Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Do you like the book? I think I might order it.

Originally Posted by Willy Jacks

Sir, isn't Paul Hattaway a Trinitarian?

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.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

for one, you can't replace monarchian with oneness because you think that we fit with that...

for two, trinitarians believe in one rule, too... See, at the end of the day, the trinity still affirms that there is only one God in heaven...

Originally Posted by BobDylan

The term "monarchian" was coined by Hippolytus (who is trinitarian) to refer to the "one-God" people that opposed his trinitarian theology. In other words, in history, the trinitarians called the one-god people (you and I) monarchian.

That is if YOU are indeed a "one-God" person.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

I sense that it upsets you that all sources don't agree with what you want them to say. The facts are there, you can't accept them or not. I only offer what I find in the many different studies from many different authors. The Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity does mention the "The Key of Truth." It states, "They influenced some Radical Reformers in the sixteenth century and a copy of their doctrinal manual, The Key of Truth, was circulating in Russian Armenia in the nineteenth century.

I plan on going to the library today and checking more sources. I'm afraid that the verdict will remain the same. But, if I do find anything else I will post it.

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?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

I sense that it upsets you that all sources don't agree with what you want them to say. The facts are there, you can't accept them or not. I only offer what I find in the many different studies from many different authors. The Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity does mention the "The Key of Truth." It states, "They influenced some Radical Reformers in the sixteenth century and a copy of their doctrinal manual, The Key of Truth, was circulating in Russian Armenia in the nineteenth century.

I plan on going to the library today and checking more sources. I'm afraid that the verdict will remain the same. But, if I do find anything else I will post it.

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.

[BobDylan]

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?

Probably not. What would be most likely is that trinitarians would be represented in history as tritheist (which by some trini theologean's writing, it would indicate as much - i.e. Dake). The same goes by the monarchians in history. They have simply been represented as "heretical". But to whom are they heretical? The Roman Catholic church, and that's it.

The Paulicians were misrepresented as dualists, but this could simply be the Roman Catholic interpretation of their distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. The histories written about the Paulicians are not conclusive. The resources you cite and are looking to are not conclusive. The only thing that can be conclusive as to their teaching is their own statement of faith, "
The Key of Truth". Let's take a look at that and see if they were indeed dualist.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

They don't claim that Jesus wasn't deity until after his baptism.... that is a misrepresentation of what they claim.... the one thing that IS historically accurate, that they claimed, was they there was ONE God... and they DO believe that Jesus was divine (i.e. that one God)

how exactly do you know exactly what a group who existed only 1700+ years ago believed???

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

how exactly do you know exactly what a group who existed only 1700+ years ago believed???

We can conclude a historic group's beliefs from their writings, AND from those who wrote against them. How do you know what people from today beleive? How do you know what the apostles believed?

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by redeemedcynic84

It would be really easy for a church to preach what most Protestant groups preach by and large thorugh most of the dark ages and not get found out...

I find this statement hard to swallow.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Probably not. What would be most likely is that trinitarians would be represented in history as tritheist (which by some trini theologean's writing, it would indicate as much - i.e. Dake). The same goes by the monarchians in history. They have simply been represented as "heretical". But to whom are they heretical? The Roman Catholic church, and that's it.

The Paulicians were misrepresented as dualists, but this could simply be the Roman Catholic interpretation of their distinction between the humanity and deity of Christ. The histories written about the Paulicians are not conclusive. The resources you cite and are looking to are not conclusive. The only thing that can be conclusive as to their teaching is their own statement of faith, "
The Key of Truth". Let's take a look at that and see if they were indeed dualist.

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.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Believer

I sense that it upsets you that all sources don't agree with what you want them to say. The facts are there, you can't accept them or not. I only offer what I find in the many different studies from many different authors. The Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity does mention the "The Key of Truth." It states, "They influenced some Radical Reformers in the sixteenth century and a copy of their doctrinal manual, The Key of Truth, was circulating in Russian Armenia in the nineteenth century.

I plan on going to the library today and checking more sources. I'm afraid that the verdict will remain the same. But, if I do find anything else I will post it.

It never ceases to amaze me when someone starts insisting someone i supset or angry...especially when that person didn't swear or lash out or use all capital letters...but as though they could just "hear" the tone in their voice they claim they can sense the other person is upset. If the facts and the truth are enough there would be no reason to say things like that.