Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

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

We could go through each of these and I can point out discrepancies, (and I have) but it doesn't matter at this point, because they are only individuals not churches. We could also go through history and posts thousands of people that had different beliefs. This really doesn’t prove anything.

note that in 1441, the council of florence condemns "Sabellianism". This council wouldn't have convened to condemn "Sabellianism" if it wasn't a widespread and major issue for the perpetuation of the Roman Catholic heresy of that time. This shows that there was an enourmous contengent of "Sabellians" extant at that time! WHAT??? You mean that from 200 AD when Sabellius began preaching his versian of monarchianism, all the way to 1441, there were followers of "Sabellian" theology? the answer........*drum roll*........ A RESOUNDING YES!!! There have been Sabellians (oneness) throughout the history of the "church".... PRAISE GOD!!!!

[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).

Originally Posted by BobDylan

note that in 1441, the council of florence condemns "Sabellianism". This council wouldn't have convened to condemn "Sabellianism" if it wasn't a widespread and major issue for the Roman Catholic heresy. This shows that there was an enourmous contengent of "Sabellians" extant at that time! WHAT??? You mean that from 200 AD when Sabellius began preaching his versian of monarchianism, all the way to 1441, there were followers of "Sabellian" theology? the answer........*drum roll*........ A RESOUNDING YES!!! There have been Sabellians (oneness) throughout the history of the "church".... PRAISE GOD!!!!

The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of Sabellian.

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

Remember you are suppose to post resoruces!!!

And, just because a council condemned "Sabellianism" isn't proof there was an nourmous contengent of "Sabellians." Beside, what happen to this teaching if it was so wide spread? Did the gates of hell over power them?

[SDG]

This remnant "Oneness preservation throughout history" doctrine is extremely flawed ... especially since most traditional Oneness believers tout a 3 step process to salvation ... REPENTANCE, WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST W/ EVIDENCE IN SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES as requisites to be FULLY SAVED and RAPTURE READY ... as the truth to obeying the Gospel

BD, has made a futile effort to align today's Oneness movement w/ various individuals, who may have or may have not, held similar views to today's Oneness movement.

One problem w/ this approach is that some of these "Oneness" individuals held heretical views regarding the Godhead and other issues that would not be accepted or tolerated by either Oneness or Trinitarian believers today.

Others are equated to being Oneness believers ... with the suggestion that God has preserved his Truth through the generations through these men and those that followed them ... yet apparently THE CHURCH varied wildly on their views on salvation? .... can't be ... either they had THE TRUTH OR DIDN'T. EITHER THAT TRUTH SAVED THEM OR DIDN'T ....

For example, BD presents William Penn as a Oneness adherent ... therefore we are to believe he was in THE TRUTH [albeit as perceived by PAJC Oneness believers]...

REALLY?

Early Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, did not practice water baptism AT ALL... let alone did a baptizer utter the proper name of Jesus over a believer for the remission of sins ....

which means they weren't saved as many OPs would define saved .... and of course we know they didn't all speak in tongues ... although some believe they did.

Wiki states:
----------------------------------------

Early Friends did not believe in the reliance upon practice of the outward rites and sacraments, believing that holiness can exist in all the activities of one's life—all of life is sacred. They experienced baptism by the Holy Spirit as an inward, transforming experience and knew communion with Christ in the midst of gathered worship in the expectant silence. Thus they did not perform baptism as a rite of membership. These Friends also believed that any meal with others could be a form of communion.


At various times some individuals or small groups of Friends have published corrective cautions against adopting the prohibition of some rite as itself being creedal. The focus should be upon God as Present Teacher, rather than on some human ritual, or the absence of a ritual. Most Friends therefore do not prohibit rites or ceremonies, but they do counsel against allowing these human inventions to take the place of direct experience and leading by God.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends
--------------------------------------------

Here are William Penn's own words on Water Baptism:

--------------------------------------------

Perversion 14: The Quakers deny the two great sacraments or ordinances of the Gospel, Baptism and the Supper.

Principle: Whatever is truly a Gospel ordinance, they desire to own and practice. But they observe no such language in the Scriptures as in the reflection. They do confess the practice of John's baptism and the Supper is to be found there; but practice only is no institution, nor a sufficient reason for continuation. That they were then proper, they believe, when the mysteries lay yet couched in figures and shadows. But it is their belief that no figures or signs are perpetual or of institution under the Gospel administration, when Christ, Who is the Substance of them, is come.

It were to overthrow the whole Gospel dispensation, and to make the coming of Christ of no effect, to render signs and figures of the nature of the Gospel, which is inward, spiritual and eternal. If it be said, but they were used after the coming of Christ, and His ascension too: they answer, so were many Jewish ceremonies. It is sufficient to them that water baptism was John's, and not Christ's; that Jesus never used it; that it was no part of Paul's commission, which if it were evangelical and of duration, it certainly would have been; that there is but one baptism, as well as one faith, and one Lord; and that baptism ought to be of the same nature with the kingdom of which it is an ordinance, and that is spiritual The same holds also as to the supper, both alluding to old Jewish practices, and used as a signification of a near and accomplishing work, namely, the Substance they represented.
If any say, but Christ commanded that one of them should continue in remembrance of Him, which the apostle to the Church of Corinth explains thus: that thereby they do show forth the Lord's death till He comes. We allege that He said so. told His disciples also He would come to them again; that some should not taste death till they saw Him coming in the kingdom: and that He Who dwelleth with them, should be in them; and that He would drink no more of this fruit till He should drink it anew with them in the kingdom of God, which is within. He was the heavenly bread that they had not yet known, nor His flesh and blood as they were to know them. So that though Christ came to end all signs, yet till He was known as the Great Bread of life from heaven, signs had their service to show forth in remembrance of Christ. Paul says expressly of the Jewish observations, that they were shadows of the good things to come, but the Substance was of Christ.


Hence it is that the Quakers cannot be said to deny them, but they, truly feeling in themselves the very thing which the outward water, bread and wine signify, leave them off, as fulfilled in Christ, Who is in them the hope of their glory, and henceforth they have but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one bread, and one cup of blessing, and that is of the kingdom of God, which is within.

http://www.tractassociation.org/AKey.html#SEC10

[Felicity]

How will a person answer to God as to why they weren't baptized?

What excuse or reason (outside of not knowing) would be acceptable when the command and example is so straight forward and clear in scripture?

[mizpeh]

Believer,

I'm not sure why BD is still talking with you since you have yet to answer his questions that he asked you over 14 pages ago. Why don't you do so now?


You were asked these questions numerous times:

I asked him in a personal e-mail and on this thread. I would genuinely like to see what he believes.

1. Who and where was the "real church" from 500AD to 1500AD?

2. When, where, and by whom was the trinitarian theory of the Godhead established as the official dogma of the "real church"?

3. What is the earliest manuscript that indicates a fully developed "trinity" theory-doctine of the Godhead?

You would gain respect from people here is you would simply answer "I don't know" or give an answer that truly answers these questions instead of being evasive. BD even gave you examples of how to answer these questions acceptably. You act like you know what you are talking about but I think you are grandstanding.

[mizpeh]

Quote:

The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of Sabellian.

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

Remember you are suppose to post resoruces!!!

And, just because a council condemned "Sabellianism" isn't proof there was an nourmous contengent of "Sabellians." Beside, what happen to this teaching if it was so wide spread? Did the gates of hell over power them?

This is really getting old. It's obvious you have not been reading the stuff BD is posting. Here is the resource he listed back on post 125? http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=125

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This remnant "Oneness preservation throughout history" doctrine is extremely flawed ... especially since most traditional Oneness believers tout a 3 step process to salvation ... REPENTANCE, WATER BAPTISM IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST, AND THE BAPTISM OF THE HOLY GHOST W/ EVIDENCE IN SPEAKING IN OTHER TONGUES as requisites to be FULLY SAVED and RAPTURE READY ... as the truth to obeying the Gospel

BD, has made a futile effort to align today's Oneness movement w/ various individuals, who may have or may have not, held similar views to today's Oneness movement.

One problem w/ this approach is that some of these "Oneness" individuals held heretical views regarding the Godhead and other issues that would not be accepted or tolerated by either Oneness or Trinitarian believers today.

Others are equated to being Oneness believers ... with the suggestion that God has preserved his Truth through the generations through these men and those that followed them ... yet apparently THE CHURCH varied wildly on their views on salvation? .... can't be ... either they had THE TRUTH OR DIDN'T. EITHER THAT TRUTH SAVED THEM OR DIDN'T ....

For example, BD presents William Penn as a Oneness adherent ... therefore we are to believe he was in THE TRUTH [albeit as perceived by PAJC Oneness believers]...

REALLY?

Early Quakers, or the Religious Society of Friends, did not practice water baptism AT ALL... let alone did a baptizer utter the proper name of Jesus over a believer for the remission of sins ....

which means they weren't saved as many OPs would define saved .... and of course we know they didn't all speak in tongues ... although some believe they did.

Wiki states:
----------------------------------------

Early Friends did not believe in the reliance upon practice of the outward rites and sacraments, believing that holiness can exist in all the activities of one's life—all of life is sacred. They experienced baptism by the Holy Spirit as an inward, transforming experience and knew communion with Christ in the midst of gathered worship in the expectant silence. Thus they did not perform baptism as a rite of membership. These Friends also believed that any meal with others could be a form of communion.


At various times some individuals or small groups of Friends have published corrective cautions against adopting the prohibition of some rite as itself being creedal. The focus should be upon God as Present Teacher, rather than on some human ritual, or the absence of a ritual. Most Friends therefore do not prohibit rites or ceremonies, but they do counsel against allowing these human inventions to take the place of direct experience and leading by God.

Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Society_of_Friends
--------------------------------------------

Here are William Penn's own words on Water Baptism:

--------------------------------------------

Perversion 14: The Quakers deny the two great sacraments or ordinances of the Gospel, Baptism and the Supper.

Principle: Whatever is truly a Gospel ordinance, they desire to own and practice. But they observe no such language in the Scriptures as in the reflection. They do confess the practice of John's baptism and the Supper is to be found there; but practice only is no institution, nor a sufficient reason for continuation. That they were then proper, they believe, when the mysteries lay yet couched in figures and shadows. But it is their belief that no figures or signs are perpetual or of institution under the Gospel administration, when Christ, Who is the Substance of them, is come.

It were to overthrow the whole Gospel dispensation, and to make the coming of Christ of no effect, to render signs and figures of the nature of the Gospel, which is inward, spiritual and eternal. If it be said, but they were used after the coming of Christ, and His ascension too: they answer, so were many Jewish ceremonies. It is sufficient to them that water baptism was John's, and not Christ's; that Jesus never used it; that it was no part of Paul's commission, which if it were evangelical and of duration, it certainly would have been; that there is but one baptism, as well as one faith, and one Lord; and that baptism ought to be of the same nature with the kingdom of which it is an ordinance, and that is spiritual The same holds also as to the supper, both alluding to old Jewish practices, and used as a signification of a near and accomplishing work, namely, the Substance they represented.
If any say, but Christ commanded that one of them should continue in remembrance of Him, which the apostle to the Church of Corinth explains thus: that thereby they do show forth the Lord's death till He comes. We allege that He said so. told His disciples also He would come to them again; that some should not taste death till they saw Him coming in the kingdom: and that He Who dwelleth with them, should be in them; and that He would drink no more of this fruit till He should drink it anew with them in the kingdom of God, which is within. He was the heavenly bread that they had not yet known, nor His flesh and blood as they were to know them. So that though Christ came to end all signs, yet till He was known as the Great Bread of life from heaven, signs had their service to show forth in remembrance of Christ. Paul says expressly of the Jewish observations, that they were shadows of the good things to come, but the Substance was of Christ.


Hence it is that the Quakers cannot be said to deny them, but they, truly feeling in themselves the very thing which the outward water, bread and wine signify, leave them off, as fulfilled in Christ, Who is in them the hope of their glory, and henceforth they have but one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one bread, and one cup of blessing, and that is of the kingdom of God, which is within.

http://www.tractassociation.org/AKey.html#SEC10

Originally Posted by mizpeh

This is really getting old. It's obvious you have not been reading the stuff BD is posting. Here is the resource he listed back on post 125? http://www.apostolicfriendsforum.com...&postcount=125

Nice rebuttal Daniel, well done and to the point. oloroid

Originally Posted by Felicity

How will a person answer to God as to why they weren't baptized?

What excuse or reason (outside of not knowing) would be acceptable when the command and example is so straight forward and clear in scripture?

well, ask the thief on the cross!