clearly, they give them this first fright: “What are we to say, gentlemen? Have we one God or three gods?" But when someone who is devout but does not fully understand the truth hears this, he is disturbed and assents to their error at once, and comes to deny the existence of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

This has a lot of similarity to the sections from Tertullian and Origen which indicate that the common Christian believer did not really want complex ontological speculations, and had something more like a simple one God perspective.

[Steven Avery]

There are a number of writers against the Sabellians, and against Marcellum of Ancyra. So far I see Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian, Dionysius of Rome, Eusebius, Basil and Epiphanius, who represent a wide variety of Christological viewpoints.

One of the more interesting is Dionysius of Rome:

Dionysius of Rome Against The Sabellians - Greek Text with English translation
https://earlychurchtexts.com/public/...sabellians.htm

His denunciation of Sabellius sounds like it comes from a position of affirming the Divine Monarchy, and sounds to me as almost a 'oneness' position.

=========================

Wiki gives a reference that Sabellius uses the shorter baptism forum, that would be good to track down.
J.H. Blunt, p.332, Heik, p 150, Kelsey, pp. 40,41

John Henry Blunt - Dictionary of sects, heresies, ecclesiastical parties, and schools of religious thought (1874)
https://books.google.com/books?id=z-gCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA332
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/011983628
p. 330-332 on the Monarchians does not mention baptism, it is generally a fair and solid article, and on p. 331 is the reference to the quirky Dionysius of Rome piece.
The reference looks to be to p. 340.
https://books.google.com/books?id=z-gCAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA340

The second stage of Montanism is clearly marked by an alteration in the formula of Baptism. Montanus himself had retained the Catholic form. For this we have the evidence of Athanasius, who writes:...

(A rather incredible section, note that it does not have the Rebaptism treatise.)

Otto W. Heik - History of Christian Thought,

Morton T. Kelsey - (various books on tongues and more)

=========================

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Is Acts 2:38 Really Supported by History? - 2007 - 5 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com/showthread.php

Here is the right url
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ported+History

These pages discuss the approach of the oneness historians, especially Marvin Arnold, seeking to show continuous oneness groups through the centuries.

However, there do not discuss any Ante-Nicene references.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Monarchians in History - 2007 - 11 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=7723

I went through this 11 page thread. Right at the beginning there is an important group of quotes, mostly from early church writers, that is meant to be to some degree oneness, and then a rebuttal that various quotes really showed a subordinist view and other ideas. And I will plan on putting the group of quotes in a bit later. The quotes actually go up to the 1800s.

After that, the thread focuses on the Tertullian to Praxeas about the belief of the simple. There are some translation and interpretation issues raised, and I will also plan on giving that quote and discussion its own post later.

[Steven Avery]

More review - a hotter issue here around 2007.

Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians - 2007 - 27 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...ead.php?t=7472

This is a more interesting general thread, although it does get redundant a bit. The same chart of quotes is put up twice. Goes into definitions of monarchians, the Paulicians, the 200s bishops of Rome Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus, and a number of other issues.

Note that they also mention the Thomas Fudge thread as touching on the history accuracy, giving a link to p. 9.

Reading Fudge's Book Again - 2007 24 pages
http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...372#post236372

A thread that I add to my review list.

===================

Here is The Key of Truth, from the Paulicians, non-Trinitarian, mentioned in the Ancient Monarchians thread a few times:

The Key of Truth (1898)
Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare (1856-1924)
https://archive.org/details/keyoftruthmanual00paul

Here they are called Paulicans.

A Brief Overview of the Paulicans
http://www.angelfire.com/ok3/apologia/paulicans.html

The term Paulians is used as a general term, unrelated.

===================

POSTS RELATING TO THE PAULICIANS AND THE SABBATH

This comes up on the sabbatarian threads, where the Paulicians may be moved up to 4th century, possibly due to complications of mixing up with other groups. Thus this was placed on a sabbath thread.

Originally Posted by Aquila

We know that there were Paulicians in Armenia who kept the seventh-day Sabbath in the late fourth century:

Eustathius was succeeded by Erius, a priest, and semi-Arian...Erius also condemned fasts, stated feasts, prayers for the dead, and the celebration of Easter; he urged a purer morality and a stricter observance of the Sabbath. He had many followers, whose numbers were augmented by one of Paul of Samosota, from whom they were called Paulicians. Notwithstanding the opposition of the prelates, who invoked the secular arm to prevent the defection of their spiritual subjects, the tenets of this sect struck deep root in Armenia and many of its eastern provinces, and finally the great body of Christians in the former country, withdrew from the Episcopal communion, and publicly espoused the sentiments of the Paulicians...The bishops of Syria, Pontus, and Cappadocia, complained of the defection of their spiritual flocks...induced the Grecian emperors to commence, and continue for nearly two centuries, the most terrible persecutions against the Paulicians (Davis, Tamar. A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches. 1851; Reprinted 1995 by Commonwealth Publishing, Salt Lake City, pp. 20-23).

Here is the section from Mrs. Tamar Davis:

A General History of the Sabbatarian Churches: Embracing Accounts of the American, East Indian, and Abyssinian Episcopacies in Asia and Africa, the Waldenses, Semi-Judaisers, and Sabbatarian Anabaptists of Europe; with the Seventh-day Baptist Denomination in the United States (1851)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZzQPAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA20
p. 20-23

Notice how it starts with Paul of Samosota, and she considers the Armenians as springing from those roots.

Originally Posted by Aquila

"The Paulicians, Petrobusians, Passaginians, Waldenses, Insabbatati were great Sabbath keeping bodies of Europe down to 1250 A.D." (The Sabbath of God through the Centuries, Coltheart, 1954)

Here is the John Frederick Coltheart page:

The Sabbath of God Through the Centuries (1954)
John Frederick Coltheart (1924-1974)
https://archive.org/details/TheSabba...e/n35/mode/1up

===================

Originally Posted by Esaias

The thing is, everybody except the catholics claim the Waldensians as a single movement, and as identical to their own faith and praxis. Preble seems to think the Albigensians, Paulicians, and Cathars were all Waldensians, who believed as he does. Several writers (COG7th Day, Armstrong-era WWCOG, etc) claim the exact opposite, that all these groups were sabbatarian law-keeping COG people, some Oneness Pentecostals claim these were all Oneness Pentecostals etc.

I haven't identified any factual errors by Andrews, but then I never actually read his History all the way through. I have found some COG7th Day writers to be a bit more thorough. I've never really been a fan of SDA authors except Bacchiocchi. Uriah Smith's work on Daniel though was pretty interesting.

[Esaias]

One thing I'm convinced of is that people are generally the same today as they were in ancient times: liable to intentional misrepresenting of their ideological opponents, and also liable to unintentional misrepresenting of their opponents. We see this every day here on AFF, we see it in numerous modern polemical works whether religious, political, economic, medical, etc etc.

So reports about what various people in ancient times "believed" should always be taken with a grain of salt, in my opinion. It requires some fine-toothed combing to identify and distinguish bias and error on the one hand from hints and likely truisms on the other.

[Steven Avery]

You have:

Unreliable reports

Doctrinal translations

Twisting interpretations

Assuming todays doctrines had the same battles

Massive church doctrine changes from 100-200 to 400 AD.

That said, you can learn a lot!