Ancient Monarchians and Trinitarians

Originally Posted by mizpeh

Oneness agree that there is one God and God is one. There is no concensus on how the one God became man just many theories. So why should we be surprised there is not a concensus on this mystery in the early church? 1 Tim 3:6..without controversy great is the mystery of godliness...

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:NIV

By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: NASV

But do they agree on how God manifested Himself in the three modes? Do you believe what Sabllius taught?

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Believer

But do they agree on how God manifested Himself in the three modes? Do you believe what Sabllius taught?

More importantly did some of these "remnant" groups and teachers baptize in Jesus name, speak in other tongues, and practice standards holiness ... if not ... they aren't even saved!!!!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Believer

But do they agree on how God manifested Himself in the three modes? Do you believe what Sabllius taught?

I don't disagree with the description below. I might word it differently but for the most part, I agree. I believe God manifested himself in two modes of existence, Spirit and Man. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are relationship-type manifestations in His dealings with man as well as the Father/Son relationship of God and Christ whereas Sabellius dealt with manifestations that describe the works of God.

Sabellianism


In Christianity, a sectarian doctrine (see heresy) promoting an ultimate definition of monotheism in the 3rd and 4th centuries.
Sabellianism, or Modal Monarchianism as it also can be called, defined God as a single unity; that the Heavenly Father, the Resurrected Son (Christ) and the Holy Spirit were different modes or aspects of the one, single God, as if they were "faces" or "masks". Hence these three were not distinct persons or representations. God was a monad, an indivisible unity, and as Father he had expressed himself in Creation; God as the Son he had expressed himself in redemption of man; and God as the Holy Spirit he had expressed himself in sanctification.
In effect, Sabellianism claims that it was God himself who died on the cross. From this element in the doctrine, has another name been derived: Patripassianism.
Sabellianism points out that to God in the Bible, only the number One is ascribed. There is no mention of God being of the number Three.
Sabellianism was a rebellion against the Trinity, which often has been criticized as being a defection from Christian monotheism.
Sabellian doctrines would reoccur within Christianity up until modern times.
Information on Sabellianism is very uncertain, as the only surviving sources are from its opponents. Therefore, scholars judge the exact definitions of Sabellianism in a variety of ways.
HISTORY
Around 220: The ideas of Sabellianism is declared by Sabellius, who probably was a presbyter in Rome.
— Bishop of Rome, Calixtus, briefly expresses favourable reactions to the doctrines of Sabellius. He would change his mind, and turn against him.
250: Sabellianism emerges in Cyrenaica, representing an opposition to the influence of Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria.
Early 4th century: Arius accuses the bishop of Alexandria, Peter, of Sabellian sympathies.
http://lexicorient.com/e.o/sabellianism.htm

[SDG]

Did Sabellius teach sequential modalism, Believer?

[BobDylan]

Originally Posted by Believer

Do you also believe that he was Moses and Aaron was his brother? Shall I type out Hippolytus' refutation against Noetus?

Do you know that Hippolytus was rejected as Bishop of Rome, when the brethren of that district voted and approved of Callistus. Hippolytus then led a seperatist movement from the churches at Rome. He was in rebellion to the general established church at the time. Early Catholicism considered Hipplytus the "Antipope", but later when his doctrine was embraced (in spite of the monarchian beliefs of the then Bishop Callistus) as a "saint"? Should we therefore consider as validation against the monarchians a rebellious schismatic individual whom the Catholic church venerated as a saint? What makes his writings authoritative? How do we know that he is not misrepresenting Noetus' positions and teachings?

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Since you say the ONLY church in history are trinitarians, you must note that if all were trinitarians, there would have never been any "heretics". But the fact that there were "heretics" that opposed the CATHOLIC dogma, IS EVIDENCE of the existance of groups OTHER THAN trinitarian!!!!

I'm deleting some of this because its to long.

lets be clear... the church are not heretics, it is heretics that try to enter into the church and change its doctrine.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

"History only shows us..." Whose history? The Roman Catholic history? What about the Jewish historians? What about modern historians that examind the writings, movements, and motivations of writers in history? Have the ALL concluded that the only church was the Catholic church? There wasn't even a catholic church unitl circa 325 AD... and then it wasn't even officially trinitarian until about 381 AD.

You seem to think that the 6th or 7th century Catholic church was the same church as the 1st-5th? The Church was given the name Catholic because it was universal. You're beef is with the Roman Catholic church.

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Actually, their theology was very similar to what is taught today. But the fact that there are different concepts of the mechanics of the incarnation, does not negate that all of these teachers, past and present, hold the absolute monarch (oneness) of God.


You can take three oneness teachers today, and they will not all view every concept exactly. There are fundamental tenets that all oneness believers hold, the most important of which is this:
1.) the absolute numerical oneness of God's eternal nature

The differences in Sebellius, Noetus, and earlier monarchians, and todays monarchians only revolved around the "mechanics" of the incarnation of that ONE GOD in human flesh. "to wit, great is the mystery of godliness, God was manifest in the flesh"... (1 Tim 3:16)

The "mystery" is not how "God exists in eternity as three persons yet is one" (as the Catholics would have you believe)....

The mystery IS how the one singular God of creation and all eternity, manifest himself in real human flesh.

Other than that, all monarchians hold to the basic belief that God is eternally numerically, substantially, and personally ONE!

These men you hold in high esteem were consider heretics and were given the boot, just as the Oneness were by the AOG in 1916. The difference is, the teachings of Sebellius, Noetus died out. No matter how you slice this, the teaching of Oneness theology in whatever form you wish to present it, was only taught by very few men. It was never a Church doctrine!

[mizpeh]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Did Sabellius teach sequential modalism, Believer?

I thought he did too, but this article doesn't say that.

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

Did Sabellius teach sequential modalism, Believer?

He believed only in a successive trinity of revelation.

The revelation of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification. The Logos is not identified with the Son...... (Philip Schaff History of the Cathoic church vol, 2 3rd ed.)


He would not be welcome in any Oneness church today!

[SDG]

Originally Posted by Believer

He believed only in a successive trinity of revelation.

The revelation of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification. The Logos is not identified with the Son...... (Philip Schaff History of the Cathoic church vol, 2 3rd ed.)


He would not be welcome in any Oneness church today!

This is sequential modalism ... I think Talmadge French and some other Oneness theologians are simultaneous modalists ... they believe that God manifests in himself in these 3 modes simultaneously.

You're right Sabellius would get the boot today ... as the Divine Fleshers, Preterists and other "heretics" have

Originally Posted by BobDylan

Do you know that Hippolytus was rejected as Bishop of Rome, when the brethren of that district voted and approved of Callistus. Hippolytus then led a seperatist movement from the churches at Rome. He was in rebellion to the general established church at the time. Early Catholicism considered Hipplytus the "Antipope", but later when his doctrine was embraced (in spite of the monarchian beliefs of the then Bishop Callistus) as a "saint"? Should we therefore consider as validation against the monarchians a rebellious schismatic individual whom the Catholic church venerated as a saint? What makes his writings authoritative? How do we know that he is not misrepresenting Noetus' positions and teachings?

I don't think so, besides, it was Pope Callistus that excommunicated Sabellius.

I have some information right in front of me but I need to hit the sack.