Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

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

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

[mizpeh]

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 ...

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

Dan, I don't think you are really reading what BD is saying about history. Some of history has been edited to resemble the views of those in power. Aren't you a history major, don't you know these things to be true? Are there no historical revisionist in the past like there are today?

As for heresies, there are heresies in the Oneness camp in this day. It's easy to pick on a Oneness believer that may not believe what the norm accepts in the past and exploit their heretical views. We have such of our own in Oneness that believe in the annihilation of the sinner. That is not a majority view. Or those who say 'holiness standards' are believed by some to be salvational but others don't agree. Someone is being heretical in this regard to someone else. BD is just trying to prove there were Oneness folks all through history.

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

Dan, we're talking about the God of the Bible, why do you keep bringing up this red herring?

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.

I'm not a church historian and I have no way of proving what groups baptized in Jesus name or those who confessed 'glossalia'. But I will repeat, The Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting, and his truth endures to all generations. I believe wholeheartedly in the new birth being baptism in Jesus name and baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues as well as the Oneness of God. Therefore if what I believe is the truth of God's word, then he has preserved his truth down through the generations. Whether you can or cannot find historical proof will not sway me. Only proof that I'm wrong from the word of God will convince me otherwise.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Dan, I don't think you are really reading what BD is saying about history. Some of history has been edited to resemble the views of those in power. As for heresies, there are heresies in the Oneness camp in this day. It's easy to pick on the a Oneness believer that may not believe what the norm accepts such as Eliseus is Oneness but believes in the annihilation of the sinner. That is not a majority view. Or say 'holiness standards' are believed by some to be salvational but others don't agree. Someone is being heretical in this regard to someone else. BD is just trying to prove there are Oneness folks all through history.

Dan, we're talking about the God of the Bible, why do you keep bringing up this red herring?

I'm not a church historian and I have no way of proving what groups baptized in Jesus name or those who confessed 'glossalia'. But I will repeat, The Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting, and his truth endures to all generations. I believe wholeheartedly in the new birth being baptism in Jesus name and baptism in the Holy Spirit with the evidence of tongues as well as the Oneness of God. Therefore if what I believe is the truth of God's word, then he has preserved his truth down through the generations. Whether you can or cannot find historical proof will not sway me. Only proof that I'm wrong from the word of God convince me otherwise.

Red herring ... demons believe in the God of the bible.

Believe what you want Mizpeh .... your brickwall theology apparently is unable to flex ... there is no scripture that supports your position or history.

Furthermore some of the Oneness views are heretical in Christological substance ... views of the Godhead that you would not accept ....

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Red herring ... demons believe in the God of the bible.

Believe what you want Mizpeh .... your brickwall theology apparently is unable to flex ... there is no scripture that supports your position or history.

Furthermore soome of the Oneness views are heretical in substance ... views of the Godhead that you would not accept ....

As far as I know there are absolutely no views on who God is prior to the birth of Jesus that are heretical in the Oneness camp but there are many Christological views that I don't agree with. I have yet to find a Christological Oneness view that is complete and answers every question. It may never happen but that will not stop me from seeking to find the answers.

Demons cannot be saved. Though they have the correct view of God, their belief will not save them. They are in chains of darkness forever. This is a red herring.

[mizpeh]

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

If you want to call Oneness historians liars, go ahead. But you must prove them wrong or YOU are making false accusations. Read Chalfant's book and do your damage.

Show me where BD claimed that the PAJC view of the new birth can be traced through history on this thread.

[Praxeas]

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.

The bulk of "debate" is theological.. God, distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Ghost and the incarnation.

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

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.

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

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?

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

I am appealing to research performed and documented by Bro. Chalfant and Thomas Weisser. These are two very studious and scholarly historians of church history who base their conclusions on original research and analysis. How then can my argument be "non sequitur"? If you can disprove any of their research, the field is open to you... No, their conclusions are no corroborated in the Roman Catholic histories, but in both Chalfant's and Weisser's research, they cite research from many scholars who did original research themselves that do in fact corroborate their own work. You cannot prove the histories you cite any further than a general encyclopedic referece that itself does not document it's own statements. I suggest that you are out of ammunition, and that your whole argument is simply a parroted version of the subjective conclusion of biased historian commentaries. If you can disprove Chalfant or Weisser, you are welcome to do so, I will be all ears! I do not have their works at my disposal right now, but if you would like to quid pro quo this dialogue with direct references to their works and conclusions, I will be glad to get copies of their matierial as soon as I can!

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

The Roman Catholic church did not exist at the time of Sabellian.

The use of this composite term in place of the simple Roman, Romanist, or Romish; which had acquired an invidious sense, appears to have arisen in the early years of the seventeenth century. For conciliatory reasons it was employed in the negotiations connected with the Spanish Match (1618-1624) and appears in formal documents relating to this printed by Rushworth (I, 85-89). After that date it was generally adopted as a non-controversial term and has long been the recognized legal and official designation, though in ordinary use Catholic alone is very frequently employed. (New Oxford Dict., VIII, 766)

Remember you are suppose to post resoruces!!!

And, just because a council condemned "Sabellianism" isn't proof there was an nourmous contengent of "Sabellians." Beside, what happen to this teaching if it was so wide spread? Did the gates of hell over power them?

You yourself posted something along the sentiment that "the councils were convened to address serious issues facing the 'church'..." Then you listed a litany of councils, and the issues they were convened to address. The council of florence (appealing to your statemen) then convened in 1441 to address the "serious issue" of Sabellianism... Would bishops from all over the Roman Catholic empire gather together and convene to address an issue that was not widespread?

What happened? What ever happened to believers when they were being persucuted? Think hiding, refutge, catacombs etc. etc. etc.... they went into hiding (for a period of time, until the true doctrine reemerges with some other group labelled "heretical" by the Roman Catholics heretical church system.

[BobDylan]

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

It's almost like "Believer" is a cyberspace "bot" from the Roman Catholic church that scours the internet looking for oneness adherents and forums so that he can spout Roman Catholic rhetoric. I said it's "almost like". I know this isn't the case because I have exchanged personal e-mail with Believer, but his "answers" are so evasive and non engaging it makes one completely exhausted trying to deal with him...

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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

How can you make such presumptuous, disparaging, qne ignorant statements, with absolutely no research of your own or anyone else's to suggest where the "flaw" or "blatant falsehood" is?