Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

My Rebuttal was not just soteriological in nature ... but shows flaws even if the claim is that Oneness Christological survived the generations ...

You called that a "rebuttal"? I stated that William Penn was oneness, and you "rebut" this FACT by showing that he didn't view baptism or the Holy Ghost the exact same way we do? I call that a distraction, not a rebuttal...

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

By keeping this view you are accepting heresies ... none of us want to be associated with

Demons and Muslims believe in One God ... but we don't want to be spoken in the same sentence as them.

Either realize that your definition of the Church is flawed or that your entire view of theology underwent an apostasy and re-appeared in the early 20th century. The latter would be similar to the argument of the Mormons.

What do you suggest Dan? Who and where was the real church from between 400AD to 1500AD?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Sorry Mizpeh ... you're obfuscating.... these remarks are part of an overall rebuttal to BD's earlier claims ... it's called cause and effect ....

You're too smart for this ... either give irrefutable evidence ... or accept this historical view is flawed or perhaps a falsehood. oloroid

Irrefutable evidence of what? That there were monarchians throughout history? I think many of the citations that I referenced heretofor speak for themselves. If you are attempting a rebuttal, you are clearly rebutting a straw man... because what you rebut has nothing to do with the information that I presented.

[SDG]

As for Chalfant and others who claim they have "discovered" an unbroken timeline of Oneness believers it's just no so ....

We are having this same discussion here:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...372#post236372

I suggest we can continue this discussion there as there are other Oneness believers who do not accept this theory and perhaps BD/Praxeas and Mizpeh can set them straight too. That way this thread can go back on topic?

Adino and Pelathais have made stirring arguments against this false teaching. Here is one post by Pelathais:

I no longer have Weisser's, Arnold's or Chalfant's books available to me. All three writers are known for having published various timelines where they purported to show the unbroken existence of the "water/Spirit" or "3 Stepper Plan." Of the three I have met Arnold and Chalfant.

I do remember one occasion at a Symposium on Oneness Pentecostalism where Chalfant was challenged about his writings and he responded with real earnest that he was deliberately following a strategy that he called "extrapolation." That is, he felt that the standard historical sources were unreliable even in their description of the "heretics" own message. Therefore, using Matthew 16:18 as his guide he assumed that anyone being persecuted by religious authorities throughout history must have been practicing Acts 2:38 salvation.

This kind of thinking leads to our people making statements like the following:

"The slander and religionists smearing of the ApostolicChurch is the way investigators were able to discover the true church during each century. All that researchers had to do was look at those groups that the Catholic Church were against. Who and what were these HERETICS? They were surprised to find that almost all of them were Jesus Name Pentecostals. These so called Heretics used many organizational names, throughout the centuries as we will discover in this study. Such names as Donatist, Samosatene, Celtic Christianity, Albigensians, Anabaptist, Cathari[,] Mani, Noetus, Priscillianism, Sabellians, are just a few of the Jesus Name Organizations that have been alive and well since the Day of Pentecost."

The last three groups or individuals did appear to practice a "Oneness" type of theology, but their soteriology probably differed. But sprinkling them in among the others is just bad scholarship. They don't belong together, they're entirely different types of beliefs.

We in fact have the actual documents created by many of these groups. Donatist, Albigensians (whose elite were called the Cathari) and Anabaptists. They clearly did not identify themselves with "Sabellianism" or any such teachings. The Albigensians were Gnostic dualists. They rejected the Trinity because they felt that the god who created the material world was evil. That was why Jesus Christ was "manifest" (not born). The immaterial Christ (sort of like 'heavenly flesh') prepared a way for those with the hidden knowledge (Gr. gnosis) to escape the designs of the "evil" Jehovah. This is clearly Gnosticism and not anything even close to Oneness theology.

[SDG]

Adino talking authoritatively about Oneness historian's M Arnold's books on the topic of "Remnant History" states:

I began sitting under Marvin Arnold around 1968-69. I stayed in the church he founded in Utica, Michigan until about 1995 without interruption. In fact, I proofread some of his work.

While Marvin Arnold was able to find traces throughout history (some highly questionable at times) of certain doctrinal distinctives used in the development of the water/spirit new birth position, he was never able to find the water/spirit doctrine as it is presented today.

Marvin Arnold saw the shortcomings of the "progressively revealed light" theory taught by early Oneness pioneers like G.T. Haywood and Frank Ewart. This theory taught that God chose to progressively disperse varying degrees of spiritual understanding during seven dispensational periods of human history. Haywood believed the newly revealed truth given to 20th century Oneness pioneers was the climax of this dispensational dispersion of spiritual light from heaven.

Haywood states,

"Very few will agree with us on this subject at the first, but if they will lay aside the doctrine of men, and for a moment remove their thoughts from the abnormal state of the present day Christianity, they will find no trouble in grasping the truth AS IT IS NOW REVEALED to many of the children of God in these closing days of the Gospel dispensation."

Frank Ewart said it this way:

"He [God] first gave the true light to a few, and then signally expressed His approval by a startling revival through the instrumentality OF THE NEW TEACHING."

Marvin Arnold rejected the idea that initial doctrinal tenets disappeared for nearly 2000 years and that newly revealed knowledge from heaven brought about a restoration of the true first century Apostolic church with its original doctrinal nuances in 20th century America. He held fast to the idea that God had a perpetually existing witness throughout the ages and that the true Apostolic church, with its original doctrinal tenets, never died.

His passionate mission was to prove this continuity by tracing through the historical record what he believed to be the doctrinal earmarks of the 1st century Apostolic church. Ironically, he might have succeeded had he not adopted Haywood and Urshan's conclusions on the new birth. But, because he too accepted the "three step" progressive new birth position, which was their legacy to Oneness Pentecostalism, he failed to find a single witness in history who taught repentance and faith, water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ, and Spirit filling evidenced by speaking in tongues as necessary doctrinal components which together constituted the saving new birth.

Yes, he did find throughout the ages adherents to anti-Trinitarian theology holding views of the nature of God similar to views held by early Oneness pioneers (Though other historians agree that some, if not many, of his examples were a bit of a reach and contrived).

Yes, he did find people who baptized in the name of Jesus Christ by full immersion (Yet it must be conceded that Trinitarians did this as well. In fact, the sermon on water baptism in the name of Jesus Christ which prompted Frank Ewart to more deeply study the nature of God was preached by R. E. McAlister, a Trinitarian man, hoping to head off the growing heresy of requiring people to be dipped three times at baptism).

Yes, he did find historical witness of groups who spoke in other tongues and experienced other Spirit manifestations in their Christian walk. He even found historical examples of people who combined two or more of these doctrinal distinctives found in modern Oneness Pentecostalism.

So, again, how did he fail? He failed just as all others who made the attempt have failed. Marvin Arnold was never able to provide historical witness prior to G.T. Haywood and Andrew Urshan of anyone ever teaching that man must repent, be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and be Spirit filled with the evidence of speaking in tongues in order to be saved. The record of history shows these doctrinal tenets were not connected as components of the new birth until Haywood and Urshan began teaching their newly revealed doctrine from heaven.

Frank Ewart, Glenn Cook, G.T. Haywood, Andrew Urshan and others of their time greatly influenced current Oneness Pentecostal soteriology. Their writings show a progressive development in their thinking concerning the new birth.

Frank Ewart began to redefine the new birth by rejecting the sufficiency of Christ's imputed righteousness at conversion and by demanding a secondary experience of the Spirit which he called "the vital side of redemption" because he believed all men were "born of Satan." He also strongly promoted the "new issue" which forced a split from those who went on to form the Assemblies of God in early American Pentecostalism.

Glenn Cook, the man who baptized Ewart and Haywood, had been raised under the influence of men who followed the teachings of Alexander Campbell. Campbellites stressed baptismal sin remission rather than justification by faith alone by disregarding very plausible and grammatically sound alternative interpretations of Acts 2:38.

G.T. Haywood, under the influence of Ewart and Cook turned his back on his initial thoughts penned in 1914 that "as soon as we believe, they [our sins] become as white as snow." He ultimately arrived at a mistaken view of the new birth when he tried to repair a misuse of the terms "baptism of the Spirit" and "birth of the Spirit" in American Pentecostalism. In his noble attempt he erroneously drew speaking in tongues into the conversion experience and began to promote the new "walking in the light" theory of dispensational salvation.

Andrew Urshan did his best to explain the whole mess and came up with the "kingdom of God" VS "kingdom of heaven" controversy.

Does the absence of a historical witness and the questionable beginnings of the "three step" view in America prove it to be wrong? No, it does not, I believe an objective look at Scripture does this, but any serious study on the issue should begin with a proper understanding of this view’s heritage.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

As for Chalfant and others who claim they have "discovered" an unbroken timeline of Oneness believers it's just no so ....

We are having this same discussion here:
http://apostolicfriendsforum.com/sho...372#post236372

I suggest we can continue this discussion there as there are other Oneness believers who do not accept this theory and perhaps BD/Praxeas and Mizpeh can set them straight too. That way this thread can go back on topic?

Adino and Pelathais have made stirring arguments against this false teaching. Here is one post by Pelathais:

Okay, Dan, I've done as you've asked. Although I don't think I will have set anyone straight.