Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Thanks for the nice words Mizpeh. I just wish Beleiver wouldn't have been banned. If he would have attempted following my thought processes, I think he would have either soon found himself admittedly in a quagmire of false inclinations, or he would have incessantly resorted unquestioningly to biased ecclesiastical history to hold together his postion. Well, maybe in 7 days we can get back into the discussion. I wish St. Matthew would have understood. For instance, say we deal with the trinitarians one at a time.... as long as they don't assume an offensive posture we can keep them around. But when they start getting offensive and lashing out etc. then we can ban them.... for some of the trinitarians out there, the only way they are going to be in contact with "thinking" apostolics are on forums like this!

Well it's obvious he was evading your question. I would have liked to have seen the discussion played out. But I'm not sure he would have responded to your question with anything of substance, just more evasion. I doubt he will want to openly finish this discussion to prevent being banned again. Maybe you can speak to him in pm's.

I've read Tertullian's Against Praxeas and started reading Hippolytus's Against the Heresies but got side tracked. This conversation has sparked my interest again. What reference materials do you suggest on early church history?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Well it's obvious he was evading your question. I would have liked to have seen the discussion played out. But I'm not sure he would have responded to your question with anything of substance, just more evasion. I doubt he will want to openly finish this discussion to prevent being banned again. Maybe you can speak to him in pm's.

I've read Tertullian's Against Praxeas and started reading Hippolytus's Against the Heresies but got side tracked. This conversation has sparked my interest again. What reference materials do you suggest on early church history?

I strongly suggest anything Bro. Willam B.Chalfant has published. He is very pointed in his opinions, and some may disagree, but his histories are immensely informative. He documents everything he writes, so you can reference the material yourself effeciently without having to trudge through nonconsequential stuff... Thomas Weisser is also very good.

[pelathais]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

This is an Apostolic forum. We do not allow the promotion of the trinitarian doctrine here in any shape or form. We will allow Believer to come back in 7 days, but we will not allow the promotion of this doctrine here.

With all due respect... he wasn't proselytizing. How can a Trinitarian engage here with giving his side of the argument?

I think the ban is unfair and counter-productive.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I strongly suggest anything Bro. Willam B.Chalfant has published. He is very pointed in his opinions, and some may disagree, but his histories are immensely informative. He documents everything he writes, so you can reference the material yourself effeciently without having to trudge through nonconsequential stuff... Thomas Weisser is also very good.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by pelathais

With all due respect... he wasn't proselytizing. How can a Trinitarian engage here with giving his side of the argument?

I think the ban is unfair and counter-productive.

Since you are still fairly new, I would like to remind you that if you feel Admin has done something wrong, or unjust, please feel free to use the report button and let us all know.

Now, the issue here is this is not an Apologistic forum. It is a place where folks that believe in the very basic core doctrine of the Oneness of God, and Jesus name baptism (Apostolic). We may differ on when salvation occurs. We may differ whether standards are biblical. We may even differ whether Jesus is still a man, or completely God at this point. But Oneness and Jesus name baptism being scripturally correct is not up for debate here. This is where we have drawn our line.

We are, however, reviewing this within the Admin Area, and because Believer is a new poster will likely remove his ban, and allow him to return.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by pelathais

With all due respect... he wasn't proselytizing. How can a Trinitarian engage here with giving his side of the argument?

I think the ban is unfair and counter-productive.

No comment.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Are you suggesting even if their Godhead theory or other doctrinal theories are heretical they are still Oneness brethren?.. as long as the ends justify the means then it's okay? ....

Let's not forget that demons, Muslims and even *gasp* Trinitarians believe God is one ..

I'm only commenting on Oneness theories concerning the Son, God manifest in flesh. The oneness doctrine of God has to do with who and what God is. I'm not sure what you mean by 'other doctrinal theories'

Trinitarians believe in one God but not that God is one, as in one singular consciousness who declares Himself to be "I AM". Their one God is three persons. I'm also narrowing this down to the God of the Bible so that eliminates Muslims. Demons know who God is, what does that have to do with mankind and our understanding of God?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Since you are still fairly new, I would like to remind you that if you feel Admin has done something wrong, or unjust, please feel free to use the report button and let us all know.

Now, the issue here is this is not an Apologistic forum. It is a place where folks that believe in the very basic core doctrine of the Oneness of God, and Jesus name baptism (Apostolic). We may differ on when salvation occurs. We may differ whether standards are biblical. We may even differ whether Jesus is still a man, or completely God at this point. But Oneness and Jesus name baptism being scripturally correct is not up for debate here. This is where we have drawn our line.

We are, however, reviewing this within the Admin Area, and because Believer is a new poster will likely remove his ban, and allow him to return.

Allowing trinitarians on here, IMO, would be a good thing to help the oneness thinkers keep their skills sharp, and help us prepare answers for trinitarians that we are to encounter in the real world. I have always appreciated dialogues that I have had with JW's, Baptists, various other denominational and trinitarian groups because they all bring different angles of arguments to the table. Much of my learning and understanding truth is the responses I have had to prepare in real-life encounters with people who don't believe just like me.

Also, there are numerous apologetic diatribes on everything to pants/skirts, TV/noTV etc. etc. etc. the list goes on and on. This IS an "apologistic" forum like it or not. I would have enjoyed continuing the conversation with our good friend "Believer".... although in private e-mails I have exchanged with him he sounds like he was more interested in debating than really understanding truth...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

I'm only commenting on Oneness theories concerning the Son, God manifest in flesh. The oneness doctrine of God has to do with who and what God is. I'm not sure what you mean by 'other doctrinal theories'

Trinitarians believe in one God but not that God is one, as in one singular consciousness who declares Himself to be "I AM". Their one God is three persons. I'm also narrowing this down to the God of the Bible so that eliminates Muslims. Demons know who God is, what does that have to do with mankind and our understanding of God?

To Daniel:
If someone affirmatively declares that there is only ONE God in all eternity, and that One God is absolutely and indivisibly ONE... in his eternal essense and nature, I would suggest that person is oneness.

"Heretical" doctrines about the incarnation (i.e. adoptionism, dualism, divine flesh, monophysitism) etc. may be subjective of the individuals involved in the discussion. For instance, an individual who emphasized the humanity of Christ might be labeled "adoptionist" by an opposing group. Or someone who emphasizes the deity of Christ might be called "patripassion" or "nestoria" by another group... Both of which ARE Monarchian "theories". The problem here is that many times egos, and agendas get involved, debate tactics are employed, and in an effort to "win" the argument, one or the other is labeled a "heretic", when in fact they hold to ONE GOD... this is the misfortune of dealing with limited humanity on this subject!

[mizpeh]

It appears Believer is unbanned. Maybe he'll come back and answer your question.

The Reformer's doctrines weren't around during the centuries when orthodoxy was defined by the Roman Catholic Church. The 'church' of history was the Roman Catholic church. Believer needs to reconsider what is the church and where was it in history? Unless of course, he's a member of the RCC.

Believer isn't able to find his 'church' during the rule of the RCC before the reformers. He can't find a Oneness church nor a reformers church from 500-1500 so what has he proved in trying to discredit that Oneness died out with Sabellius and has only had a recent resurgence post Azuza street since he can't find his 'church' among the orthodox in that time frame?