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.
inkaneer said:
That is what the OP claims but is that really the case? The OP claims to be Catholic but shows a far better understanding of Oneness theology than Catholic theology. I find that to be very telling. So far all we have seen is a constant ranting of Oness theology. Seems to me the OP has been given enough evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity. The mere fact the Church formally defined it should be proof enough for any Catholic. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter one iota if anyone had a different opinion on it BEFORE its formal definition. No one ever claimed the early church writers were infallible. Tertullian went from paganism into Christianity and ended up a Montanist. Even the great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, held different opinions on matters that were only later formally defined. Augustine said it best. Rome has spoken, get over it! [Okay I paraphrased].

.
Click to expand...
The OP is indeed catholic. …her brother married the daughter of a oneness pentecostal pastor, who converted to Catholicism, now the fahter is trying to get her daughter back to Oneness. The OP is asking for our help.

The posts you see are the responses her brother receives in refuting the f in l. I visited the f n l’s FB page, and my gosh, the other links posted there are all anti-catholic websites. It looks all they read and cite are from such websites.
 
Big_Dummy said:
You may want to give exact links to what book you are using, so none are confused.

Thanks
Click to expand...
Hi, Big D…for a big d, you demonstrate such a depth of knowledge…:D…:clapping::tiphat:

And maybe you can help me, I have been looking for this letter by Pope Dionysius mentioned here…to help the OP refute the Oneness…

Pope St. Dionysius in **259 AD wrote a public letter to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria in which he condemned the errors of Sabellius and the tritheist Marcion. **The significance of this document lies in the fact that it paved the way for the Church’s later teaching, notably in the famous councils that dealt with the person of Christ. The popes led the way in defending the revealed mystery of the Trinity and in explaining its meaning, long before ecumenical councils entered the controversy. Even a few sentences from the pope’s letter will show the intransigence of the Church and her sureness of mind about the Trinity:

I have been scouring the internet but not have been successful so far.
 
inkaneer said:
That is what the OP claims but is that really the case? The OP claims to be Catholic but shows a far better understanding of Oneness theology than Catholic theology. I find that to be very telling. So far all we have seen is a constant ranting of Oness theology. Seems to me the OP has been given enough evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity. The mere fact the Church formally defined it should be proof enough for any Catholic. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter one iota if anyone had a different opinion on it BEFORE its formal definition. No one ever claimed the early church writers were infallible. Tertullian went from paganism into Christianity and ended up a Montanist. Even the great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, held different opinions on matters that were only later formally defined. Augustine said it best. Rome has spoken, get over it! [Okay I paraphrased].

.
Click to expand...
One should give the original poster the benefit of the doubt. They may simpy be trying to clear away doubts and get rid of thinking patterns that were developed and encouraged in a oneness church.

For example, there is a board that are ex UPC, who are simply dealing with the abuses they experience in those churches, no theoloy
expentecostalforums.yuku.com/

The Stop Spiritual Abuse site is related to ex UPCers.
 
pablope said:
Hi, Big D…for a big d, you demonstrate such a depth of knowledge…:D…:clapping::tiphat:

And maybe you can help me, I have been looking for this letter by Pope Dionysius mentioned here…to help the OP refute the Oneness…

Pope St. Dionysius in **259 AD wrote a public letter to Bishop Dionysius of Alexandria in which he condemned the errors of Sabellius and the tritheist Marcion. **The significance of this document lies in the fact that it paved the way for the Church’s later teaching, notably in the famous councils that dealt with the person of Christ. The popes led the way in defending the revealed mystery of the Trinity and in explaining its meaning, long before ecumenical councils entered the controversy. Even a few sentences from the pope’s letter will show the intransigence of the Church and her sureness of mind about the Trinity:

I have been scouring the internet but not have been successful so far.
Click to expand...
First some background,

newadvent.org/cathen/05009b.htm

unchecked sources that came up in google search – may not be related.
ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/index.htm#Dionysius_the_Areopagite
ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/areopagite_07_preface.htm
ehr.oxfordjournals.org/content/XXV/XCVII/114.extract
documentacatholicaomnia.eu/03d/0450-0525,_Dionysius_Areopagita,_Works,_EN.pdf
gutenberg.org/files/36539/36539-h/36539-h.htm
monachos.net/content/patristics/patristictexts/141-denys-letters1-4
archive.org/details/cu31924005838747
download this and read page 188
archive.org/details/antenicenechris26donagoog
archive.org/details/antenicenechris25donagoog
books.google.com/books/about/The_three_literary_letters.html?id=HWkMAAAAIAAJ
sacred-texts.com/chr/dio/index.htm
ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/3018.html
google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-2665675471425577%3A4654561773&ie=UTF-8&q=Dionysius&sa=Search
tertullian.org/fathers/areopagite_08_letters.htm
ccel.org/ccel/pearse/morefathers/files/dionysius_alexandria_letters.htm
google.com/search?q=Dionysius+letters&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en#sclient=psy&hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7ADBF_en&source=hp&q=Dionysius+letters&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Dionysius+letters&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=468

google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=esqb,ratio&xhr=t&q=Bishop+Dionysius+of+Alexandria+wrote+his+letter+to+Ammonius+and+Euphranor&cp=74&qe=QmlzaG9wIERpb255c2l1cyBvZiBBbGV4YW5kcmlhIHdyb3RlIGhpcyBsZXR0ZXIgdG8gQW1tb25pdXMgYW5kIEV1cGhyYW5vciA&qesig=WMl1_n0-ceAOGPfzsCQVwA&pkc=AFgZ2tlIauZ6okoStZ9C1-L-4gDNTN5xpr_oLXpEEYzla0mhMfc5dFxja2g2zqBYViZdwaMpeNJcymcYty_37T0SHTUJU2bXAw&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Bishop+Dionysius+of+Alexandria+wrote+his+letter+to+Ammonius+and+Euphranor+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=468

google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=esqb,ratio&xhr=t&q=Bishop+Dionysius+of+Alexandria++Ammonius++Euphranor&cp=41&qe=QmlzaG9wIERpb255c2l1cyBvZiBBbGV4YW5kcmlhICBBbW1vbml1cyAgRXVwaHJhbm9yIA&qesig=_H-Rue2JtGCLVn48Q1zIGA&pkc=AFgZ2tlIauZ6okoStZ9C1-L-4gDNTN5xpr_oLXpEEYzla0mhMfc5dFxja2g2zqBYViZdwaMpeNJcymcYty_37T0SHTUJU2bXAw&pf=p&sclient=psy&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Bishop+Dionysius+of+Alexandria++Ammonius++Euphranor+&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=468&bs=1

third-millennium-library.com/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Councils-of-the-Church.html

google.com/search?q=Dionysius+letters&rls=com.microsoft:en-us:IE-Address&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sourceid=ie7&rlz=1I7ADBF_en#hl=en&sugexp=esqb,ratio&pq=dionysius%20letters%20sabellius&xhr=t&q=synod%20%20Rome%20about%20260&cp=6&qe=c3lub2QgIFJvbWUgYWJvdXQgMjYw&qesig=Lior5CoGX388_HZ6d5dPCg&pkc=AFgZ2tlTO42pe0krUWZtjN6UsW8Mbb_zGSVftPk7LKWiyArvOAcJ093JHEQ_14RO3t_BVNid5FHRPbc7YrzA_gpRE8xpKm4KUA&pf=p&sclient=psy&rls=com.microsoft:en-us%3AIE-Address&rlz=1I7ADBF_en&source=hp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=synod++Rome+about+260&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=468&bs=1

Ok this is the search that found it,

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=sabellius%20Dionysius%20Marcionites&aq=&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=468&pf=p&pdl=3000

christiandefense.org/oneness_c.hstoy.htm *****

readinghall.org/Western-Civilization-Jewels/HEFELE/Book-1/7-8.html
christianbookshelf.org/athanasius/select_works_and_letters_or_athanasius/chapter_vi_authorities_in_support_of.htm
Dionysius bishop of Rome: AGAINST THE SABELLIANS
Click to expand...
christiandefense.org/Dionysius.htm
 
Dionysius bishop of Rome: AGAINST THE SABELLIANS
Click to expand...
Code: 
Dionysius bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 262)  wrote a short epistle to condemn the Modalism of Sabellius. His Against the Sabellians dispatch, also served the purpose of disambiguating and defining Trinitarian theology:
Click to expand...
  1. Now truly it would be just to dispute against those who, by dividing and rending the monarchy, which is the most august announcement of the Church of God, into, as it were, three powers, and distinct substances (hypostases), and three deities, destroy it. For I have heard that some who preach and teach the word of God among you are teachers of this opinion, who indeed diametrically, so to speak, are opposed to the opinion of Sabellius. For he blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father, and vice versa; but these in a certain manner announce three gods, in that they divide the holy unity into three different substances, absolutely separated from one another. For it is essential that the Divine Word should be united to the God of all, and that the Holy Spirit should abide and dwell in God; and thus that the Divine Trinity should be reduced and gathered into one, as if into a certain head–that is, into the omnipotent God of all. For the doctrine of the foolish Marcion, which Gilts and divides the monarchy into three elements, is assuredly of the devil, and is not of Christ’s true disciples, or of those to whom the Saviour’s teaching is agreeable. For these indeed rightly know that the Trinity is declared in the divine Scripture, but that the doctrine that there are three gods is, neither taught in the Old nor in the New Testament.
Click to expand...
  1. But neither are they less to be blamed who think that the Son was a creation, and decided that the Lord was made just as one of those things which really were made; whereas the divine declarations testify that He was begotten, as is fitting and proper, but not that He was created or made. It is therefore not a trifling, but a very great impiety, to say that the Lord was in any wise made with hands. For if the Son was made, there was a time when He was not; but He always was, if, as He Himself declares, He is undoubtedly in the Father. And if Christ is the Word, the Wisdom, and the Power,–for the divine writings tell us that Christ is these, as ye yourselves know,–assuredly these are powers of God. Wherefore, if the Son was made, there was a time when these were not in existence; and thus there was a time when God was without these things, which is utterly absurd. But why should I discourse at greater length to you about these matters, since ye are men filled with the Spirit, and especially understanding what absurd results follow from the opinion which asserts that the Son was made? The leaders of this view seem to me to have given very little heed to these things, and for that reason to have strayed absolutely, by explaining the passage otherwise than as the divine and prophetic Scripture demands. “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways.” For, as ye know, there is more than one signification of the word “created;” and in this place “created” is the same as “set over” the works made by Himself–made, I say, by the Son Himself. But this “created” is not to be understood in the same manner as “made.” For to make and to create are different from one another. “Is not He Himself thy Father, that hath possessed thee and created thee?” says Moses in the great song of Deuteronomy. And thus might any one reasonably convict these men. Oh reckless and rash men! was then “the first-born of every creature”
Click to expand...
something made?–“He who was begotten from the womb before the morningstar?”–He who in the person of Wisdom says, “Before all the hills He begot me?” Finally, any one may read in many parts of the divine utterances that the Son is said to have been begotten, but never that He was made. From which considerations, they who dare to say that His divine and inexplicable generation was a creation, are openly convicted of thinking that which is false concerning the generation of the Lord.
Click to expand...
  1. That admirable and divine unity, therefore, must neither be separated into three divinities, nor must the dignity and eminent greatness of the Lord be diminished by having applied to it the name of creation, but we must believe on God the Father Omnipotent, and on Christ Jesus His Son, and on the Holy Spirit. Moreover, that the Word is united to the God of all, because He says, “I and the Father are one;” and, “I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.” Thus doubtless will be maintained in its integrity the doctrine of the divine Trinity, and the sacred announcement of the monarchy
Click to expand...
christiandefense.org/Dionysius.htm
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That is what the OP claims but is that really the case? The OP claims to be Catholic but shows a far better understanding of Oneness theology than Catholic theology. I find that to be very telling. So far all we have seen is a constant ranting of Oness theology. Seems to me the OP has been given enough evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity. The mere fact the Church formally defined it should be proof enough for any Catholic. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter one iota if anyone had a different opinion on it BEFORE its formal definition. No one ever claimed the early church writers were infallible. Tertullian went from paganism into Christianity and ended up a Montanist. Even the great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, held different opinions on matters that were only later formally defined. Augustine said it best. Rome has spoken, get over it! [Okay I paraphrased].
pablope said:
The OP is indeed catholic. …her brother married the daughter of a oneness pentecostal pastor, who converted to Catholicism, now the fahter is trying to get her daughter back to Oneness. The OP is asking for our help.

The posts you see are the responses her brother receives in refuting the f in l. I visited the f n l’s FB page, and my gosh, the other links posted there are all anti-catholic websites. It looks all they read and cite are from such websites.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I don’t understand your terminology. What is f n l? And why does it surprise you that someone who is anti-Catholic would have anti Catholic material on their site? If the OP is truly Catholic then the response should be the same response given by Augustine, The Church has addressed this issue over 1500 years ago and formally defined the doctrine of the Trinity. What people didor did not believe before that formal definition matters does not matter. The argument posed by this bigot is therefore mute. Also, it seems to me that the OP, if they are indeed Catholic and in light of their repeatedly saying they are not well catechized, should be seeking to build their knowledge of Catholicism instead of being a sounding board for some anti Catholic bigotry. I suggest the OP enroll in a RCIA class. I also suggest, if the scenario we are given is correct, that she and her family distanced themselves from this bigot even if it means severing family ties. Having good family relations at the expense of one’s faith is not a good thing salvation wise.
 
Big_Dummy said:
One should give the original poster the benefit of the doubt. They may simpy be trying to clear away doubts and get rid of thinking patterns that were developed and encouraged in a oneness church.

For example, there is a board that are ex UPC, who are simply dealing with the abuses they experience in those churches, no theoloy
expentecostalforums.yuku.com/

The Stop Spiritual Abuse site is related to ex UPCers.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I am wrong but I recollect that the OP said she * and her brother were cradle Catholics albeit not even rudimentary catechized. Her brother supposedly married the daughter of a Unitarian minister and she [the daughter] converted to Catholicism. I don’t recall the OP saying she was once a Unitarian. Will someone please post the number of the post where the OP claimed to be other than Catholic.

In any event I gave the answer to the OP about the terminology of “baptizing in Jesus’ name” back in post # 13. It is still valid. Here it is:

"Undoubtedly this minister is saying that one should be baptized in the name of Jesus only. This is unscriptural as Jesus clearly states one should be baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. See Mt 28:19. What this minister is doing is taking the term “in the name of Jesus” literally. Really the term means to babtize in Jesus’ authority or by the authority of Jesus. Remember there was also John’s baptism which someone else pointed out . We know that baptism in John’s name was ineffective because there was no authority behind it. But Baptism in Jesus’ name had the authority of God to make it effective. Baptism in the authority of Jesus was Trinitarian Baptism just as Jesus said in MT 28:19. Furthermore, we see this term “in the name of Jesus” used in different situations not related to baptism. In Acts 16:18 we read where Paul used the term to cast out an evil demon “in the name of Jesus Christ” :

“18 And this she did for many days. But Paul was annoyed, and turned and said to the spirit, “I charge you in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her.” And it came out that very hour.”

Again in 1 Corinthians 5:3-4 Paul pronounces judgement “in the name of Jesus”. In
2Th 3:6 Paul commands the Thessalonians in the “name of Jesus”

“6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from any brother who is living in idleness and not in accord with the tradition that you received from us.”

This term is really no different than what we see today. In the old cops and robbers stories the police were always telling the bad guys to “Stop in the name of the law”. They were citing the law as their authority enabling them to do their duty. That is what Paul was doing in 1 Corinthians and 2 Thessalonians only his authority was not the law but Jesus Christ.*
 
inkaneer said:
That is what the OP claims but is that really the case? The OP claims to be Catholic but shows a far better understanding of Oneness theology than Catholic theology. I find that to be very telling. So far all we have seen is a constant ranting of Oness theology. Seems to me the OP has been given enough evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity. The mere fact the Church formally defined it should be proof enough for any Catholic. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter one iota if anyone had a different opinion on it BEFORE its formal definition. No one ever claimed the early church writers were infallible. Tertullian went from paganism into Christianity and ended up a Montanist. Even the great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, held different opinions on matters that were only later formally defined. Augustine said it best. Rome has spoken, get over it! [Okay I paraphrased].

.
Click to expand...
inkaneer…for Pete’s sake. I am Catholic. I am trying to refute a Oneness minister. What you see is his letters to my brother. Mr. Oneness man’s daughter who converted to catholicism is trying to win her back to Oneness. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you will understand more. I NEVER heard of ONENESS before these people entered my life. Big Dummy…I haven’t been on for a couple days. I plan on reading everything tonight. Again…thank you!!
 
Big_Dummy said:
One should give the original poster the benefit of the doubt. They may simpy be trying to clear away doubts and get rid of thinking patterns that were developed and encouraged in a oneness church.

For example, there is a board that are ex UPC, who are simply dealing with the abuses they experience in those churches, no theoloy
expentecostalforums.yuku.com/

The Stop Spiritual Abuse site is related to ex UPCers.
Click to expand...
No need to give me benefit of doubt. I was born Catholic, married Catholic and will die Catholic. Big Dummy get hooked up to fb just so you can see his newest writings on his wall. I haven’t read his newest writing yet but it is calle historical evidence of oneness churches. I can’t even stand looking at his picture…he makes me want to throw up. I can’t stand how he is deceiving people. facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=150716141646703&id=100001249534722&notif_t=like#!/notes/jerry-lynn-hayes/apostolic-pentecostal-churces-were-in-the-vast-majority-from-33-399-ad/10150251605611433.

Now here is something I thought of last night. Will these people enter heaven? I know we are not God…and probably should not speculate but I am curious on opinions. They love Jesus, but they are just mislead. I just want to slap these people in the head and tell them to wake up lol!!! Anyways Big Dummy…I can copy and paste his latest writing if you are interested.

I have told my brother to unfriend him on fb. I told him to live his life and not amuse Mr. Oneness. We don’t have time for his bs.
 
Luther removed books of the bible. What are those books called. Now…it is my understanding they were found in the dead sea scrolls years later. Am I near right on this. I asked Mr. Oneness if for the first 1500 years they used a Catholic bible and then after Luther decided to go with the protestant one. Don’t know what his response is yet.
 
Big_Dummy said:
Hi joclucsylv, if you and your brother have not done so, I highly recommend you both go over this bible study because I think it may go further than church father quotes.

The Biblical Basis of the Doctrine of the Trinity
An Outline Study
Robert M. Bowman, Jr.
spiritwatch.org/bowtrinout.htm
irr.org/trinity-outline.html Use Next for next page in study.
Click to expand...
Can’t argue that point Big Dummy!!! We did take a class on the Old Testament with our AMAZING priest. He is soon going to have one on the New Testament which we will both take.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
Sorry but I don’t understand your terminology. What is f n l?
JM3 said:
f n l = father in law
Click to expand...
Aaaaaaaahhhh, texting, where even the illiterate can communicate [sort of]. I see now.
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That is what the OP claims but is that really the case? The OP claims to be Catholic but shows a far better understanding of Oneness theology than Catholic theology. I find that to be very telling. So far all we have seen is a constant ranting of Oness theology. Seems to me the OP has been given enough evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity. The mere fact the Church formally defined it should be proof enough for any Catholic. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter one iota if anyone had a different opinion on it BEFORE its formal definition. No one ever claimed the early church writers were infallible. Tertullian went from paganism into Christianity and ended up a Montanist. Even the great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, held different opinions on matters that were only later formally defined. Augustine said it best. Rome has spoken, get over it! [Okay I paraphrased].
joclucsylv said:
inkaneer…for Pete’s sake. I am Catholic. I am trying to refute a Oneness minister. What you see is his letters to my brother. Mr. Oneness man’s daughter who converted to catholicism is trying to win her back to Oneness. If you go back to the beginning of the thread, you will understand more. I NEVER heard of ONENESS before these people entered my life.
Click to expand...
Maybe, But certain things don’t add up. For instance, in post 135 you wrote:

“Luther removed books of the bible. What are those books called. Now…it is my understanding they were found in the dead sea scrolls years later. Am I near right on this. I asked Mr. Oneness if for the first 1500 years they used a Catholic bible and then after Luther decided to go with the protestant one. Don’t know what his response is yet.”

Then in post the very next post [136] you write:

“Can’t argue that point Big Dummy!!! We did take a class on the Old Testament with our AMAZING priest. He is soon going to have one on the New Testament which we will both take.”

So you took a class on the Old Testament from an AMAZING priest [your emphasis] but don’t know what the seven books that Luther removed are called? Deuterocanonical is not a word that is easily forgotten. I remain skeptical
 
inkaneer said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkaneer
That is what the OP claims but is that really the case? The OP claims to be Catholic but shows a far better understanding of Oneness theology than Catholic theology. I find that to be very telling. So far all we have seen is a constant ranting of Oness theology. Seems to me the OP has been given enough evidence to support the doctrine of the Trinity. The mere fact the Church formally defined it should be proof enough for any Catholic. And quite frankly it doesn’t matter one iota if anyone had a different opinion on it BEFORE its formal definition. No one ever claimed the early church writers were infallible. Tertullian went from paganism into Christianity and ended up a Montanist. Even the great Doctor of the Church, Thomas Aquinas, held different opinions on matters that were only later formally defined. Augustine said it best. Rome has spoken, get over it! [Okay I paraphrased].

Maybe, But certain things don’t add up. For instance, in post 135 you wrote:

“Luther removed books of the bible. What are those books called. Now…it is my understanding they were found in the dead sea scrolls years later. Am I near right on this. I asked Mr. Oneness if for the first 1500 years they used a Catholic bible and then after Luther decided to go with the protestant one. Don’t know what his response is yet.”

Then in post the very next post [136] you write:

“Can’t argue that point Big Dummy!!! We did take a class on the Old Testament with our AMAZING priest. He is soon going to have one on the New Testament which we will both take.”

So you took a class on the Old Testament from an AMAZING priest [your emphasis] but don’t know what the seven books that Luther removed are called? Deuterocanonical is not a word that is easily forgotten. I remain skeptical
Click to expand...
Welp…it doesn’t matter what u think lol!! Realy, I would rather you keep away from this thread if u doubt my faith. Big Dummy, JM3 and papalope are all I need. I am currently on my way to work listening to Gus Lloyd. Did u check out the facebook site of mr. Oneness. I am copying and padting from his fb page. But again…why should I care what u think.as far as the old testament class we were studying the Catholic biblke and didn’t go over why protestants removed books. Why does that seem so strange to you??
 
Big Dummy…here is his last writing. I did as you said Big Dummy and asked him for proof from encyclopedia. Well here goes…

Historical Documentation That Apostolic Churches Dominated the Early Centuries of the ChurchEdited by Bishop Jerry Hayes

The New Catholic Encyclopedia’s Testimony

(The New Catholic Encyclopedia is a multi-volume reference work on Roman Catholic history and belief edited by the faculty of The Catholic University of America and originally published by McGraw-Hill in 1967. … It was awarded Library Journals Best Reference Source 2003. The New Catholic Encyclopedia is intended to be a standard reference work for students, teachers, librarians, journalists, and general readers interested in the history, doctrine, practices, and people of the Catholic faith.)

The New Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The formulation ‘one God in three Persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formulation that has first claim to the title the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective.”—(1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia validates the comment by Cardinal Newman given below:

Cardinal John Henry Newman’s Testimony

(John Henry Newman C.O. (21 February 1801 -11 August 1890[2]), 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.)

"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.” Essays And Sketches, page 141
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top