Oneness Believers In Church History

[Leafrivermac]

The church world today would have us believe that throughout history the Christian church has accepted the doctrine of the trinity. Is this really true? Were the church leaders in the post-apostolic age trinitarian? Were there any Oneness believers in church history?
From research on this subject, we have come to three conclusions . . . 1. As far as we can tell, the early Christian leaders in the days immediately following the apostolic age were Oneness. It is certain that they did not teach the doctrine of the trinity as it later developed and as it exists today. 2. Even after the emergence of the trinitarian doctrine in the latter part of the second century, the doctrine of the trinity did not replace Oneness as the dominant belief until around 300 A.D., and it did not become universally established until late in the fourth century. 3. Even after trinitarianism became dominant, Oneness believers continued to exist throughout church history.

Church historians agree that the doctrine of the trinity did not exist as we know it today in the immediate post-apostolic age. The Christian leaders following the apostles did not allude to a trinity, but rather they affirmed their belief in the monotheism of the Old Testament and accepted without question the deity and the humanity of Jesus Christ. Since these leaders emphasized the doctrines associated with Oneness, it can be assumed that the post-apostolic church accepted the oneness of God.
The most prominent post-apostolic fathers were Hermas, Clement of Rome, Polycarp, and Ignatius. Their ministries spanned the time from about 90 to 140 A.D.
Irenaeus, a prominent Christian leader who died around 200 A.D., had an intensely Christocentric theology and a firm belief that Jesus was God manifested in flesh. He held that the Logos which became incarnate in Jesus Christ was the mind of God, and was the Father Himself.
Some scholars classify Irenaeus as a believer in the "economic trinity." This view holds that there is no eternal trinity but only a temporary one. It is very probable, therefore, that Irenaeus believed in a trinity of God's activities or roles rather than a trinity of eternal persons, and he expressed some Oneness concepts. He certainly did not articulate the later trinitarian dogma of three distinct co-equal persons.
We find no references to the trinity as such in the early post-apostolic writings; they refer only to one God and to Jesus as God. Possible references to an emerging trinitarian doctrine, however, appear in some second century writings, mainly in a few references that seem to point to a triune baptismal formula.
There are several possible explanations for these few apparent references to a trinitarian concept in these writings. (1)Trinitarian readers and scholars may misunderstand these passages due to their own biases, just as they misinterpret Bible passages such as Matthew 28:19. (2)There is a strong possibility that later trinitarian copyists interpolated [added] passages of their own- a very common practice in church history. This is likely since the only existing copies of these early writings were written hundreds of years later than the originals. For example, an early writing called the Didache says communion should be administered only to those who are baptized in the name of the Lord, but it also mentions baptism in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. However, the oldest existing copy of the Didache is dated 1056 A.D.(3)No doubt false doctrine had already begun to creep into the church in some instances. In fact, false doctrines existed in apostolic days (Revelation 2-3), even false doctrine about Christ (IIJohn 7; Jude 4). On balance, however, we conclude from historical evidence that the church leaders in the age immediately following the days of Christ's twelve apostles were Oneness believers.

[Snooky]

Bro Mac; I have been enjoying your recent posts, but I never cease to be amazed at those who today who so strongly oppose what is written in the scriptures and also reject the history of the church. Must have no knowledge, or at best only a limited knowledgeof theGreek or Hebrew languages to rely upon. They cannot give even one scriptural proof of the church ever teaching , or thepractice oftheir belief and views, yet condemn so harshly any who dares to believe what is plainly stated in the scriptures. I have asked for just one scripture that plainly says that God is a trinity, or that God is three, or three persons, three spirits, ect. and have not gotten even one scripture. The doctrine of the triune God seems to be something that is written between the lines some where, or takes a special revelation to comprehend. To take the scripture exactly as it is written seems to be a false doctrine. All of the Apostles seem to have been decieved and in false doctrine. All of the early church leaders appear to have been in darkness. History cannot be excepted untill after 325 AD and the council of Nicea. I just don't grasp the concept behind the teachings.

[Leafrivermac]

Thanks Snooky, and I agree. And I know that you have been holding your peace to avoid confrontation. I was actually beginning to think that I was going to get it all out before someone got ticked.
Funny tho, I hav'nt broached the subject, holding my peace for some time while folk spoke of baptism being unnecessary, and how the Holy Spirit indwelling experiance is not for today (with all the insults that go with it), plus many statements that are trinitarian, letting all this go without a wiggle, but when the truth comes out .

[Goose 11]

Origen, in his attempt to combine strict monotheism with a hierarchical order in the Trinity, ended up by making the Son and the Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods,' inferior to the Father who alone was God in the strict sense. The stage was set for Arius. He saw in Scripture, the Apologists, and especially Origen two interwoven ideas, one that the Son was God, the other that the Son was subordinate and inferior to the Father in divinity. He saw a tension between these two ideas that the Father alone was God in the strict sense and that the Son was a 'diminished god' but not a creature, and he was not satisfied with the tension. He felt it must be resolved, and so he put a blunt question: Is the Son God or creature? He answered his question just as bluntly: The Son is not God. He is a perfect creature, not eternal but made by the Father out of nothing. And thus the subordinationist tendency in the Apologists and in Origen had reached full term. (The Triune God, Edmund J. Fortman, p 66-70)[*]Origen, the greatest theologian of the East, rejected this two-stage theory and maintained the eternal generation of the Son. But to reconcile the eternity of the Son with a strict monotheism, he resorted to a Platonic hierarchical framework for the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and ended up by also making the Son and Holy Spirit not precisely creatures but 'diminished gods.' (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, introduction: p.xv)[*]To some extent Origen was a subordinationist, for his attempt to synthesize strict monotheism with a Platonic hierarchical order in the Trinity could have and did have only a subordinationist result. He openly declared that the Son was inferior to the Father and the Holy Spirit to the Son. But he was not an Arian subordinationist for he did not make the Son a creature and an adopted son of God. (The Triune God, Edmund Fortman, p59-61)