Did church fathers Ignatius, polycarp, ignatius speak of trinitarian baptism?

  • Thread starter Thread starter joclucsylv
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Big Dummy and Not Worty…Mr. Oneness is at it again. I will copy and paste.Catholic Cardinal Newman’s Confession

John Henry Newman C.O. (21 February 1801 -11 August 1890[2][3]), also referred to as Cardinal Newman and Blessed John Henry Newman, was an important figure in the religious history of England in the 19th century. He was known nationally by the mid-1830s.[4]
Newman’s beatification was officially proclaimed by Pope Benedict XVI on 19 September 2010 during his visit to the United Kingdom.[1] His canonisation is dependent on the documentation of additional miracles.

(The following is an excerpt from a book by Harry A. Peyton:)

"Catholic Cardinal Newman confessed that God’s Modalist Monarchian Churches were in the vast majority for the first 400 years. The well known Catholic professor John Henry Cardinal Newman, in his work entitled Essays And Sketches, presented Catholicism as the original Church. But even he had to admit that the doctrines of the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Mass are not found in the Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still believed they were true. He defends them not from a Biblical point of view, but from the traditions of the early Catholic Fathers. He most definitely believed that the Bible must be interpreted by their writings, and only by their writings. He admonished all Protestants to accept by faith these Catholic doctrines, since they have accepted the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof. In volume one, he made the following statements:

"Newman asked Protestants, “Where was your Church before Luther?” The obvious and historical answer is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then proceeded by saying, “Take a large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine established their [meaning the Roman Catholic] religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism?” [137] The obvious answer is no. He then went on to prove that historically, by comparing the teachings of the Reformers with that of the Catholic Ante Nicene Fathers.

"After that, Father Newman made a very shocking confession. Let’s hear this Priest’s confession and see if He makes a good and true confession before we grant him absolution. He said, “all parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is not brought out in form upon the surface of Scriptures.”

“As I have said more than once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof are mere peculiarities of each sect [meaning different religious systems]; so that if all Protestants were to agree to put out of sight their respective peculiarities [meaning unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed set forth distinctly, clearly, and adequately, in Scripture; for take that single instance, which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity [for] it is not brought out in form in Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I ask how many of the verses of the Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture?" [138] The answer to Newman’s question is very few.

"Newman continued his confession and reproach of Protestants by saying, “He who admits the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in itself or in its proof ‑ who submits to the indirectness [meaning lack] of the Scripture evidence as regards that particular doctrine ‑ has a right to be told those other doctrines, such as the apostolic succession.” [139]

"Newman proceeded with his confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters of Catholicism by saying, “not Scripture, but history [meaning the tradition of the Ante Nicene Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine….” All Protestants “who consider the Bible as the one standard of faith,” meaning those who say they base their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition, “let no one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he will be what is commonly called an orthodox Protestant…, [if] he will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic Succession…; [for] this is an impossible position: it is shutting one eye, and looking with the other, shut both or open both.” [140]

"What confessor Newman is saying is this, since Protestants have accepted and believed the Catholic version of the Babylonian Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof, they then have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe by faith all other Catholic doctrines which are also not directly taught in the Bible, as he openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No matter what people may or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and true confession, for which God’s people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him absolution. Now, with the above truths in mind, let’s proceed with the history of God’s True Church.

"Newman made his greatest and boldest confession when he was scolding the Protestants about Luther’s protest. He referred them to the protest that was made by the one God Jesus’ Name Apostolic Christians, who believed all the godhead, i.e. the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, dwelt totally in one person, the Lord Jesus Christ. Newman said, "Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third century protested against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity… Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we read…their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and the true faith [Catholicism] was hardly preached in the churches.”
 
"This is the greatest confession of truth, I have ever read from any Protestant or Catholic minister. Newman clearly stated that the Catholic Churches, in the Roman Empire, were in the vast minority for over three hundred years, and the Modalist Monarchian Pentecostal Churches were in the majority. The truth is they were in the majority for almost four hundred years. Now, were did Newman read this about the true believers? He did not say. I will shortly show that he read this in the writings of Tertullian and Hippolytus
 
Wow. Is he confused or what? I’m pretty sure that Cardinal Newman made no such assertion that the Fathers were Modalist. Indeed, the opposite

"not Scripture, but history [meaning the tradition of the Ante Nicene Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine….”

The obvious meaning of Newman’s statement is that the tradition of the ante-Nicene Fathers is what gave us the doctrine of the Trinity.
 
You can download and search Newman’s An essay on the development of Christian doctrine for the word Trinity here,

books.google.com/books?id=yE47AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+henry+newman&hl=en&ei=fJ8oTrmvJ6-nsQLVrZ07&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=Trinity&f=false

Sabellius and therefore Modalism are condeemed on pages 300, 352 in Newman’s book

books.google.com/books?id=yE47AAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=john+henry+newman&hl=en&ei=fJ8oTrmvJ6-nsQLVrZ07&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=Sabellius&f=false

As for the Trinity being in scripture, I suggest you print out and study,

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity: An Outline Study
irr.org/trinity-outline.html (newist edition here)
spiritwatch.org/bowtrinout.htm (full page edition )

Here Newman speaks directly on what you are bringing up – see pages 10-15
newmanreader.org/works/development/introduction.html#trinity

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8145499

Newman’s works are easy to find online, and I don’t see where he claims that the early church were modalists.

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=John+Henry+Newman+works&aq=f&aqi=g1&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

google.com/#q=John+Henry+Newman&hl=en&tbm=bks&source=lnt&tbs=bkv:r&sa=X&ei=RacoTrfjAbCfsQKswJg7&ved=0CBEQpwUoAw&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=125b73b3dd3564fe&biw=1024&bih=468

These are the sources that paytons misquotes, doctrinesofchrist.com/

[40] Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pg 142.

[41] Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pp 218, 232.

[42] Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pg 205.

[43] Essays and Sketches, Newman, vol 1, pp 209, 232.

Those references do not stand up to muster of scholarship.

doctrinesofchrist.com/A%20History%20of%20Oneness%20Throughout%20the%20Centuries.htm#_edn39

onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupname?key=Newman%2C%20John%20Henry%2C%201801-1890

Essays Critical & Historical, Volume 1
John Henry Newman
newmanreader.org/works/essays/volume1/index.html

google.com/#hl=en&pwst=1&sa=X&ei=dqkoTo6jK4jksQKm1rg7&ved=0CBgQvwUoAQ&q=The+Works+of+John+Henry+Newman+Trinity+primitive+church&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468
 
A really interesting read for those who do not believe in the Trinity, and for those “Scripture only” persons is taken from the letter of Barnabus.

The reason it merits recognition is due to the fact that Barnabus is spoken of in Scripture, and worked with St. Paul directly…

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas******** “And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” (Letter of Barnabas 5)****.

When Saul the persecutor, later Paul the Apostle, made his first visit (dated variously from A.D. 33 to 38) to Jerusalem after his conversion, the Church there, remembering his former fierce spirit, was slow to believe in the reality of his conversion. Barnabas stood sponsor for him and had him received by the Apostles, as the Acts relate (9:27), though he saw only Peter and James, the brother of the Lord, according to Paul himself (Galatians 1:18-19). Saul went to his house at Tarsus to live in obscurity for some years, while Barnabas appears to have remained at Jerusalem. The event that brought them together again and opened to both the door to their lifework was an indirect result of Saul’s own persecution…

. …Catholic encylopedia for more, but it is for certain the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity!!!
 
A really interesting read for those who do not believe in the Trinity, and for those “Scripture only” persons is taken from the letter of Barnabus.

The reason it merits recognition is due to the fact that Barnabus is spoken of in Scripture, and worked with St. Paul directly…

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas

74 AD The Letter of Barnabas******** “And further, my brethren, if the Lord [Jesus] endured to suffer for our soul, he being the Lord of all the world, to whom God said at the foundation of the world, ‘Let us make man after our image, and after our likeness,’ understand how it was that he endured to suffer at the hand of men” (Letter of Barnabas 5)****.

When Saul the persecutor, later Paul the Apostle, made his first visit (dated variously from A.D. 33 to 38) to Jerusalem after his conversion, the Church there, remembering his former fierce spirit, was slow to believe in the reality of his conversion. Barnabas stood sponsor for him and had him received by the Apostles, as the Acts relate (9:27), though he saw only Peter and James, the brother of the Lord, according to Paul himself (Galatians 1:18-19). Saul went to his house at Tarsus to live in obscurity for some years, while Barnabas appears to have remained at Jerusalem. The event that brought them together again and opened to both the door to their lifework was an indirect result of Saul’s own persecution…

. …Catholic encylopedia for more, but it is for certain the early Church Fathers believed in the Trinity!!!
Denny…would you mind giving me the link. I want to make sure I get it right. Thank you for you help!!!
 
I don’t see anything in Barnabus 5:5 about the Trinity. Let’s face it in the early days of the Church the doctrine of the Trinity was not defined. And it would not be defined until the fifth century and even then it was only after establishing the divinity of Jesus and the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

What this Oneness preacher is doing is what the “know nothings” have always done. They say since there is no one espousing the doctrine of the Trinity before such and such date therefore the doctrine must have been invented on such and such date. They do the exact same thing with the doctrine of Transsubstantiation and even with the Canon of scripture. I say the best thing to tell this preacher man is to refer him to John 14:16:

“16And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16 RSV]

Then show him John 14:26:

“26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

These things Jesus said to the Apostles only. He had more disciples than just the Apostles but the other disciples did not receive these promises. Only the Apostles received these promises. There is no evidence at all that this teaching by the Holy Spirit ended on Pentecost or any other time in the past for Jesus said in John 14:16 that the Holy Spirit will be with the Apostles for ever. But the Apostles all died before 100AD. Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit would be with them until they died. He said FOR EVER

One more thing. Why subject yourself to his incessant attacks. Go on the offensive. Tell him to explain why Ignatius of Antioch and the other early church Fathers all taught that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood of of Jesus and his denomination denies it. Otherwise you will be pummelled by this guy with one false allegation after another.
 
I don’t see anything in Barnabus 5:5 about the Trinity. Let’s face it in the early days of the Church the doctrine of the Trinity was not defined. And it would not be defined until the fifth century and even then it was only after establishing the divinity of Jesus and the divinity of the Holy Spirit.

What this Oneness preacher is doing is what the “know nothings” have always done. They say since there is no one espousing the doctrine of the Trinity before such and such date therefore the doctrine must have been invented on such and such date. They do the exact same thing with the doctrine of Transsubstantiation and even with the Canon of scripture. I say the best thing to tell this preacher man is to refer him to John 14:16:

“16And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,” [John 14:16 RSV]

Then show him John 14:26:

“26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.”

These things Jesus said to the Apostles only. He had more disciples than just the Apostles but the other disciples did not receive these promises. Only the Apostles received these promises. There is no evidence at all that this teaching by the Holy Spirit ended on Pentecost or any other time in the past for Jesus said in John 14:16 that the Holy Spirit will be with the Apostles for ever. But the Apostles all died before 100AD. Jesus did not say the Holy Spirit would be with them until they died. He said FOR EVER

One more thing. Why subject yourself to his incessant attacks. Go on the offensive. Tell him to explain why Ignatius of Antioch and the other early church Fathers all taught that the Eucharist was the actual Body and Blood of of Jesus and his denomination denies it. Otherwise you will be pummelled by this guy with one false allegation after another.
Welp…I did go on the offensive. Yay me!! I did tell him that Ignatius has many writings on the Eucharist and if his denomination was truly apostolic, they would believe in the Eucharist as well. Thanks!!
 
OK…I hate to continually bug you with my problem, but you are the only ones who can help!! It’s obvious this guy will never change his mind, but my brother and I still feel the need to defend. At some point, my brother will have to put what Oneness man says about the RC to rest. Here goes. How do we reply to the following>>>>> You asked: Where is the documentation and proof that Apostolic Pentecostal churches existed 33-399. Answer: Not only existed but were in the majority. Earlier I sent y ou Encyclopedia (including the new Catholic Encyclopedia) which stated that the orginial form of baptism was into the name of Jesus and that the trinity and the triune formula of baptism came at a later date in history than the apostles. Did you even read that documentation? If so what do you think aout it? Here I show that, according to one of your own, that during the time of “Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius – Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa, …that their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and the true faith [Catholicism] was hardly preached in the churches.” What does “then and at an earlier date” mean to you? According to Cardinal Newman. the Modalist doctine “PREVAILED” in the churches during the time of Praxeas (150-220), Noetus (130 - 220+), and Sabellius (third century) and Earlier. Those of the “Catholic Faith” were in the vast minority.
 
You raised 5 points in your first post here. You asked: “Why was Sabellius excommunicated for his modalist belief?” Answer: He was not. History does not say why the Bishop of Rome excommunicated him. Wace and Bunsen have both suggested that Calixtus’ action was motivated more by a desire for unity rather than by conviction.[2] One thing we know is that it was not over his teaching on the deity of Christ because his bishop believed as he did. Callixtus was a modalist. We have the anti-pope Hippolytus’’ testimony for that plus the Bishop’s clear teaching. Most feel he tried founding a school in Rome in opposition to the existing one.
8 hours ago · LikeUnlike
 
You said: “I think my sister and I have proven to you BEYOND a doubt that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement were trinitarians.” Answer:I grant you that you may believe that but nothing could be further from the truth; and here are the reasons: 1. There are three versions of Ignatius’ letters: short, long, and Syriac. What do you think: that he wrote three versions of his letters to the church at Ephesus. It is the oppinion of scholarship that he wrote the short version and neither the long version nor the Syriac are his but was written by later Catholic writers to make him sound as though he was one of them. You see, in manuscript scholarship it is always the shorter version of a document that is generally consider the orginial. The version Lucy quoted from Ignatius was not the orginial. 2. There is no trinitarian thought in either of the Apostolic Fathers listed above; 3 lastly, but most importantly the trinity had yet to be formulated in the time of the Apostiolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement). They could not have been trinitarian since no one was at that time. Now you can challenge me on this, I understand, but in doing so you will fly in the face of all scholarship: Modalist, Protestant, and Catholic. As an honest lay person of the RC you should be asking yourself the question: If my faith was not held my the apostles, the Apostolic Fathers,. nor the Ani-Nicene Fathers ( all the Anti-Nicene Fatehr, Tertulian, Hippolytus, etc were not trinitarian as is understood today. Hippolytus was more a two person man, while Tertulliean believed in an economical trinity: both were subordinationists : belief that Jesus was God but a lesser God that the Father) where did it come from and does it deserve my loyality?
 
@Denis. You wrote: “Mr. Hayes…please look at your source. Harry Payton is modalist!!” Denis, of course he is. That was the very reason I sent you his book and quoted from it in the note above. Now I am very careful about useing our own scholarship because I have enough sense to know that one should not get caught up in ones own press, (Smile). But, be honest: you and Lucy have done nothing but present RC documents for your arguments. I try to present the truth from other sorces than Modalist writers. That is why I sent you this quote from Cardinal Newman. Moses said: Our God is not like their god, even our enimies being witness. I hope you are enjoying these exchanges.
 
Denis. You wrote: "Oh…and please tell me why you love the Holy Bible so much? It was put together by the Catholic Church after the doctrine of the trinity came out. I would like that question answered please and thank you! :)’ Well… since yuou said ‘please and thank you,’ 🙂 I am not sure what you mean by, “It was put together by the Catholic Church.” It would be easy for one to interpret this as the RCC wrote and published the Bible. Surely, that is not your meaning; …is it? Both you and Lucy have brought this point up several times. One wonders why! Those whom the RCC claim as their fathers have, on several occassions, held councils to validate the canon. Denis, the best that can be said is that they did just that. They validated the uses of books that had been in use by both the apostolics (modalist) and the Catholic. To say that the RCC gave us the Bible is the very height of arrogance. We need to acknowledge that one of the main criterial for the councils to consider when accepting a book’s canonicity was whether or not it had proven itself useful to the Church by long use. So, since believers (both modalist and catholic) had been using the canon from earliest times and then the Catholic, years later, hold a council to say these are the books we accept can not, to any senseable person be conscrued to mean that that particular council of Catholic bishops “gave” us the Bible. Anyone with one eye and walking around sense can see that. Now, what these bishops did do in regard to the Old Testament is include the OT Apocrypha that was not accepted as Jewish canon for verious reasons. Jesus, nor the apostles, nor any NT writer ever quoted from the Apocrypha. For these reasons the Protestants did not include it in their Bibles.
 
@Denis. The Modalist Bishop Meltio gives a list of OT books that do not include the Apocrypha. Eusebius’ record of Melito
Melito’s canon is found in Eusebius EH4.26.13–14[3]:
Accordingly when I went East and came to the place where these things were preached and done, I learned accurately the books of the Old Testament, and send them to thee as written below. Their names are as follows: Of Moses, five books: Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Leviticus, Deuteronomy; Jesus Nave, Judges, Ruth; of Kings, four books;[4] of Chronicles, two; the Psalms of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Wisdom also, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job; of Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah; of the twelve prophets, one book ; Daniel, Ezekiel, Esdras. From which also I have made the extracts, dividing them into six books. Melito’s list almost fully corresponds to the Jewish Tanakh and Protestant canon, and does not include additional books which are found in the Greek Septuagint. (Meltio lived in the mid 2nd century and died in ad 180).
5 hours ago · LikeUnlike · 1 person
Loading…
 
Interestingly, you said:“It (the canon) was put together by the Catholic Church after the doctrine of the trinity came out” Are you, then, accepting that the doctrine of the trinity was a late developement in and of the church, AFTER THE DEATH OF THE APOSTLES?
 
You said: “I think my sister and I have proven to you BEYOND a doubt that Ignatius, Polycarp and Clement were trinitarians.” Answer:I grant you that you may believe that but nothing could be further from the truth; and here are the reasons: 1. There are three versions of Ignatius’ letters: short, long, and Syriac. What do you think: that he wrote three versions of his letters to the church at Ephesus. It is the oppinion of scholarship that he wrote the short version and neither the long version nor the Syriac are his but was written by later Catholic writers to make him sound as though he was one of them. You see, in manuscript scholarship it is always the shorter version of a document that is generally consider the orginial. The version Lucy quoted from Ignatius was not the orginial. 2. There is no trinitarian thought in either of the Apostolic Fathers listed above; 3 lastly, but most importantly the trinity had yet to be formulated in the time of the Apostiolic Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement). They could not have been trinitarian since no one was at that time. Now you can challenge me on this, I understand, but in doing so you will fly in the face of all scholarship: Modalist, Protestant, and Catholic. As an honest lay person of the RC you should be asking yourself the question: If my faith was not held my the apostles, the Apostolic Fathers,. nor the Ani-Nicene Fathers ( all the Anti-Nicene Fatehr, Tertulian, Hippolytus, etc were not trinitarian as is understood today. Hippolytus was more a two person man, while Tertulliean believed in an economical trinity: both were subordinationists : belief that Jesus was God but a lesser God that the Father) where did it come from and does it deserve my loyality?
Tell me something. Are you really Catholic? I ask because in reading some of your posts I get the very distinct impression that you are not really Catholic. Take for instance your last sentence in the above post:

“Hippolytus was more a two person man, while Tertulliean believed in an economical trinity: both were subordinationists : belief that Jesus was God but a lesser God that the Father) where did it come from and does it deserve my loyality?”

You ask if something the church decided thousands of years ago was heretical deserves your belief.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top