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

[joclucsylv]

Thank you all for the info!!! If there is more…please share!!! Thank God for you people on Catholic Answers. God Bless!!

 

[inkaneer]

I think most recent scholarship puts the Didache as we have it today as being compiled around 1054. But, it is made up of 3 or 4 documents. And, the Baptism part dates to around 90 to 110 AD. You will find that most pentecostals will not know this.

1054??? maybe a typo? 1054 was the year generally agreed upon asthe start of the East -West schism. Never heard of this date being used in connection with the Didache. I have seen dates as early as 70 AD for the Didache and as late as mid second century [100-200AD].

 

[Big_Dummy]

Against the Sabellians
newadvent.org/fathers/0713.htm

“Oneness Doctrine” (Jesus Only) vs. Trinitarianism
Part 1: The Early Church Fathers Declared “Oneness” (Sabellianism) Heresy
velocity.net/~edju70/web/Trinity1.htm (see bottom of page for more)

SABELLIANISM By James Akin
catholic.com/thisrock/1994/9401hotm.asp

Other names for what Oneness people teaches are Sabellianism, Modalist, Jesus Only, United Pentecostal Church, various Apostolic Churches.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was **with **God, and the Word was God.

Montgomery New Testament (Helen Brett Montgomery)

In the beginning was the Word, and the **Word was

face to face with God,** and the Word was God.

letusreason.org/JW44.htm

PROS

with the acc[usative] of a person, after verbs of remaining, dwelling, tarrying, etc. (which require one to be conceived of as always turned towards one)…after EIMI…Jn i.1 (Thayer).

be (in company) with someone…J 1:1f (BAGD).

a marker of association, often with the implication of interrelationships…‘the Word was with God’ Jn 1:1 (Louw & Nida)

Some commentators, such as JFB, above, see PROS in this verse as shorthand for the idiomatic expression PROSÔPON PROS PROSÔPON (literally “face to face”, RWP, cf., Moulton). This seems view is given weight by the context, in which the Son is said to be “in the bosom of the Father” (v. 18), and thus in the ideal position to declare the Father to the world.

forananswer.org/John/Jn1_1.htm

biblegateway.com/quicksearch/?quicksearch=%22face+to+face%22&qs_version=KJV

Basically, “in the beginning” brings one back to the very start of creation in Genesis 1:1, thus just before creation. The fact that the second person of the Trinity was “face to face” with God the Father, tells us that there were at least two persons there. Later, in Genesis 1 for example around verse 26, God says, “let US make man in OUR image” – the Hebrew word for God in Genesis 1 is plural. Think of face to face as being two people sitting at a dinner table looking into each others eyes. The very fact, that they are face to face, makes two persons.

Oneness people purposely reads their theology into “The word was God”. In the Greek, the grammar lacks an article before the word “God” and the grammar is of the type that tells us that The Word has the very nature of God. For their interpretation to be vaild would require the Greek to read, “the Word was the God”, there is no “the” before “God” in Greek text. And, if there was, it would contradict the second phrase, “The Wored was face to face with God”.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Oneness theology teaches that Jesus is God the Father. A quick way to refute this is simply to show that the second person of the Trinity existed with the Father before time or before creation.

Philippians 2:5-11
King James Version (KJV)

5Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6Who, **being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: **

7But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Phil 2 above shows us that the second person existed before the incarnation.

John 1:1 “in the beginning” shows us that he existed before creation.

Colossians 1:15-20
King James Version (KJV)

15Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:

16For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

17And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

18And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

19For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;

20And, having made peace through the blood of his cross, by him to reconcile all things unto himself; by him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven.

Since, the second person of the Trinity created “All Things” he had to exist before “All things” and is not part of the “all things” himself. One can not for example make a sand castle on the beach before they came into existence.

The John 6:46 argument I brought up before also comes into play here too. Basically, scripture says that no people saw God the Father “face to face”. Yet there are at least visions of people seeing God “face to face” in the OT. If these people saw the Son of God, second person then there is no contradiction. But, if Jesus is God the Father, then there is a contradiction that Oneness People must explain.

II. The Work of the Preincarnate Son of God
The Old Testament Theophanies
bible.org/seriespage/series-christology%E2%80%94part-4-preincarnate-son-god

google.com/#sclient=psy&hl=en&source=hp&q=Bible+appearances+Son+of+God+in+OT&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=4f5d99df8e6c9a1d&biw=1024&bih=468

 

[Big_Dummy]

1054??? maybe a typo? 1054 was the year generally agreed upon asthe start of the East -West schism. Never heard of this date being used in connection with the Didache. I have seen dates as early as 70 AD for the Didache and as late as mid second century [100-200AD].

The date should have been 1056, which is based on liberal scholars whom I expect them to quote. The 1056 date has to do with existing manuscripts, not date written.
earlychristianwritings.com/didache.html
google.com/#hl=en&q=Didache+dating+1056&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbo=u&tbm=bks&source=og&sa=N&tab=wp&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=125b73b3dd3564fe&biw=1024&bih=468

However, some more conservative sources, point out some Didache manuscripts, fragments that dates to the 4th century or 300’s.

The Westminster dictionary of New Testament and early Christian literature … By David Edward Aune, page 131

In an introduction or commentary on the Didache, I read about it being a composite document, and even in that source it admits that the Baptism passage and the Second Coming passage are genuine dating to the 90-110 AD peroid. I don’t remember which volume that was in. Good Candidates to research that are:

Didache Hermeneia (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible) by Kurt Niederwimmer and Linda M. Maloney – this is the most likely source.

The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis, and Commentary by Aaron Milavec

The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E.(The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis and Commentary)(Book Review): An article from: Theological Studies by Joseph G. Mueller

The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, and Transmission (Supplements to Novum Testamentum) by Clayton N. Jefford

The Way of the Didache: The First Christian Handbook by William C. Varner

The Didache: Faith, Hope, and Life of the Earliest Christian Communities, 50-70 C.E. by Aaron Milavec

Jewish Christianity Reconsidered: Rethinking Ancient Groups and Texts by Matt Jackson-McCabe

The Apostolic Fathers: An Introduction by Wilhelm Pratscher

Knowledge and the Coming Kingdom: The Didache’s Meal Ritual and its Place in Early Christianity (Library Of New Testament Studies) by Jonathan Schwiebert

The Didache. A Commentary. by Kurt (trans. Linda M. Maloney; Edited Harol… Neiderwimmer

Writings of the Apostolic Fathers (T&T Clark Biblical Studies) by Paul Foster

The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations by Michael W. Holmes

The Teaching of the Twelve: Believing & Practicing the Primitive Christianity of the Ancient Didache Community by Tony Jones

Early Christian Fathers (Library of Christian Classics (Paperback Westminster)) by Cyril Richardson

The Didache and Barnabas (The Apostolic Fathers: A Translation and Commentary, Volume III) by Robert A. Kraft

New, have not read yet,

The First Catechism, Ruminations on the Didache by J. Mark Hord (Jun 29, 2011)

The liberal argument in a nutshell is based on the existence of manuscripts, not history of a document. They argue that the current Didache is a composite document made up of 3 or 4 other documents, some of which are known forgeries. However, the eariler 4th century fragments match very well against the Baptism and Second Coming chapters in the Didache, therefore the liberals must admit those parts are genuine.

 

[joclucsylv]

This is what he asked me on didache
Didache. A questionable document at best which mentions both forms of baptism. Lucy there are red flags all over this piece of literature. I seems to be a revision of a revision. I believe you may be reaching on you dates of it, as well.

 

[joclucsylv]

The other comment/question he has

I am sorry, when you were quoting from Ignatius (who, by the way most scholarship will say that his thoughts are modalist monarchian, i.e. Oneness, this because the trinity was not yet developed and the word “trinity” not yet coined) …were you quoting from the short or long versions of his letters? The short ones are most likely his, the long versions are forgries by latter trinitarian writers seeking a bridge to the Apostles. Could you look at that and ley me know?See More

How do I reply. Again…thank you all for your help.

 

[SonCatcher]

This is what he asked me on didache
Didache. A questionable document at best which mentions both forms of baptism. Lucy there are red flags all over this piece of literature. I seems to be a revision of a revision. I believe you may be reaching on you dates of it, as well.

Arbitrarily selecting and rejecting documents to support preconceived ideas is nothing new. Does he have sound evidence to support his assertion? The Didache is long revered to have been written directly from Apostolic teaching.

The other comment/question he has

I am sorry, when you were quoting from Ignatius (who, by the way most scholarship will say that his thoughts are modalist monarchian, i.e. Oneness, this because the trinity was not yet developed and the word “trinity” not yet coined) …were you quoting from the short or long versions of his letters? The short ones are most likely his, the long versions are forgries by latter trinitarian writers seeking a bridge to the Apostles. Could you look at that and ley me know?See More

How do I reply. Again…thank you all for your help.

That he is being evasive. It is unlikely that you will be able to convince him since he has dedicated his study to a preconceived conclusion. Even if you manage to show him that Ignatius believed in and wrote about the Trinity, he would then conclude that Ignatius is a heretic and drop him from his defense of Oneness theology.

 

[joclucsylv]

Mr. Oneness has just replied to me saying that the first 16 bishops of Rome were modalists (oneness). Is this guy searching for air or what?

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Jesus told the disciples tp baptize in the name of the Father, son, and Hly Spirit.

If the guy doesn’t believe Jesus and he doesn’t believe the Church He founded then he should be treated like a publican or a sinner.

 

[SonCatcher]

Mr. Oneness has just replied to me saying that the first 16 bishops of Rome were modalists (oneness). Is this guy searching for air or what?

They may well have been since the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been sufficiently understood. That is irrelevant, however. Each of them would have accepted the doctrine had they the advantage of it being discussed with them. They are, after all, the ones who shepherded the flock until the understanding was sufficient to grasp it.

 

[NotWorthy]

Mr. Oneness has just replied to me saying that the first 16 bishops of Rome were modalists (oneness). Is this guy searching for air or what?

Yeah, ask him to prove it. I would bet we have little or nothing written by the first 16 popes. Other than Clement, the writings of the time are sparse… maybe until you get to Victor in the late 2nd century.

 

[joclucsylv]

They may well have been since the doctrine of the Trinity had not yet been sufficiently understood. That is irrelevant, however. Each of them would have accepted the doctrine had they the advantage of it being discussed with them. They are, after all, the ones who shepherded the flock until the understanding was sufficient to grasp it.

To him it’s very relevant unfortunately.

 

[NotWorthy]

Justin Martyr was definitely a Trinitarian:

"Our teacher of these things is Jesus Christ, who also was born for this purpose, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judaea, in the times of Tiberius Caesar; and that we reasonably worship Him, having learned that He is the Son of the true God Himself, and holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third, we will prove."
Justin Martyr,First Apology,13 (A.D. 155),in ANF,I:166-167

The Martyrdom of Polycarp writes of these final words of the blessed saint:

“[T]he ever-truthful God, hast fore-ordained, hast revealed beforehand to me, and now hast fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise Thee for all things, I bless Thee, I glorify Thee, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Thy beloved Son, with whom, to Thee, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.”
Martyrdom of Polycarp 14(A.D. 157),in ANF,1:42

And Irenaeus certainly was Trinitarian as well:

“For God did not stand in need of these [beings], in order to the accomplishing of what He had Himself determined with Himself beforehand should be done, as if He did not possess His own hands. 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;’ He taking from Himself the substance of the creatures [formed], and the pattern of things made, and the type of all the adornments in the world.”
Irenaeus,Against Heresies,4,20:1(A.D. 180),in ANF,1:487-488

Your OneNess friend needs to understand that, even though the word “Trinity” wasn’t there, the teaching was!

 

[christosdavid]

The other comment/question he has

I am sorry, when you were quoting from Ignatius (who, by the way most scholarship will say that his thoughts are modalist monarchian, i.e. Oneness, this because the trinity was not yet developed and the word “trinity” not yet coined) …were you quoting from the short or long versions of his letters? The short ones are most likely his, the long versions are forgries by latter trinitarian writers seeking a bridge to the Apostles. Could you look at that and ley me know?See More

How do I reply. Again…thank you all for your help.

“The Latin translation of the middle recension survived into modern times in only two manuscript.”

The best “scholarly” book for the Apostolic fathers IMO is Michael W. Holmes (ed.) The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations (3rd Ed.) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic: 2007)

Points which I would make to the united Pentecostals and other modalists from the apostolic fathers:

1. All 7 letters of Ignatius in some way acknowedge Jesus as God.
2. The identity of each of the persona are maintained throughout.
3. Ignatius is monotheist.
4. the Apostolic fathers are proto-trinitarian as historically before the definition of the term (from Tertullian) is defined.
5. The difference of persona, combined with monotheism demonstrates the same concerns as scripture that there are 3 persons but 1 God. The trinitarian formulas are an attempt to understand this but not the earlist expression of it.

From Scripture:

1. Phillip the deacon, evangelist converts many samaritans and baptises them in the Name of Jesus a text taken to mean Jesus only. However, the Apostles then arrive and give the Holy Spirit. The remainder of the chapter has Philip evangelise the Ethiopian and upon sighting water asks what prevents him from being baptised. This shows Philips understanding of his actions are based around water baptism.

From reason:

The act of baptism, as well as demonstrating repentance, also demonstrated the authority of the person into whose “name” you were baptised. Hence Luke is right in describing it in Jesus name as it was in his authority the deciples went into all the world and baptised.

The actual formula is not recorded in Acts but the Gospel when it says in the name “of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” this is reflected in the Didache (as noted from around 50-150 AD, its composite nature makes it harder to date accurately) which mentions it twice and is obviously based on oral tradition, ie what the church was actually doing.

I hope this helps. Clement, Ignatius and Polycarp were proto-trinitarians yet there is abundant evidence in the correct recension.

You might want to point out the difficulties of Ancient History but it sounds like the guy needs a re-education rather than some points being corrected.

 

[christosdavid]

in point of fact, Im actually suprised he is even talking about these documents. Most will simply say that Ignatius is late enough to be wrong. Especially those who are against his episcopalian sympathies.

Fear not, there is no doubt that the Apostolic fathers are proto-trinitarian just as the scriptures are.

 

[christosdavid]

just read a vatican document which on ecumenism’s norms and guidence acknowledge that we are “all baptised in Christ.”

In a way this is similar to Acts. The author of that document knew full well that the formula for both Catholicism and historic Protestants is “the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit”

He isnt starting a new sect which is Christ only baptisms

 

[pablope]

To him it’s very relevant unfortunately.

Hope this article will help you…therealpresence.org/archives/Trinity/Trinity_001.htm

excerpt:

The history of the Church’s doctrine on the Trinity reaches back to the earliest days of Christianity. Our purpose here is to see in review some of the leading statements of the Magisterium, while pointing out some features of each document.

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:

Sabellius’ blasphemy is that the Son is the Father, and the Father the Son. These men somehow teach there are three gods since they divine the sacred unity into three different hypostases completely separate from one another.
The teaching of the foolish Marcion who divides and separates the one God into three principles is a teaching from the devil, not the teaching of those who truly follow Christ and who are content with the teachings of the Savior.

The most extensive declaration of the Church’s teaching on the Trinity was made at the Eleventh Synod of Toledo in Spain (675 AD). It is a mosaic of texts drawn from all the preceding doctrines of the Church. Its purpose was to assemble as complete a list of doctrinal statements as possible, in view of the still prevalent errors in nominally Christian circles, and (providentially) in view of the rise of Islam which struck with particular vehemence against the Iberian peninsula. Since the main target of Moslem opposition to Christianity was the Koranic claim that Christians were idolaters because they adored Christ as God, it is instructive to see how the faithful were prepared to resist the Moslem Unitarianism by a clear declaration of their own belief in the Triune God. The full text of doctrine at Toledo runs to over two thousand words. Only a few lines will be given to illustrate the tone:

We confess and we believe that the holy and indescribable Trinity, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one only God in His nature, a single substance, a single nature, a single majesty and power.
We acknowledge Trinity in the distinction of persons; we profess Unity because of the nature or substance. The three are one, as a nature, that is, not as person. Nevertheless, these three persons are not to be considered separable, since we believe that no one of them existed or at any time effected anything before the other, after the other, or without the other.
Two general councils of the Church formulated the faith in the Trinity in specific creeds, namely the Fourth Lateran and the Council of Florence.

The focus of Fourth Lateran was twofold, to reaffirm the faith in the face of the Albigensian heresy and to defend it against the vagaries of Abbot Joachim.

 

[joclucsylv]

Would there be any writings from Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp on confession, the Eucharist ro perhaps the Blessed Mother. The point I want to make to Oneness man is that if he is truly Apostolic, he would follow what the Apostles did in those areas.
Thank you!

 

[inkaneer]

Would there be any writings from Clement, Ignatius, or Polycarp on confession, the Eucharist ro perhaps the Blessed Mother. The point I want to make to Oneness man is that if he is truly Apostolic, he would follow what the Apostles did in those areas.
Thank you!

You can access the writings of all the early church fathers from the New Advent website. Go here:

newadvent.org/fathers/

One other thing to point out to your “friend” The early church writers were usually addressing specific areas both theologically as well s geographically where problems existed and not trying to write the Catechism of Christian belief. For the most part these early church writers were Catholic Bishops. Thus the Trinity did not become an issue until later on and even then the issue was not the Trinity per se but rather was about the divinity of Christ and then later the divinity of the Holy Spirit. That in no way says or suggests that there was a change in Church teaching from modalist to trinitarian thinking.