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.
“This is the greatest confession of truth, I have ever read from any Protestant or Catholic minister” (Peyton). Newman clearly stated that the Catholic Churches, in the Roman Empire, were in the vast minority for the early centuries, and the Modalist Monarchian theology was held by the majority.

Protestant Doctor James Hastings’ Testimony

Doctor James Hastings declared that the Oneness Churches were in every part of the Roman Empire. According to Hastings, Tertullian sums up his case against the Latin and Greek Modalist Monarchians by saying, “the Latins take pains to pronounce monarchia, the Greeks refuse to understand aeconomia… For extolling the monarchia at the expense of the aeconomia, they contend for the identity of Father, Son, and Spirit.” Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, Hastings, vol 8, pg 780.

150 AD, Justin Martyr’s Testimony

Justin Martyr wrote against the apostolic Modalist church. In his First Apology he says, “For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son. Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol 1, chp 63, pg 352.

180 AD, Irenaeus’ Testimony

Irenaeus speaking against God’s Apostolic Church and Gnostics wrote, “But there are some who say… that Jesus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father and the Father of Christ.” Anti-Nicene Fathers., vol 1, bk 3, chp 16, pg 909, sec 1.

200 AD, Tertullian’s Testimony

Tertullian confessed that Praxeas and the One God, Jesus’ Name Modalist Monarchians Churches were in the vast majority in the third and earlier centuries. He wrote, “The older [so-called] heretics much more before Praxeas, a pretender of yesterday…[who preaches] this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in the one only God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame person… The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation of the three in one, on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only God.” Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pp 598-599.
 
Tertullian continued, “The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity, they [Modalist Monarchians] assume to be a division of the unity… They are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers two gods and three gods, while they take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the one God.” Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol 3, pp 598-599. Let readers make a mental note of this fact: Tertullian clearly stated that the Oneness, Jesus Name people were in existence long before Praxeas began to preach. Tertullian also openly admitted that Monarchians constituted the majority of Christians in his day; notice he wrote: “The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned, who always constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation of the three in one, on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world’s plurality of gods to the one only God.”

225 AD, Hippolytus’ Testimony

This Catholic Priest testified that God’s Apostolic Modalist Churches vastly outnumbered the Catholic Churches in his day. He also confessed that some, if not many, of the Catholic Churches were converted to the Oneness message; he also give testimony that several Bishops or Popes of Rome believed and taught that Christ was God the Father manifested in flesh.

Hippolytus declared that Bishop (Pope) Callistus of Rome taught that “there is one Father and God, namely, the Creator…. In substance He is one Spirit. For Spirit, as the Deity,’ he says, ‘is not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos from the Deity;’ therefore this one person, according to Callistus, is divided nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed to maintain, that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is the Son, but that the Father it is who dwells in Him…. All consented to his hypocrisy, we however did not do so and [they] called us worshippers of two gods… This Callistus became a martyr at the period when Fuscianus was Prefect of Rome.”Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol 5, pp 148, 127-128.
 
Let all notice, that the true believers greatly out numbered Hippolytus and his small band of Catholic followers. Not only this, but this proves that there were in the Roman Empire two opposing churches, God’s Modalistic Monarchian Church and Satan’s two god Catholic Church. the Modalist did not accuse Catholic Hippolytus of believing in three gods; but, they saw him teaching two gods.

According to Harnack, “Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all appearance, succeed in getting their form of doctrine approved in the Churches. The God of mystery of whom they taught was viewed as an unknown God.” Their “Logos” doctrine implied that the Logos was “an inferior divine being, or rather at once inferior and not inferior. This conception, however, conflicted with tradition as embodied in worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ.”

He went on to say, “It was only from the second half of the fourth century [350 AD] that the West was invaded by the Platonic theology which Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Novatian had cultivated, to all appearance without any thorough success. Some of its results were accepted, but the theology itself was not… Yet there is no mistake, on the other hand, as we are taught by Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and the recognition of Christ as the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was simply a question of time when the departure should take place.” History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pp 71, 72, 79.

Protestant Doctors M’Clintock and Strong’s Testimony

Doctors M’Clintock and Strong testifies that Modalist (Oneness) churches were present in the first and second century. They said, Modalist “Monarchianism is generally supposed to have originated about the end of the second century. It seems to us, however, that this [so-called] heresy may be traced to the very earliest times of Christianity. Justin Martyr [c. 150] expressly denounces it, and his notice guides us to its source, for he finds the heresy to exist both among the Jewish and Gentile Christians. Justin condemns the Modalist for thinking that, when God was said to have appeared to the patriarchs, it was God the Father who appeared
 
In the Dialogue with Trypho, he deals with the same topic: ‘I am aware that there are some who wish to meet this by saying that the power which appeared from the Father of the universe to Moses, or Abraham or Jacob… is unseparated and undivided from the Father…’ (Cc. 1227, …” Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 6, pp 448-449.

Drs. Roberts and Donaldson translated this passage this way, “I know that some wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to Jacob… is indivisible and inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens.” Ante Nicene Fathers, Dialogues with Trypho, vol 1, chp 128, pg 538. Justin is writing against Modalistic Monarchians (Oneness) who taught the Almighty dwells in Christ.

Drs M’Clintock and Strong also declared that “A resemblance has been noticed between the tenets of Valentinus and those of Sabellius(Peturius, Dogma Theology, 2, i, 6; Wormius, History Of Sabellius, ii, 3), and Neander is inclined to think that Marcion may have adopted some of the Patripassian doctrines in Asia Minor (Church History, i, 796; Burton, Bampton’s Lectures, note 103).” Cyclopedia Of Biblical Theological And Ecclesiastical Literature, vol 6, pp 448-449; op. cit. Ante Nicene Fathers, Justin Martyr, First Apol., chp 63.

Valentinus and Marcion, like the Catholic apologists, were heretics. Many of earlier heretics adopted some of the teachings of the apostolic Modalists, for example, most of the early heretics, if not all, baptized in Jesus’ Name until c. 325
 
Protestant Professor Adolf Harnack’s Testimony

Protestant Professor Harnack also confessed that God’s Modalistic Monarchianism was in the vast majority before the Nicene Council. Harnack says, “The real dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between AD 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father becoming flesh… Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian controversy agitated the whole [Catholic] Church, and Tertullian and Origen testified, that in their day the ‘economic’ trinity, and the technical application of the conception of the Logos to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion. Modalism, as we now know from the Philosophumena, was… the official teaching in Rome… The Modalistic doctrine which sought to exclude every other… was embraced by the great majority of all Christians” before and after the Nicene Council. History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pp 51- 54.

The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia’s Testimony

The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia also declared that the apostolic Modalistic Monarchian doctrine was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It stated, “Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large…. In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism….” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Heading “Trinity” section 22.
 
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.

Apostolically Speaking

Bishop Jerry Hayes TM
 
How do we respond to this Big Dummy. My brother texted me this morning and said he is done playing with Satan. Perhaps…that is the way we should go cause he will never stopj!
 
@Pablo…he didn’t accept you as a friend on fb because you state Catholic as your faith and he didn’t want you to challenge him. My brother said this morning that you should have changed it to Christian so that he would accept you. It’s never to late. Me…I wont be his friend on fb. He just makes my blood pressure rise!!! I will inbox you with my link so we can b friends!!
 
joclucsylv said:
Protestant Professor Adolf Harnack’s Testimony

Protestant Professor Harnack also confessed that God’s Modalistic Monarchianism was in the vast majority before the Nicene Council. Harnack says, “The real dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between AD 180 and 300 was not Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father becoming flesh… Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian controversy agitated the whole [Catholic] Church, and Tertullian and Origen testified, that in their day the ‘economic’ trinity, and the technical application of the conception of the Logos to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with suspicion. Modalism, as we now know from the Philosophumena, was… the official teaching in Rome… The Modalistic doctrine which sought to exclude every other… was embraced by the great majority of all Christians” before and after the Nicene Council. History Of Dogma, Harnack, vol 3, pp 51- 54.
Click to expand...
Where is this “dominance of Modalist” teaching that they keep spouting about. The only reason we know of it is because Orthodox Christians wrote against it. Not because “Rome taught it”.
joclucsylv said:
The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia’s Testimony

The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia also declared that the apostolic Modalistic Monarchian doctrine was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries. It stated, “Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large…. In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism….” International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Heading “Trinity” section 22.
Click to expand...
I would question anyone that says, “Modalistic Monarchian doctrine was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries” when it was Arianism that was in the majority in the 4th century. Orthodoxy was hanging by a thread during the 4th century.
 
NotWorthy said:
Where is this “dominance of Modalist” teaching that they keep spouting about. The only reason we know of it is because Orthodox Christians wrote against it. Not because “Rome taught it”.

I would question anyone that says, “Modalistic Monarchian doctrine was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries” when it was Arianism that was in the majority in the 4th century. Orthodoxy was hanging by a thread during the 4th century.
Click to expand...
This is good at twisting things…so we would have to look up the source he quotes.

My question is the following. Would this be a legit question for him?? The Catholic Church is rich in histroy. We have Catholic Churches all over the world that are hundereds of years olf. Where is the Oneness history?? Why don’t the oneness people have old beautiful churches that are hundreds of years old. I don’t even have a Oneness church in my hometown. Most of the oneness churches in the County where I live are on back roads and are very hard to find…and they are not very old. I would like that explained.

Do you all think that is a good question to ask him?
 
joclucsylv said:
This is good at twisting things…so we would have to look up the source he quotes.

My question is the following. Would this be a legit question for him?? The Catholic Church is rich in histroy. We have Catholic Churches all over the world that are hundereds of years olf. Where is the Oneness history?? Why don’t the oneness people have old beautiful churches that are hundreds of years old. I don’t even have a Oneness church in my hometown. Most of the oneness churches in the County where I live are on back roads and are very hard to find…and they are not very old. I would like that explained.

Do you all think that is a good question to ask him?
Click to expand...
Then you would simply be taught about the Trail of Blood, where those Godless Catholics murdered all the modalists, once Constantine made it the official religion.

What I would do is bring up one of these Modalist Churches, like Sabellianism and find a particularly heretical teaching by him. Ask him if this is what his church was teaching way back when. There are some really weird things in those heresies.
 
NotWorthy said:
Then you would simply be taught about the Trail of Blood, where those Godless Catholics murdered all the modalists, once Constantine made it the official religion.

What I would do is bring up one of these Modalist Churches, like Sabellianism and find a particularly heretical teaching by him. Ask him if this is what his church was teaching way back when. There are some really weird things in those heresies.
Click to expand...
Good point NotWorthy!!!
 
If the Trinity doctrine was not true, why would the early church fathers write about it? Here is some more useful quotes for defending the doctrine of the Trinity.

Clement of Rome

“The Apostles preached to use the Gospel received from Jesus Christ and Jesus Christ was God’s Ambassador. Christ, in other words, comes with a message from God and the Apostles with a message of Christ. Both of these orderly arrangements therefore originate from the will of God. And so, after receiving their instructions and being fully assured through the Resurrection of our Lord, Jesus Christ, and confirmed in faith by the word of God, they went forth, equipped with the fullness of the Holy Spirit, to preach the news the Kingdom of God was close at hand.” (Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, chap. 42:1-5)

“Accept our counsel, and you shall have nothing to regret. For, as truly as God lives, as truly as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit live, and the faith and hope of the elect, so truly will he who in a humble…be in good standing among of those who are on the way to salvation through Jesus Christ, through Him the glory forever and evermore. Amen”” (Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, chap. 58: 2-59)

Clement was consecrated by Peter and he is known to have been a leading member of the church in Rome in the first century. As an eyewitness to the apostles, he ultimately becomes the third bishop of Rome.

Ignatius of Antioch

“We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.’ Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chap. 7:1)

“…God Himself appearing in the form of a man, for the renewal of eternal life.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians 4:13)

“For our God Jesus Christ, was, according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb by Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost.” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, chap. 4:9)

“For even our God, Jesus Christ, now that He is in the Father”. (Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians, chap 2:4)

“Come together all of you to one temple and one altar, to one Jesus Christ – to Him whom came forth from one Father and yet remained and returned to…” (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, chap 7:2)

Ignatius died approximately 110 AD was a disciple of the Apostle John. He was the bishop of Antioch and is as close to the source one can achieve. Ignatius speaks to the members of the Trinity not as modes but as distinct persons.

Justin the Martyr

“For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water” (First Apology, 61, in ANF,I:183).

“Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for tin the same manner of rebirth by which we ourselves were born again, they then receive washing in water in the name of the God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit.”(Dialogue With Trypho, chapt. 44, in FEF 1:60, no 135a)

“Then there is brought to the Ruler of the Brethren, bread and a cup of water and [a cup of wine] mixed with water and he taking them send up praise and glory to the Father of the Universe through name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and offers thanksgiving at some length for our being accounted worthy to receive these things from Him.” (First Apology, 65, in ACW,56:70).

Here his is explaining baptism and the Lord’s Supper, clearly denoting the three persons of God.
 
cont’d…

Polycarp of Smyrna

“O Lord God almighty…I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever.” (n. 14, ed. Funk; Pg 5.1040).

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Smyrna, he would possess firsthand knowledge of the Christian doctrines. He clearly describes the three persons of God.

Iranaeus of Lyons

“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness’” (Against Heresies, 4:1)

“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: …one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all…’” (*Against Heresies,*10:1)

Iranaeus was an early church father and apologist. He defended the Church against various heresis, such as the many Gnostic sect that tended to spring up.

**Tertullian **

“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation… [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (*Adv. Praxeam *23; PL 2.156-7).

Tertullian was an African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity and lived from 160 to 215 AD.

Origen

“If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority… There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father” (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

“For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, Vol. 4, p. 253)

“Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification…” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, Vol. 4, p. 255).

Origen was Alexandrian theologian that lived from 184 to 253 and wrote prolifically about Christianity in order to actively defend it.
 
newmanreader.org/works/arians/index.html

Arians of the Fourth Century

John Henry Newman

II.

The Teaching of the Ante-Nicene Church in its relation
to the Arian Heresy
  1. On the principle of the formation and imposition of Creeds
Yet, in the matter of fact, such instances of contumacy were comparatively rare; and the Ante-Nicene heresies were in many instances the innovations of those who had never been in the Church, or who had already been expelled from it.
Click to expand...
We have some difficulty in putting ourselves into the situation of Christians in those times, from the circumstance that the Holy Scriptures are now our sole means of satisfying ourselves on points of doctrine. Thus, every one who comes to the Church considers himself entitled to judge and decide individually upon its creed. But in that primitive age, the {135} Apostolical Tradition, that is, the Creed, was practically the chief source of instruction, especially considering the obscurities of Scripture; and being withdrawn from public view, it could not be subjected to the degradation of a comparison, on the part of inquirers and half-Christians, with those written documents which are vouchsafed to us from the same inspired authorities. As for the baptized and incorporate members of the Church, they of course had the privilege of comparing the written and the oral tradition, and might exercise it as profitably as in comparing and harmonizing Scripture with itself. But before baptism, the systematic knowledge was withheld; and without it, Scripture, instead of being the source of instruction on the doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation, was scarcely more than a sealed book, needing an interpretation, amply and powerfully as it served the purpose of proving those doctrines, when they were once disclosed. And so much on the reluctance of the primitive Fathers to publish creeds, on the ground that the knowledge of Christian doctrines was a privilege reserved for those who were baptized, and in no sense a subject of hesitation and dispute.
Click to expand...
If the early Church regarded the very knowledge of the truth as a fearful privilege, much more did it regard that truth itself as glorious and awful; and scarcely conversing about it to her children, shrank from the impiety of subjecting it to the hard gaze of the multitude.
Click to expand...
As to the primitive Fathers, with their reverential feelings towards the Supreme Being, great must have been their indignation first, and then their perplexity, when apostates disclosed and corrupted the sacred truth, or when the heretical or philosophical sects made guesses approximating to it.
Click to expand...
 
Soldier_Of_God said:
cont’d…

Polycarp of Smyrna

“O Lord God almighty…I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever.” (n. 14, ed. Funk; Pg 5.1040).

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and the bishop of Smyrna, he would possess firsthand knowledge of the Christian doctrines. He clearly describes the three persons of God.

Iranaeus of Lyons

“For with Him were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, He made all things, to whom also He speaks, saying, ‘Let us make man after our image and likeness’” (Against Heresies, 4:1)

“The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: …one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,’ and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all…’” (*Against Heresies,*10:1)

Iranaeus was an early church father and apologist. He defended the Church against various heresis, such as the many Gnostic sect that tended to spring up.

**Tertullian **

“We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation… [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” (*Adv. Praxeam *23; PL 2.156-7).

Tertullian was an African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity and lived from 160 to 215 AD.

Origen

“If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority… There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father” (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

“For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit.” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, Vol. 4, p. 253)

“Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification…” (The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Roberts and Donaldson, Vol. 4, p. 255).

Origen was Alexandrian theologian that lived from 184 to 253 and wrote prolifically about Christianity in order to actively defend it.
Click to expand...
I have sent him several quotes of the Church Fathers. At first he wanted to know if they were the long texts or short texts. Big Dummy was kind enough to include both short texts and long texts. Well…not he says that still doesn’t prove anything…as we have to look at the original language the church fathers wrote in.

My brother says that if Jesus himself came to sit at Oneness man’s table for a conversation, he would argue Jesus Christ himself. He is one sick man.
 
joclucsylv said:
I have sent him several quotes of the Church Fathers. At first he wanted to know if they were the long texts or short texts. Big Dummy was kind enough to include both short texts and long texts. Well…not he says that still doesn’t prove anything…as we have to look at the original language the church fathers wrote in.

My brother says that if Jesus himself came to sit at Oneness man’s table for a conversation, he would argue Jesus Christ himself. He is one sick man.
Click to expand...
The references have been cited so he can investigate. I actually have the book that contains a number of the Greek texts but I’m not proficient in Greek. Therefore, I’m reliant upon the translator for a proper translation. If he insists upon original language the Church fathers, then his arguments lose momentum as he needs to present his quotations in the orginal language text as well. Regardless, his Oneness position is not corroborrated by any significant number of biblical scholars.
 
joclucsylv said:
This is good at twisting things…so we would have to look up the source he quotes.

My question is the following. Would this be a legit question for him?? The Catholic Church is rich in histroy. We have Catholic Churches all over the world that are hundereds of years olf. Where is the Oneness history?? Why don’t the oneness people have old beautiful churches that are hundreds of years old. I don’t even have a Oneness church in my hometown. Most of the oneness churches in the County where I live are on back roads and are very hard to find…and they are not very old. I would like that explained.

Do you all think that is a good question to ask him?
Click to expand...
You may want to bring up this early christian inscription,
google.com/search?hl=en&q=trinity+early+christian+art&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1024&bih=524&wrapid=tlif131161457510910&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=early+christian+art&aq=f&aqi=g5&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=524

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=early+christian+Inscriptions&aq=f&aqi=g-v3&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=1009376907e884e3&biw=1024&bih=524
A Perfect example of this kind of epitaph is that of the Egyptian monk Schenute; it is taken verbally from e ancient Greek liturgy. **It begins with the doxology, “In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Amen”, **and continues: “May the God of the spirit and of all flesh, Who has overcome death and trodden Hades under foot, and has graciously bestowed life on the world, permit this soul of Father Schenute to attain to rest in the bosom of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, in the place of light and of refreshment, where affliction, pain, and grief are no more. O gracious God, the lover of men, forgive him all the errors which he has committed by word, act, or thought. There is indeed no earthly pilgrim who has not sinned, for Thou alone, O God, art free from every sin.” **The epitaph repeats the doxology at the close, **and adds the petition of the scribe: “O Saviour, give peace also to the scribe.” When the secure position of the Church assured greater freedom of expression, the non-religious part of the sepulchral inscriptions was also enlarged.
Click to expand...
catholicity.com/encyclopedia/i/inscriptions,early_christian.html

Rebuttal of JM Caroll’s Trail of Blood–booklet used by Bible Baptists
thebereans.net/forum2/showthread.php?t=34199

cathapol.blogspot.com/2006/04/exposing-baptist-trail.html

Losing the Trail or The Trail of Lies A Catholic response to “The Trail of Blood”
by Matthew A. C. Newsome
turrisfortis.com/trail.html
 
Big Dummy…is there any early church art depicting the Trinity? I am looking as well!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top