Monarchians in History

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Lets take one at a time. Of course I already know what you're going to say. You will disagree with what I post and you will present a reason that is invalid.

The Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians.

Chap. VI. — Preserve Harmony.

Since therefore I have, in the persons before mentioned, beheld the whole multitude of you in faith and love, I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony,13 while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed.

According to Ignatius, Jesus Christ was with the Father before the beginning of time, and the end was revealed.


The Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians.

Chap. XII. — Exhortation to Various Graces.
For I trust that ye are well versed in the Sacred Scriptures, and that nothing is hid from you; but to me this privilege is not yet granted.17 It is declared then in these Scriptures, “Be ye angry, and sin not,” (Psa_4:5) and, “Let not the sun go down upon your wrath.” (Eph_4:26) Happy is he who remembers18 this, which I believe to be the case with you. But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who “raised Him from the dead. (Gal_1:1) Pray for all the saints. Pray also for kings, (Comp. 1Ti_2:2) and potentates, and princes, and for those that persecute and hate you, (Mat_5:44) and for the enemies of the cross, that your fruit may be manifest to all, and that ye may be perfect in Him.


But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God.

I don't have a problem with any of the wording here from Ignatius or Polycarp. Both writers emulate the style of writing of the NT writiners. The "Word" was "with" God... and the Word WAS God. The problem here for you is that these early Christians understood the distinction between the humanity of Christ, and the omnipresent spirit that filled the universe. And oneness today believe that distinction. Many of us could easily write similar phrases as you see Polycarp and Ignatius writing, distinguishing between the humanity of Christ, and the omniresent YHWH, but we refrain becuase of the common language and misunderstanding of trinitarian. The key thing to note here in both of the selections you cite, is that niether of them present a "trinity" doctrine, simply a distinction between "father" and "son" (which we understand and agree with).

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Noetus said and believed a lot of things Oneness do not believe today.

Against Noetus: A refutation by Hippolytus A.D. 205

Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna (and) lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. ye see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. Forth his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he blasphemes against the Holy Ghost cast out from the holy inheritance. He alleged that he was himself Moses, and that Aaron was his brother...."

I probably wouldn't be using Noetus as proof. Also, Praxeas was a pupil of Noetus. As far as I know Oneness do not believe that the Father was born, suffered and died. Do you believe that Bob?

I don't have a problem with Noetus at all. The issue for you is that Hippolytus was Noetus nemesis and detractor. It is very likely that he either misunderstood, or completely misrepresented what Noetus taught. Plus, if you would understand, the person who is the father became the son And yes, that person who was the father and became the son, died on the cross! Now Hippolytus would take that statement of mine, and come to the same conclusion. Praise God for early oneness monarchians such as Noetus!

Originally Posted by Believer

Chapter XVIII.-God the Father and His Word Have Formed All Created Things (Which They Use) by Their Own Power and Wisdom, Not Out of Defect or Ignorance. The Son of God, Who Received All Power from the Father, Would Otherwise Never Have Taken Flesh Upon Him.

For the Creator of the world is truly the Word of God: and this is our Lord, who in the last times was made man, existing in this world, and who in an invisible manner contains all things created, and is inherent in the entire creation, since the Word of God governs and arranges all things; and therefore He came to His own in a visible164 manner, and was made flesh, and hung upon the tree, that He might sum up all things in Himself. "And His own peculiar people did not receive Him," as Moses declared this very thing among the people: "And thy life shall be hanging before thine eyes, and thou wilt not believe thy life."165 Those therefore who did not receive Him did not receive life. "But to as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God."166 For it is He who has power from the Father over all things, since He is the Word of God, and very man, communicating with invisible beings after the manner of the intellect, and appointing a law observable to the outward senses, that all things should continue each in its own order; and He reigns manifestly over things visible and pertaining to men; and brings in just judgment and worthy upon all; as David also, clearly pointing to this, says, "Our God shall openly come, and will not keep silence."167 Then he shows also the judgment which is brought in by Him, saying, "A fire shall burn in His sight, and a strong tempest shall rage round about Him. He shall call upon the heaven from above, and the earth, to judge His people."

Chapter XVIII.-Continuation of the Foregoing Argument. Proofs from the Writings of St. Paul, and from the Words of Our Lord, that Christ and Jesus Cannot Be Considered as Distinct Beings; Neither Can It Be Alleged that the Son of God Became Man Merely in Appearance, But that He Did So Truly and Actually.


1. As it has been clearly demonstrated that the Word, who existed in the beginning with God, by whom all things were made, who was also always present with mankind, was in these last days, according to the time appointed by the Father, united to His own workmanship, inasmuch as He became a man liable to suffering, [it follows] that every objection is set aside of those who say, "If our Lord was born at that time, Christ had therefore no previous existence." For I have shown that the Son of God did not then begin to exist, being with the Father from the beginning; but when He became incarnate, and was made man, He commenced afresh the long line of human beings, and furnished us, in a brief, comprehensive manner, with salvation; so that what we had lost in Adam-namely, to be according to the image and likeness of God-that we might recover in Christ Jesus.

Yes, it is clear that Iraneaus was a "logos" theologean, a pre-trinitarian. The writing here that you cite seems more to implicate Iraneaus as a dualist, rather than a trinitarian. Where did Iraneaus present a full trinitarian statement? Even the source I cite calls Iraneaus an early trinitarian, so I don't have a problem with what you present here either! Thanks for proving my point, that the trinitarian and pretrinitarian theology didn't even begin to take root until late into the 2nd century and 3rd centuries.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

How does this address what was posted by Believer?

Besides, can YOU show proof of any Oneness churches (not individuals) during those dates? You are asking someone else to prove something you can't prove. You want everyone to think you have a good point, but it’s meaningless if your proof isn’t there. Besides, your question was answered in the other thread.

200 AD....PRAXEAS...(the following are Tertullian's words about what Praxeas believed) ...."As in respect to the O.T., they hold to nothing else but "I am God and there is none other beside me, so in respect to the gospel they defend the response of the Lord to Phillip.."I and the Father are one, he who seeth me seeth also the Father" and again "I am in the Father and the Father in me". He (Praxeas) asserts that Jesus Christ is God and Father Almighty....so that all in one person they (the Praxeans) distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be the flesh , that is man, that is Jesus, and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ."....Praxeas views were said to be those of the majority of the Christians of that day.

200 AD. TERTULLIAN ..... "The Son I derive from no other source but from the substance of the Father. The Spirit is third from God and the Son." (a disciple of Justin Martyr's) Even Tertullian admitted that the "simple people..who always are a majority of the faithful..shy at the economy (ie..distinction of persons)......"and indeed it (immersion) is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names.


Tertullian, the first real trinitarian, affirmed that the monarchians were the "majority" of the believers in his time.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

I wonder if Bob seen this web site?

MONARCHIANISM. Down to the end of The second century, not only the Logos doctrine, but also the conception of Christ as the Son of God, pre-existing before the creation of the world, was the exclusive possession of a few theologians

Yes, I originally posted this same link on the "Monarchian and Trinitarian" thread.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

200 AD....PRAXEAS...(the following are Tertullian's words about what Praxeas believed) ...."As in respect to the O.T., they hold to nothing else but "I am God and there is none other beside me, so in respect to the gospel they defend the response of the Lord to Phillip.."I and the Father are one, he who seeth me seeth also the Father" and again "I am in the Father and the Father in me". He (Praxeas) asserts that Jesus Christ is God and Father Almighty....so that all in one person they (the Praxeans) distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be the flesh , that is man, that is Jesus, and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ."....Praxeas views were said to be those of the majority of the Christians of that day.

200 AD. TERTULLIAN ..... "The Son I derive from no other source but from the substance of the Father. The Spirit is third from God and the Son." (a disciple of Justin Martyr's) Even Tertullian admitted that the "simple people..who always are a majority of the faithful..shy at the economy (ie..distinction of persons)......"and indeed it (immersion) is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the Three Persons, at each several mention of their names.


Tertullian, the first real trinitarian, affirmed that the monarchians were the "majority" of the believers in his time.

Bob, I was told in PM that I needed to post addresses to my post when I quote something.

There is more to this than many people realize, and one that you're not bring to anyones attention. The Monarchians that Terullian was speaking out against taught and believed that the Father was born, suffered and died.

His role led him to oppose a man named Praxaes, who was a Monarchian (one King) and labeled a patripassian (the father suffered) heretic. Praxaes was patripassian. He believed that if Jesus was to be God manifested in the flesh, it would mean that the Father of Jesus suffered on the cross. This is what the majority of the simple were led to believe. Is this what you believe today?

Schaff describes his theology as follows:

Praxaes, constantly appealing to Is. 45:5; Jno. 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"), and 14:9 ("He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"), as if the whole Bible consisted of these three passages, taught that the Father himself became man, hungered, thirsted, suffered, and died in Christ. True, he would not be understood as speaking directly of a suffering (pati) of the Father, but only of a sympathy (copati) of the Father with the Son; but in any case he lost the independent personality of the Son. He conceived the relation of the Father to the Son as like that of the spirit to the flesh. The same subject, as spirit, is the Father; as flesh, the Son. He thought the Catholic doctrine tritheistic (Schaff, Volume II, p. 577).

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I don't have a problem with any of the wording here from Ignatius or Polycarp. Both writers emulate the style of writing of the NT writiners. The "Word" was "with" God... and the Word WAS God. The problem here for you is that these early Christians understood the distinction between the humanity of Christ, and the omnipresent spirit that filled the universe. And oneness today believe that distinction. Many of us could easily write similar phrases as you see Polycarp and Ignatius writing, distinguishing between the humanity of Christ, and the omniresent YHWH, but we refrain becuase of the common language and misunderstanding of trinitarian. The key thing to note here in both of the selections you cite, is that niether of them present a "trinity" doctrine, simply a distinction between "father" and "son" (which we understand and agree with).

You are adding to the text. There is nothing said about humanity and Omnipresent spirit. nice try though. There are plenty other writings that would refute this thought.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Bob, I was told in PM that I needed to post addresses to my post when I quote something.

Jaroslav Pelikan,? The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600).? Vol. 1 in The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine.? (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 177.

Originally Posted by Believer

There is more to this than many people realize, and one that you're not bring to anyones attention. The Monarchians that Terullian was speaking out against taught and believed that the Father was born, suffered and died.

I don't have a problem with this statement. The person who is the father (i.e. YHWH), came to earth and was manifest in human flesh. This human being, Jesus Christ, was the exact same person (i.e. YHWH) in real humanity. Thus ineffect, YHWH came to earth as a man, and died on a cross, and as a man was resurrected by the eternal spirit (again, the same YHWH). Tertullian didn't understand and is misrepresenting, or rather not fully representing, the modalist view here. The singular person who is the father from all eternity, took on flesh and became the son, lived, died, and resurrected, not as the father, but as the son. Irregardless, it is the same singular identity (YHWH)that was God from all creation and eternity.

Originally Posted by Believer

His role led him to oppose a man named Praxaes, who was a Monarchian (one King) and labeled a patripassian (the father suffered) heretic. Praxaes was patripassian. He believed that if Jesus was to be God manifested in the flesh, it would mean that the Father of Jesus suffered on the cross. This is what the majority of the simple were led to believe. Is this what you believe today?

I do not believe it the way it was misreprenten here. But the fundamental theology behind "patripassionism" I have no problem with. The majority didn't believe the "father suffered". The majority believed that the father came to earth as a man, and as a man (i.e. the son) he suffered... Tertullian, in his efforts to disparage and disregard Prax. Noetus, and Sabellian theologies misrepresented their teaching. He was promoting his trinitarian concept to the disregard of the truth!

Originally Posted by Believer

Schaff describes his theology as follows:

Praxaes, constantly appealing to Is. 45:5; Jno. 10:30 ("I and my Father are one"), and 14:9 ("He that hath seen me hath seen the Father"), as if the whole Bible consisted of these three passages, taught that the Father himself became man, hungered, thirsted, suffered, and died in Christ. True, he would not be understood as speaking directly of a suffering (pati) of the Father, but only of a sympathy (copati) of the Father with the Son; but in any case he lost the independent personality of the Son. He conceived the relation of the Father to the Son as like that of the spirit to the flesh. The same subject, as spirit, is the Father; as flesh, the Son. He thought the Catholic doctrine tritheistic (Schaff, Volume II, p. 577).

This is a very objective and acceptible representation of Praxeas' theology. One with which I personally agree.

2 Cor 5:19
19 To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself,
KJV

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

You are adding to the text. There is nothing said about humanity and Omnipresent spirit. nice try though. There are plenty other writings that would refute this thought.

I didn't add anything to the text. I simply stated that I don't have a problem with primative Christians regarding the distinction between the father and son, as that between God and Jesus Christ. The bible writers did this WITHOUT INTRUDUCING A TRINITY.

[Scott Hutchinson]

Here is something I found that is very interesting.
http://qaz1.bannerland.org/wordpress?p=28

Originally Posted by BobDylan

I didn't add anything to the text. I simply stated that I don't have a problem with primative Christians regarding the distinction between the father and son, as that between God and Jesus Christ. The bible writers did this WITHOUT INTRUDUCING A TRINITY.

I don't have a problem with any of the wording here from Ignatius or Polycarp. Both writers emulate the style of writing of the NT writiners. The "Word" was "with" God... and the Word WAS God. The problem here for you is that these early Christians understood the distinction between the humanity of Christ, and the omnipresent spirit that filled the universe. And oneness today believe that distinction. Many of us could easily write similar phrases as you see Polycarp and Ignatius writing, distinguishing between the humanity of Christ, and the omniresent YHWH, but we refrain becuase of the common language and misunderstanding of trinitarian. The key thing to note here in both of the selections you cite, is that niether of them present a "trinity" doctrine, simply a distinction between "father" and "son" (which we understand and agree with).

You are making an assumption that these writing have this meaning. Go back and read them again.