Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

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

(New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766) its located at the end of my post.

Oh, I'm reading his posts, but his information is flawed, as Daniel recently pointed out.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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.

You mean he’s going by what he wants it to say, because his information isn't coming from a reliable source. If so he would have answered my email I sent asking him to validate his resources.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

or look at the Roman Catholic heresy, and the BILLIONS that followed them....

I was talking about "ONE" person, you're speaking about 2000 years years and billions of people. Huge difference.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Well, if you appeal to the Roman Catholic church "history", they were heretics!

Come on Bob, where is the honestly here. I have been staying completely away from any Catholic history just to prove my point. Are you not reading my resources?

Originally Posted by BobDylan

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).

Nothing against you personally but you're out of ammunition. Your whole argument is non sequitur.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

(New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766) its located at the end of my post.

Oh, I'm reading his posts, but his information is flawed, as Daniel recently pointed out.

BD is not in any way in this thread addressing water baptism in Jesus name nor the baptism of the Holy Spirit. BD is ONLY speaking about ONENESS adherents in history. So whatever DA is trying to prove (one of his pet projects) is not what BD is talking about through the entirety of this thread.

I wasn't asking for your resource. I was showing you the resource BD used regarding this statement in quotations which you accused BD of not giving a reference to. He gave the reference back in post # 125 and that is why I accused you of not reading his posts.

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.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Believer

(New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766) its located at the end of my post.

Oh, I'm reading his posts, but his information is flawed, as Daniel recently pointed out.

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

Remnant OP History at best is flawed ... and bordering on being a blatant falsehood.

Adino posted some more related info about this in another thread today.

This is simply not true. I grew up under the late Rev. Marvin M. Arnold. There was no one who had a greater passion to prove what you just offered to be true. He failed to find even a single witness, prior to preachers of the 20th century, who taught the water and spirit interpretation of the new birth as it is taught today in Oneness Pentecostalism.

Haywood, Ewart and others knew they were preaching something brand new and readily admitted this in their writings. In fact, Haywood's "progressive light doctrine" and Urshan's "kingdom of heaven vs kingdom of God" teaching were were developed to support the "newly revealed" position on salvation.

The late church historian, Rev. Marvin M. Arnold who wrote, "The Origin and Spread of Man," "History of the Christian Church," "Nicaea and the Nicene Council of AD 325," "Pentecost (Acts 2:38 in America) Before Azusa," "Apostolic History Outline" and "The Bible Trinity and Matthew 28:19" could not find a single witness to the current water/spirit interpretation. If someone else has succeeded where he failed, please show us the historical evidence.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Remnant OP History at best is flawed ... and bordering on being a blatant falsehood.

Adino posted some more related info about this in another thread today.

Prove it, Dan. Buy Chalfant's book and tear it apart by refuting what he says.

We are talking about Oneness in history on this thread not the new birth in history.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

BD is not in any way in this thread addressing water baptism in Jesus name nor the baptism of the Holy Spirit. BD is ONLY speaking to ONENESS adherents. So whatever DA is trying to prove (one of his pet projects) is not what BD is talking about through the entirety of this thread.

I wasn't asking for your resource. I was showing you the resource BD used regarding this statement in quotations which you accused BD of not giving a reference to. He gave the reference back in post # 125 and that is why I accused you of not reading his posts.

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

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.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Prove it, Dan. Buy Chalfant's book and tear it apart by refuting what he says.

We are talking about Oneness in history on this thread not the new birth in history.

The burden of proof is in your camp ... since it is y'all that have made the claim.

[SDG]

To separate the Oneness view w/ the New Birth as it pertains to baptismal formula is impossible to do ... the bulk of Oneness debate w/ Trinitarians is predicated on Jesus name baptism.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

The burden of proof is in your camp ... since it is y'all that have made the claim.

Dan wrote:

Remnant OP History at best is flawed ... and bordering on being a blatant falsehood.

This is YOUR claim, Dan. It's your burden of proof to disprove it.

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

To separate the Oneness view w/ the New Birth as it pertains to baptismal formula is impossible to do ... the bulk of Oneness debate w/ Trinitarians is predicated on Jesus name baptism.

That's true but this thread is only focused on one aspect of our beliefs.