Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

Originally Posted by stmatthew

The book itself gave a very telling experience of China, which is the place of my burden. I corresponded with Paul Hattaway, who is trinitarian, not because of doctrine, but because I wanted to know more of what is happening in China. This is also the reason I went and saw Bro Yun at Christ Church. It had nothing to do with my believing their doctrine. It had everything to do with my burden.


As far as the book, it is worth the read. I sat and devoured it in one sitting. Again, while I do not accept every wind of doctrine that comes along, the book was very little doctrine, and mostly experience of the underground church in China, and Bro Yuns experiences and persecutions.

I agree with you, the book is worth reading.

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm not upset. I don't believe everything that is written by the enemies of different sects and you haven't proved anything.

What if the future was to look back at the present and they only could find opinions on Oneness believers written by Trinitarians? Would they find a fair and unbiased treatment of Oneness beliefs?

I guess there are a lot of "what if's."

American Council of Learned Societies Dictionary of the Middle Ages. "According to the historians of the Macedonian dynasty, Genesus, George the Monk, and Theophanus Continatus, the Paulicions considered heretics- collaborated with the Muslim emir of Melitene....

I guess if you don't like what you read in history, you can always convince yourself it never happen...but that doesn't change the real world.

[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

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm not upset. I don't believe everything that is written by the enemies of different sects and you haven't proved anything.

What if the future was to look back at the present and they only could find opinions on Oneness believers written by Trinitarians? Would they find a fair and unbiased treatment of Oneness beliefs?

Yes you are! I can hear it in your voice...I sense it

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Not "all sources" agree with the sources you cited either. The Wiki article, that was later altered, suggested that the Paulicians were monarchian. Also, just a few posts ago there was another website that indicated the Paulicians were monarchian. It seems that the accusation of "dualism" is a misrepresentation... the Paulicians anathematized Mani, the leader of the Manicheans dualist sect. They did not embrace his dualistic teaching. The "Key of Truth" specifically identifies the Paulicians as monarchian, AND shows that they baptized in Jesus name. The effort to paint the Paulicians as a fringe heretical group by biased historicities are not sufficient.

Bob, I challenge you to go to any library and check to see the history.

There are two varieties of Manarchianism. Adoptionist or Dynamic Manarchianism, both considered Second and third century heretics centered in Asia Minor and Rome. (Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity)

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.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

I guess there are a lot of "what if's."

American Council of Learned Societies Dictionary of the Middle Ages. "According to the historians of the Macedonian dynasty, Genesus, George the Monk, and Theophanus Continatus, the Paulicions considered heretics- collaborated with the Muslim emir of Melitene....

I guess if you don't like what you read in history, you can always convince yourself it never happen...but that doesn't change the real world.

Believer,

They collaborated with the Muslim leader, how? Praying for the sick? Feeding the poor?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Bob, I challenge you to go to any library and check to see the history.

There are two varieties of Manarchianism. Adoptionist or Dynamic Manarchianism, both considered Second and third century heretics centered in Asia Minor and Rome. (Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity)

The question here is WHO considered the dynamic monarchians as heretics? It wasn't the modalist monarchians... the only other groups of that time were the dualist arians, and the trinitarians... both opposed to the OLDER monarchian theology. (you have to understant that ALL the 1st century writers were monarchian of some type). I suggest that neither the arians nor the trinitarians have authority to consider someone a real heretic. In my book that has about as much authority as muslims getting together and declaring someone a heretic. If the dualists and trinitarians themselves have faulty theologies, their declarations of someone as heretics means absolutely nothing to me.

A key thing to understand is that the dynamic monarchians were indeed one-God people. They also believed that Jesus was God. Therefore I have no problem with their theology or christology based on these fundamental tenets.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I know the resources I cited are not conclusive. I found it interesting to note the different views held by the writers that gave their 'slant' on what the Paulinians believed. The wiki article is almost quoted word for word in a number of other writings I checked out. Perhaps Wiki got their version from an encyclopedie.

I should get a the book, The Key of Truth, in a week.

I would be very interested in reading the Key of Truth. I cited some internet resources that suggest the Paulician's were monarchian.

Let me ask you a question Mizpeh. Do you understand that the idea of "adoptionism" or "dynamic monarchianism" does not contradict oneness theology and christology? I perceive that the historical perspective of adoptionism is a skewed view of what they actually believed. "Adoptionism" is a disparaging term used by the opponents of the dynamic monarchians, to try to misrepresent and undermine their teaching. There were MANY more dynamic monarchian than modalistic monarchian in the first two centuries of the church. Modalistic terms became widespread as an alternate way of viewing the incarnation besides dynamic, but both declare and preserve the monarch (numerical oneness) of God, AND the full deity of Jesus as the Son of God. If you declare these two truths, you would be in agreement with most oneness people (with few exceptions).