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

[Soldier_Of_God]

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.

The OP is attempting to refute another person and is posting their correspondence. Unfortunately, how it was posted and formatting makes it difficult at times to differentiate between the two sets of messages.

 

[Big_Dummy]

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.

new Catholic Encyclopedia – this is one to visit the public library. I seriously doubt one will find an article in it that says the early church was majority modalists. **If the Modalists were in the majority, then it makes no sense that they are the ones being booted out of the church. **

I already showed in another post here that Cardinal Newman did not teach that the early church was Jesus Only.

 

[Big_Dummy]

Praxeas
tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm

Where exactly does the New Testament says God the Father was killed on the cross?

In fact, Scripture plainly says that the Father sent the Son, and that They will send the Holy Spirit.

1. The Father Sent The Son

Another distinction we have between the Father and the Son is that the Father is the sender and Jesus, the Son, is the one sent.

Jesus said that it was God the Father who sent Him into the world.

“My food,” said Jesus, “is to do the will of him who sent me and to finish his work” (John 4:34).

He emphasized it again

By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me (John 5:30).

Jesus made it clear the Father had set Him apart and sent Him into the world.

What about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, `I am God’s Son’? (John 10:36).

Jesus said that His words came from the Father.

For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it (John 12:49)

The Apostle Paul also testified that the Father sent the Son into the world:

But when the fulness of the time had come, God sent forth his Son, born of a woman, born under the law (Galatians 4:4).

1. The Father Testified To The Son

The Bible speaks of the Father testifying of the Son:

If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true. There is another who bears witness of me, and I know that the witness which he witnesses of me is true . . . And the Father himself, who sent me, has testified of me (John 5:31,32,37).

In this passage, Jesus is speaking to the religious leaders. He says that He is not the only one who is testifying concerning Himself. Jesus mentions the testimony of John the Baptist and the testimony of God the Father. Jesus contrasts His testimony from that of the Father showing that they are two distinct persons. The Father provides additional testimony to the character of Jesus.

1. Jesus Prayed To The Father

The two divine persons—God the Father and God the Son—exist eternally and distinctly in an interpersonal relationship. For example, in the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus did not pray to Himself, but to the Father. In Jesus’ prayer to God the Father, the clear distinction is made between the two of them. He prayed.

I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in me through their word; that they may all be one; even as you, Father, are in me and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you sent me. "The glory which you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as we are one; I in them and you in me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that you sent me, and loved them, even as you have loved me (John 17:20-23).

1. There Was Mutual Knowledge And Love Between The Father And The Son

Scripture speaks of the mutual knowledge and love that God the Father and God the Son have for one another. Jesus said.

All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father; nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and anyone to whom the Son wills to reveal him (Matthew 11:27).

Jesus also said.

The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand (John 3:35).

1. Jesus Did The Father’s Will

Jesus did the will of the Father not His own will.

Philip said to Him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, "Have I been so long with you, and yet you have not come to know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father?’ "Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own initiative, but the Father abiding in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; otherwise believe because of the works themselves (John 14:8-11).

Jesus did not say He was the Father but rather He was the one who perfectly represented the Father. However Jesus testified that God the Father was with Him in a mystical way.

1. No One Can Get To God The Father Except Through Jesus The Son

Jesus told people to believe in Him.

Do not let your hearts be troubled. Believe in God, believe also in me (John 14:1).

The Bible also makes it clear that one cannot know God the Father apart from Jesus

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father but through me. If you had known me, you would have known my Father also; from now on you know him, and have seen him” (John 14:6).

Paul wrote.

For there is one God; there is also one mediator between God and humankind, Christ Jesus, himself human (1 Timothy 2:5).

Summary
It is the teaching of Scripture that God the Father is a distinct person from Jesus Christ, God the Son. This is demonstrated in a number of ways. The Father sent Jesus the Son to earth. The Father also gave a testimony to the Son. We find that Jesus, the Son, prayed to the Father There is also mutual love and knowledge between God the Father and Jesus the Son. Jesus, the Son, always did the Father’s will not His own will. One cannot know God the Father without knowledge of Jesus the Son. These truths make it clear that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons.

blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/stewart.cfm?id=324

 

[Big_Dummy]

Noetus

1. Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine, who have become disciples of one Noetus, who was a native of Smyrna, and lived not very long ago. This person was greatly puffed up and inflated with pride, being inspired by the conceit of a strange spirit. He alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father Himself was born, and suffered, and died. Ye see what pride of heart and what a strange inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into him. From his other actions, then, the proof is already given us that he spoke not with a pure spirit; for he who blasphemes against the Holy Ghost is cast out from the holy inheritance. **He alleged that he was himself Moses, and that Aaron was his brother. **When the blessed presbyters heard this, they summoned him before the Church, and examined him. But he denied at first that he held such opinions. Afterwards, however, taking shelter among some, and having gathered round him some others who had embraced the same error, he wished thereafter to uphold his dogma openly as correct. And the blessed presbyters called him again before them, and examined him. But he stood out against them, saying, “What evil, then, am I doing in glorifying Christ?” And the presbyters replied to him, “We too know in truth one God; we know Christ; we know that the Son suffered even as He suffered, and died even as He died, and rose again on the third day, and is at the right hand of the Father, and cometh to judge the living and the dead. And these things which we have learned we allege.” **Then, after examining him, they expelled him from the Church. And he was carried to such a pitch of pride, that he established a school./**quote]
   thriceholy.net/Texts/Hippolytus.html

Sabellius
theresurgence.com/2010/06/22/sabellius-know-your-heretics

The only reason we even know about these few guys is because the Majority represented by the Church Fathers wrote about them. If the Modalists were in the Majority as claimed then we would be reading their writings today. Their writings simply don’t exist.

“Did you even read that documentation?”

Tell him to give exact references in a scholarly format, and then go read those at the Library. You will likely find that the source simply says that the understanding of the Trinity was in a primative understanding. And, you will not find any claim that the Majority of early Christians were Modalists. In fact, while you have the Encyclopaedia in hand, look up Modalism, it will idenitifly it as hearsay.

Author(s) (date of publication). “Title” Full name of the Encyclopædia (Volume, page numbers). Publisher info

monroecc.edu/depts/library/apa.htm#encyclopedia

 

[joclucsylv]

The OP is attempting to refute another person and is posting their correspondence. Unfortunately, how it was posted and formatting makes it difficult at times to differentiate between the two sets of messages.

Thank you!!!

 

[joclucsylv]

Noetus

1. Some others are secretly introducing another doctrine

 

[Big_Dummy]

I already posted links to the Long and Short versions of Ignatius’ letters and they both teach the same thing concerning the godhead “God the Father”. St. Ignatius of Antioch
was a Syrian. Unless I misread something the short edition is in abridgment of the long, not the other way around as he pretends.
earlychristianwritings.com/ignatius.html

We already gave quotes where Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement uses trinitarian thought. If he denies that, then he is simply not open to the evdience.

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?

The claim of them being “subordinationists” is new to me, so a little investion is in order.

Chapter 4. The Unity of the Godhead and the Supremacy and Sole Government of the Divine Being. The Monarchy Not at All Impaired by the Catholic Doctrine
But as for me, who derive the Son from no other source but from the substance of the Father, and (represent Him) as doing nothing without the Father’s will, and as having received all power from the Father, how can I be possibly destroying the Monarchy from the faith, when I preserve it in the Son just as it was committed to Him by the Father? The same remark (I wish also to be formally) made by me with respect to the third degree in the Godhead, because I believe the Spirit to proceed from no other source than from the Father through the Son.

newadvent.org/fathers/0317.htm

In the above link, all I see is Father and Son are of the same substance, nature. And, there is rank like in the military between Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Obamma out ranks a General who in turn out ranks a Chief Master Sargent who in turn out ranks an Airman or Private. All of these are of the same substance, nature, but different in rank. A Private is not a lesser human in nature than Obamma, both are fully human of the same substance. I suggest you read and outline the document at this link.

There is no indication in Tertulliean’s writings where he see the Son as a second god, or a “lesser god” than the Father, substance or nature wise.

Subordinationism is an heretical view that God the Son and God the Holy Spirit are not merely relationally subordinate to God the Father, but also subordinate in nature and being. In other words, this view maintains that, within the Trinity, the Son and the Spirit are ontologically inferior to the Father. To the contrary, orthodox doctrine maintains that although there is no autonomous Person of the Trinity, none who is God apart from any other Person, yet each Person is autotheos (“αυτοθεος” -God in and of himself).

theopedia.com/Subordinationism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subordinationism#cite_note-Roberts_and_Donaldson_3:604-22

forgive me for laughing, unless I am mistaken Tertulliean coined the word Trinity and is well known for his defense of the Trinity as understood today.

Adversus Praxean
tertullian.org/works/adversus_praxean.htm

Augistine
newadvent.org/fathers/1301.htm

Tertulliean wrote against modalism
newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm
newadvent.org/fathers/index.html
newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm

phc.edu/UserFiles/File/_Other%20Projects/Global%20Journal/7-1/HaroldCarl.pdf

 

[Big_Dummy]

The problem as I see it, that pastor simply may not understand eternal generation of the son, I admit this is a harrd one to graps.

Hippolytus

1. These things then, brethren, are declared by the Scriptures. And the blessed John, in the testimony of his Gospel, gives us an account of this economy (disposition) and acknowledges this Word as God, when he says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” If, then, the Word was with God, and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two Persons however, and of a third economy (disposition), viz., the grace of the Holy Ghost. For the Father indeed is One, but there are two Persons, because there is also the Son; and then there is the third, the Holy Spirit. The Father decrees, the Word executes, and the Son is manifested, through whom the Father is believed on. The economy of harmony is led back to one God; for God is One. It is the Father who commands, and the Son who obeys, and the Holy Spirit who gives understanding: the Father who is above all, and the Son who is through all, and the Holy Spirit who is in all. And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews glorified (or gloried in) the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognize the Son. The disciples recognized the Son, but not in the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy (disposition) and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” [Matthew 28:19]. And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth.

thriceholy.net/Texts/Hippolytus.html

I did find this summary on Tertullian’s theology

Trinity
Tertullian was the first Christian writer to face a serious attack concerning the nature of God. In response, he outlined a formula summarising the Biblical teaching on this, and was the first to use the word trinitas in a technical way to describe the relation of God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. The work is question is Adv. Praxean, but he also uses the term in De Pudicitia 2, and 21, and 25. He also was the first to use the word persona for the persons of the Trinity. However Tertullian’s pioneering work in this area does not always avoid tending to make the Son subordinate to the Father, no doubt because the issue was not in his mind at the time. In Adv. Hermogenes 4 he makes a statement that there was a time when the Son did not exist, but the context again suggests that the statement is an inadvertence drawn forth by his argument about the appropriate titulature of the persons of the Trinity, rather than a doctrinal statement.

tertullian.org/theology.htm

When dealing with the word subordinate, one must ask “by rank” or “by nature, substance”, yes by rank he does acknowledge that.

Nature of Christ
His definition in the same work of thetwo natures of Christ (Adv. Prax 27) is identical with the Council of Chalcedon, 451 AD.

tertullian.org/theology.htm

On the Trinity (Hilary of Poitiers)

newadvent.org/fathers/3302.htm

 

[Big_Dummy]

@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.

lol, let’s see oneness people claims that church fathers were modalists and other such nonsense. We quote their works in response. And, now he accuses you being bias towards RC documents while he is pretending not to be dependent on modalist writers. One can google each of the arguments he has been making and find them on modalist web sites. Bottom line, when one goes the original documents, one finds that the modalist is simply reading their interpretation into the text. No where does Terturallian for exaple refer to the Son as a lesser god.

 

[Big_Dummy]

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.

don’t allow him to go off into a red heiring on the apocrypha. You may simply want to offer him a copy of “Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger” and leave that one at that.

Ask him who copied the manuscripts of the NT? Who was responsible for weeding out false writings that cliamed to be inspired? You may want to bring up the issue of disputed NT books too. Ask him where the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus were found? Hint: not in modalist churches.

Push the issue of authority. He is assuming that the early church was modalist, this he has not proven. He refers to a handfull of hertics starting from the 200’s and he reads his opinion into the Fathers which vastly out number the few hertics he speaks of. And, yet we provided quotes form the Fathers that proves otherwise.

You can present evidence all day, but if the Holy Spirit is not working on him then you will only be strengthening your own faith wihich is good too.

concerning disputed books
newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/bible/bernstein_who_gave_nt.htm
westarinstitute.org/Periodicals/4R_Articles/canon.html
christianbookshelf.org/barrows/companion_to_the_bible/chapter_vi_the_disputed_books.htm

print out this one for the chart
bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

 

[Big_Dummy]

@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…

Ah, he does know that the book of Wisdom is part of the Apocrypha right?

 

[DENNYINMI]

Hi everyone…are we still going at it? Please do not confuse “Barnabus” “epistle of”"" with THE LETTER OF BARNABUS!..The epistle of Barnabus appears to have been carbon dated year apx. 130 A.D.

This is an historical document, writing, of the Barnabus of ACTS…in which we see his interaction with St. Paul, and St. Mark…obviously folks, they believed the same things…birds of a feather, did flock together…so here is the “earliest writings” I could find…Peace!

Trinity
Deity and eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ
Person & Personality of the Holy Spirit

Regarding the “US”, in Gen 1:26 “Let us make man in our image”:

Regarding two Yahweh’s in Gen 19:24, “Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.”

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript “She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus’] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, ‘What will you give me for my work?’ [Matt. 26:7-15]” (Huleatt fragments 1-3).
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).
80 AD Hermas

80 AD Hermas “The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient” (The Shepherd 12).

BELIEVE!!!

 

[Jerry-Jet]

What is the point of this thread? If Jesus said to “go into all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit”–who CARES what the early fathers had to say?

Jesus who is and was God and spoke only the truth was and is TRINITARIAN!

If you don’t believe in Jesus’ theology then whose theology do you believe in?

What is a modalist?

If a modalist does not believe in the trinity then a modalist is from Satan PERIOD! Case Closed!

P.S. I just looked modalism up. It is Satanic hogwash. God is Father. a father is a person–not a MODE.

The Holy Spirit is counselor. Counselors are PERSONS–not modes!

If Jesus is indeed divine as the modalist admit and Jesus says that whoever believes those whom He sent believes Him–then why don’t modalists believe the bishops that Jesus sent–the bishops that the apostles laid hands on.

Look–either those people had authority like JESUS and the disciples say or JESUS and the disciples are liars.

Of course–Jesus and the disciples are not liars.

The real liars are modalists who do not believe in the three persons of God.
Satan loves such liars!

 

[Big_Dummy]

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?

Its definition is “late”, but if you study Robert Bowman’s Biblical Outline of the Trinity online, just google it, link posted in thread already. One can see where we see the Trinity in scrpture. Also, if one reads Jehovah’s Witnesses on Trial: The Testimony of the Early Church Fathers [Paperback] byRobert U. Finnerty one will she tht the fathers were primative trinitarians.

A major problem with modalism is it makes god out to be a liar. The NT displays the godhead as being three persons with God being one being. If those displays or as oneness people says “modes” do not accuratly protray God for who he is than that is deception.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

How can the Father be a MODE and not a PERSON?

Would you tell your earthly father that all he was was a MODE?

How could anyone say that to Our heavenly Father?

 

[Big_Dummy]

The Early Church Fathers on
The Trinity

Groups such as the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Oneness Pentecostals dispute the doctrine of the Trinity. Jehovah’s Witnesses even go so far as to claim that the doctrine of the Trinity was unknown to the Early Fathers. They specifically claim that Tertullian, Origen and Theophilus of Antioch gave evidence against it.

Athenagoras

For, as we acknowledge a God, and a Son his Logos, and a Holy Spirit, united in essence, - the Father, the Son, the Spirit because the Son is intelligence, reason, wisdom of the Father, and the Spirit an effluence, as light from fire; so also do we apprehend the existence of other powers, which exercise dominion about matter, and by means of it (A Plea for the Christians, 2:18 [A.D. 177]).

Irenaeus

For the Son, who is the Word of God, arranged these things beforehand from the beginning, the Father being in no want of angels, in order that He might call the creation into being, and form man, for whom also the creation was made; nor, again, standing in need of any instrumentality for the framing of created things, or for the ordering of those things which had reference to man; while, [at the same time,] He has a vast and unspeakable number of servants. For His offspring and His similitude do minister to Him in every respect; that is, the Son and the Holy Spirit, the Word and Wisdom; whom all the angels serve, and to whom they are subject (Against Heresies 4:7:4 [A.D. 180-190]).

Theophilus of Antioch

The three days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity, of God, and His Word, and His Wisdom (To Autolycus 2:18 [A.D. 181]).

Clement of Alexandria

And the address in the Timœus calls the creator, Father, speaking thus: ‘Ye gods of gods, of whom I am Father; and the Creator of your works.’ So that when he says, ‘Around the king of all, all things are, and because of Him are all things; and he [or that] is the cause of all good things; and around the second are the things second in order; and around the third, the third,’ I understand nothing else than the Holy Trinity to be meant; for the third is the Holy Spirit, and the Son is the second, by whom all things were made according to the will of the Father (The Stromata 5:14 [A.D. 202]).

Hippolytus

A man, therefore, even though he will it not, is compelled to acknowledge God the Father Almighty, and Christ Jesus the Son of God, who, being God, became man, to whom also the Father made all things subject, Himself excepted, and the Holy Spirit; and that these, therefore, are three. But if he desires to learn how it is shown still that there is one God, let him know that His power is one. As far as regards the power, therefore, God is one. But as far as regards the economy there is a threefold manifestation, as shall be proved afterwards when we give account of the true doctrine (Against the Heresy of One Noetus 8 [A.D. 200-210]).

Tertullian

…All are of One, by unity (that is) of substance; while the mystery of the dispensation is still guarded, which distributes the Unity into a Trinity, placing in their order the three Persons – the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost: three, however, not in condition, but in degree; not in substance, but in form; not in power, but in aspect; yet of one substance, and of one condition, and of one power, inasmuch as He is one God, from whom these degrees and forms and aspects are reckoned, under the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Against Praxeus 2 [A.D. 213]).

…all the Scriptures attest the clear existence of, and distinction in (the Persons of) the Trinity, and indeed furnish us with our Rule of faith…. (ibid. 11[A.D. 213]).

Origen

…the divine benefits [are] bestowed upon us by Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, which Trinity is the fountain of all holiness…. (On First Principles 1:4:2 [A.D. 220-230]).

And under this rule must be brought also the understanding of the sacred Scripture, in order that its statements may be judged not according to the worthlessness of the letter, but according to the divinity of the Holy Spirit, by whose inspiration they were caused to be written (ibid. 4:27 [A.D. 220-230]).

Now this expression which we employ – ‘that there never was a time when He did not exist’ – is to be understood with an allowance. For these very words ‘when’ or ‘never’ have a meaning that relates to time, whereas the statements made regarding Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. For it is the Trinity alone which exceeds the comprehension not only of temporal but even of eternal intelligence; while other things which are not included in it are to be measured by times and ages (ibid. 4:28 [A.D. 220-230]).

Gregory Thaumaturgus

There is a perfect Trinity, in glory and eternity and sovereignty, neither divided nor estranged. Wherefore there is nothing either created or in servitude in the Trinity; nor anything superinduced, as if at some former period it was non-existent, and at some later period it was introduced. And thus neither was the Son ever wanting to the Father, nor the Spirit to the Son; but without variation and without change, the same Trinity abides forever (Declaration of Faith [circa A.D. 250]).

staycatholic.com/ecf_the_trinity.htm

 

[Big_Dummy]

What Did the Church Fathers Say About the Trinity?

According to the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the deity of Christ and the doctrine of the Trinity were never a part of the theology of the church fathers. In the article Should You Believe in the Trinity? several church fathers are cited as denying the orthodox view of Jesus. They include Justin Martyr who died in 165 A.D., Irenaeus 200 A.D., Clement of Alexandria 215 A.D., Tertullian 230 A.D., Hippolytus 235 A.D., and Origen who died in 250 A.D. The Watchtower list quotes from each theologian, claiming that they believed the inferiority of the Son to the Father. But the article contains no footnotes citing the source of these quotations.

Did these significant figures in church history really deny the divine nature of Christ? Let us take a careful (and referenced) look at what the ante-Nicene fathers stated in their original writings.

Justin Martyr: “…the Father of the universe has a Son; who being the logos and First-begotten is also God” (First Apology 63:15).
Irenaeus: (referencing Jesus) “…in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, . . .” (Against Heresies I, x, 1).

Clement of Alexandria: “Both as God and as man, the Lord renders us every kind of help and service. As God He forgives sin, as man He educates us to avoid sin completely” (Christ the Educator, chapter 3.1). In addition, “Our educator, O children, resembles His Father, God, whose son He is. He is without sin, without blame, without passion of soul, God immaculate in form of man accomplishing His Father’s will” (Christ the Educator Chapter 2:4).

Tertullian: “…the only God has also a Son, his Word who has proceeded from himself, by whom all things were made and without whom nothing has been made: that this was sent by the Father into the virgin and was born of her both man and God. Son of Man, Son of God, …” (Against Praxeas, 2).

Hippolytus: “And the blessed John in the testimony of his gospel, gives us an account of this economy and acknowledges this word as God, when he says, ‘In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the Word was God.’ If then the Word was with God and was also God, what follows? Would one say that he speaks of two Gods? I shall not indeed speak of two Gods, but of one; of two persons however, and of a third economy, the grace of the Holy Ghost” (Against the Heresy of One Noetus. 14).

Origen: (with regard to John 1:1) “…the arrangement of the sentences might be thought to indicate an order; we have first, ‘in the beginning was the Word,’ then ‘And the Word was with God,’ and thirdly, ‘and the Word was God,’ so that it might be seen that the Word being with God makes Him God” (Commentary on John, Book 2, Chapter 1).

probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4224643/k.7A5E/Why_We_Should_Believe_in_the_Trinity.htm

 

[Big_Dummy]

Church Fathers on God in Three Persons by Catholic Answers
catholicfidelity.com/church-fathers-on-god-in-three-persons-by-catholic-answers/

Early Trinitarian Quotes
carm.org/early-trinitarian-quotes

 

[Big_Dummy]

Hi everyone…are we still going at it? Please do not confuse “Barnabus” “epistle of”"" with THE LETTER OF BARNABUS!..The epistle of Barnabus appears to have been carbon dated year apx. 130 A.D.

This is an historical document, writing, of the Barnabus of ACTS…in which we see his interaction with St. Paul, and St. Mark…obviously folks, they believed the same things…birds of a feather, did flock together…so here is the “earliest writings” I could find…Peace!

Trinity
Deity and eternal pre-existence of Jesus Christ
Person & Personality of the Holy Spirit

Regarding the “US”, in Gen 1:26 “Let us make man in our image”:

Regarding two Yahweh’s in Gen 19:24, “Then Yahweh rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from Yahweh out of heaven.”

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript

50 AD The Huleatt Manuscript “She poured it [the perfume] over his [Jesus’] hair when he sat at the table. But, when the disciples saw it, they were indignant. . . . God, aware of this, said to them: 'Why do you trouble this woman? She has done [a beautiful thing for me.] . . . Then one of the Twelve, who was called Judas Iscariot, went to the chief priest and said, ‘What will you give me for my work?’ [Matt. 26:7-15]” (Huleatt fragments 1-3).
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).
80 AD Hermas

80 AD Hermas “The Son of God is older than all his creation, so that he became the Father’s adviser in his creation. Therefore also he is ancient” (The Shepherd 12).

BELIEVE!!!

You may want to give exact links to what book you are using, so none are confused.

Thanks

 

[inkaneer]

The OP is attempting to refute another person and is posting their correspondence. Unfortunately, how it was posted and formatting makes it difficult at times to differentiate between the two sets of messages.

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].

.