Oneness Believers

7/30/2019 Oneness Believers

1/94

Oneness Believers

Contents:

Grievous Wolves

Christian Apologists

Noetus: Oneness Adherent (Believer)

Praxeas: Oneness Adherent (Believer)

Ancient Water Baptism

Sabellius: Oneness Adherent (Believer)

Beryllus: Oneness Adherent (Believer)

Dynamic Monarchians

The Origin of the Trinity

Holy Spirit

The Catholic Church

Conclusions

Notes

Oneness Believers Introduction

This one thing is for certain. That contrary to what the public has been led to believe,

Oneness groups have continued to exist down through the centuries. They started with the

apostles in 33 AD. So that is what this book is all about. Paul said that the apostolicchurch would survive as a body of believers until the coming of the Lord (I

Thessalonians 4:15). And we have and will continue to do so. And the truth (John 8:32)

that sets a person free from sin and Satan, will now be expounded upon. All Scripturesquoted herein comes from the King James Bible Version.

Grievous Wolves

"For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not

sparing the flock. Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, todraw away disciples after them" (Acts 20:29-30).

When the church was born into the world, there was only one church both inwardly and

outwardly. There were no denominations. The men and women in the upper room on theDay of Pentecost were all with one accord in one place (Acts 2:1).

The marvelous experience of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, with the evidence ofspeaking in other tongues (Acts 2:4), was the catalyst that would turn backward Galileans


2/94

into dynamic missionaries for Jesus Christ.

Yet there was a long road of blood, sweat, and tears ahead for the apostles and disciplesof Jesus Christ. They were constantly opposed by wicked people who attacked the

apostolic church both within and without. After Paul's departure from this life, the apostle

John actually faced a situation where an ungodly man had taken over an assembly:

"I wrote unto the church: but Diotrephes, who loveth to have the preeminence among

them, receiveth us not . . . neither doth he himself receive the brethren, and forbiddeththem that would, and casteth them out of the church" (3 John 9-10).

This incident apparently happened at the turn of the century. Jesus, through the pen of

John (AD 96), warned the churches in Asia Minor to resist wicked men and women whowere creeping into the churches (Revelation 2-3).

The apostle Peter wrote of wicked men who despised the government of the church (2Peter 2:10). He called them "presumptuous," self-willed, and not afraid to speak evil of

church dignities. They were pretending to follow Holy Spirit, and sitting in Holy Spirit

filled services.

Such descriptions let us know that the apostolic church was under attack even in the first

century. Paul described the false teachers as "grievous wolves," who attacked the church,and "perverse men," who drew away disciples from the church.

Jude, brother of the Lord, stated that false teachers had "crept in unawares," that these

people were "turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness," and that they were"denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ" (Jude 4). It seems that they were

continuing to live in sin while claiming to be Christians, and further, that they were

denying in some way the deity of the Lord. One Greek interlinear text says they denied

"the only Master, God and our Lord, Jesus Christ." Peter also wrote about early dissidentsthat denied the Lord (2 Peter 2:1).

We also know that troubles broke out in the apostolic churches in the last quarter of the

first century from an early follower of the apostles, Clement of Rome (AD 96). Clement

was identified by the third or fourth-century writers Origen and Eusebius as the disciple

of Paul mentioned in Philippians 4:3. Irenaeus of Lyons, another third-century writer,stated that Clement was the third successor of Peter in Rome as the bishop of the church

there.1

Clement seems to have been an educated Roman of Jewish descent. Around AD 96 he

learned of a tragic split in the district of Corinth and wrote a letter to the ministers at

Corinth, encouraging them to heal the breach that had developed. From what we canconclude from Clement's letter to Corinth, it seems that a clique, or one or two young

ministers, had promoted a rebellion against the leadership of the Corinthian church.

Clement concluded that it was:

"An injustice to eject from the sacred ministry the persons who were appointed either by

[the apostles], or later, with the consent of the whole church, by other men of high repute,

and have ministered to the flock of Christ faultlessly, humbly, quietly, and unselfishly,


3/94

and have moreover, over a long period of time, earned the esteem of all."2

These young ministers, according to Clement, were of no renown and of no reputation (IClement 11:3). In his eyes, they were young and foolish and had lifted themselves up

against honorable, respected, and aged men.3 Clement was concerned that this trouble in

Corinth would not remain isolated. It would spread, and it had already "perverted anddiscouraged" many. The "sedition" continued (I Clement 29:21).

The apostle John was probably still alive in AD 96, but he was the only one of theTwelve left. He was aged and ill at Ephesus and probably unable to handle such a grave

situation in Corinth. About twelve years after the split in the great church (most likely a

district of assemblies) in Corinth, trouble with heretics began to surface in the mother

church at Jerusalem, according to Eusebius's sources.4

Another early witness is Ignatius, bishop of Antioch and a martyr. Ignatius (AD 115) was

apparently converted by one of the Twelve or at least had sat under an apostle's ministry.Herbert Musurillo rightly concluded that, whatever one might think about Ignatius, his is

a significant witness: "Like John and Paul, Ignatius was one of the first ecstatics of theearly church; and that his few pages should arouse so much controversy and analysis issuggestive of his very importance as a witness to the mystery of Christianity."5

One modern writer speculated that Ignatius was one of the heretics that John, Peter, andJude had written against earlier and that he held to an early form of trinitarianism.

However, there is evidence that this is not so. Some testimony to the apostolicity of

Ignatius exists. For example, Papias, a contemporary, who most likely knew Ignatius

personally, tells us that Ignatius was brought up under the eyes of Peter, Barnabas, andPaul.6

Papias was a reputed disciple of the apostle John and was reportedly born AD 61. It is

known that Eusebius had access to the five books that Papias wrote (The Sayings of theLord). None of the early church writers questioned his credentials, although the later

Catholic fathers suppressed his writings. His testimony of Ignatius is therefore a positivefactor.

It is known that some of Ignatius's writings have been either interpolated or forged.

Caution is to be advised in reviewing them, but that does not mean that they do notcontain valuable information on the close of the apostolic age. The quotations that follow

are from letters that scholars consider to be genuine.

Ignatius, in his long journey as a prisoner of the Romans to the city of Rome to be

martyred, wrote to a number of the ancient churches. For example, he warned the church

at Ephesus, "I have heard of certain persons from elsewhere passing through, whosedoctrine was bad. These you did not permit to sow their seed among you; you stopped

your ears, so as not to receive the seed sown by them."7 In another place, Ignatius urged

Christians to be faithful in church attendance: "Let no one deceive himself: unless a manis within the sanctuary, he has to go without the Bread of God. . . . It follows then: he

who absents himself from the common meetings, by that very fact shows pride and

becomes sectarian."8


4/94

Virginia Corwin, a well-known scholar, stated that the deity of Jesus Christ was a point

of issue during the time of Ignatius. She noted that Ignatius did not have any developed

doctrine of the Logos.9 (The Logos is the Greek term for the "Word" in John 1, and acharacteristic theme of early trinitarian thought was to identify the Logos as a different

person from the Father.) In fact, Corwin apparently identified Ignatius as a monarchian, a

term used for those who emphasized the oneness of God: "If one term must be chosen toindicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be monarchian."10

In his letter to the Magnesians, Ignatius described God in such a way as to emphasize thedeity of Jesus Christ: "Everyone hasten to come together as to one temple of God, to one

altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, abiding in the one, and

returning to the one" (Magnesians 7:2).11 Corwin noted that in Magnesians 7:2 Ignatius

did not achieve his emphasis by the word God but rather insisted on the unity of Christand the Father.12

When we compare this statement of Ignatius with John 16:28, it seems to expressOneness thinking. Instead of speaking of Jesus as a second divine person, it describes the

Word of the Father being made flesh and thus God the Father becoming incarnate in theflesh.

According to Ignatius, strange teachings and ancient myths were being promulgated,

which denied this unity (oneness).13 Ignatius is said to have been appointed bishop ofAntioch in AD 67 by the apostle John. He reportedly succeeded Evodius, who had been

appointed bishop by Peter in AD 40.14

It is possible, but not likely, that Ignatius changed his teaching on the Godhead fortyyears after the apostle John appointed him bishop. His letters show no evidence of any

trinity (if we allow for one or two interpolations or changes).

We do not find the words "trinity," "triad," "three persons," "God the Son," or any othercharacteristically trinitarian terms in his writings. After he was condemned by Trajan,

Ignatius traveled from Antioch to Rome to die a martyr's death (AD 115). Some havecriticized him for being vainglorious because he seemed to have "sought" death.

However, it is important to realize that Ignatius was very elderly, and he could not have

saved his life honorably.

The apostle Paul expressed similar emotions (2 Timothy 4:6). Others have criticized

Ignatius for allowing himself to be termed theophorus (God-bearer). But this was

apparently a common term (similar to Paul's characterization of saints' bodies as "thetemple of the Holy Ghost"). Ignatius wrote to the Ephesians: "Thus you all are fellow

travellers, God-bearers, and temple-bearers, Christ-bearers and bearers of holiness, withthe commandment of Jesus Christ for festal attire" (Ephesians 9:2).15

Apparently, in using the term theophorus Ignatius referred to having the baptism of the

Holy Spirit. It became a loving nickname of his and even reached the ears of the Romans.As Ignatius, the old disciple, stood in the tumultuous Roman arena ready to die, the cruel

Emperor Trajan cried out to him, "And who is Theophorus?" Ignatius replied, "He who

has Christ within his breast."16


5/94

Ignatius was reportedly torn apart by four-legged beasts before the hateful eyes of a great

sports crowd. During his life he seems to have stood against the even more dangerous

two-legged beasts who sought to devour the church.

Moreover, Ignatius, in his lifetime, had attempted to protect the sacred writings. He

opposed those who were perverting them: "Unless I find it written in the originals, I willnot believe it to be written in the Gospel. And when I said, `It is written,' they answered

what lay before them in their corrupted copies" (Philadelphians 2:20).17 This does not

sound like a man who was attempting to introduce a new teaching such as the trinitarianLogos doctrine! Rather, it appears that he was trying to conserve the apostolic doctrine.

Let us examine another contemporary of Ignatius, Polycarp of Smyrna (AD 69-156).

Polycarp was reputed to be John's disciple and a companion of Papias, another of John'sdisciples.18 Tradition has it that the apostle John designated Polycarp as the bishop of

Smyrna; however, he is not noted as the bishop until at least AD 107. He was acquainted

with Philip and his four daughters, who lived at Hierapolis for a while. Polycarp knewIgnatius and no doubt knew many who had sat directly under the teaching of the apostles,

as he himself had. Like Ignatius, Polycarp fought against heresy in the church. In hisletter to the Philippians, he stressed obedience to the presbyters and the deacons.19

As heresy was continuing to grow, Polycarp warned the faithful to keep aloof from

"seducers, false brethren, and such as bear the Name of the Lord but for a mask."20 Heechoed his teacher John and wrote that anyone who did not acknowledge that Jesus Christ

has come in human flesh is antichrist.21 (See 2 John 7.) His desire was to hold on to what

he had heard from the apostles: "Therefore, let us leave untouched the senseless

speculations of the masses, and the false doctrines, and turn to the teaching delivered tous at the beginning."22

On at least two occasions, Polycarp visited Rome. On the first recorded visit (AD 114),possibly in conjunction with the martyrdom of Ignatius, Polycarp undoubtedly met the

Roman bishop Alexander. No mention is made of any heresy. On the second visit (AD

154), Polycarp had fellowship with Anicetus, the Roman bishop. He was reported to havebeen successful in showing certain heretics their errors.23 It is not likely that Polycarp

and Ignatius would have differed in their doctrine. We know that they were in fellowship

with one another.

In a letter to Polycarp, Ignatius acknowledged Jesus Christ as God and demonstrated that

he (Ignatius) was, like later monarchians, a patripassianist. (The word means "the Father

suffered" and refers to the belief that God the Father was incarnate in the man Jesus andthus suffered for us in the flesh.) "Expect him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible,

though for our sakes made visible: impalpable, and impassible, yet for us subjected tosuf- ferings, enduring all manner of ways for our salvation" (To Polycarp 1:15).24 It isobvious from this passage and others that Ignatius held that it was God the Father,

invisible and impassible (not able to suffer), who had become incarnate in the Son (the

man Jesus) and had then suffered in the flesh for our salvation. What did Polycarp thinkof Ignatius? He stated that Ignatius was an example of holiness and endurance, and he

urged the Philippians to follow his example.25


6/94

Some historians have called this Oneness teaching of Ignatius and Polycarp "Asiatic

modalism." Smyrna and Antioch were in the geographical area known as Asia Minor;

hence they styled it Asiatic. The term modalism refers to the belief that Father, Son, andHoly Spirit are modes or manifestations of one God rather than different persons. We

find this understanding in the Gospel of John, which teaches that the one God was

revealed in the flesh, through the Incarnation, and in Paul's epistles, which teach that theone God was manifested in the flesh. Neither of these apostles ever spoke of a "second

divine person." God was Father in creation, came in flesh as the Son in redemption, and

is the Holy Spirit in the church. He revealed Himself in three different ways, but in eachcase He revealed Himself and not another.

Loofs and Kroymann, for example, were historians who were convinced that Ignatius was

a modalist.26 What is apparent, then, is that the great leaders of the sub- apostolic age(and whose roots go back into the close of the apostolic age) were not trinitarians but

rather were modalists.

To use modern terms, Ignatius was not a Roman Catholic, but he was a type of Oneness

believer. Trinitarian writers have appropriated the word catholic (which means"universal") from the writings of Ignatius. But the man who used it was not a Catholic inthe modern sense! He was apostolic. That is what it seems from his writings.

Polycarp was thirty years old or more before the death of the apostle John. No doubt hehad witnessed the battles that had raged in the last days of the beloved apostle. He had

often heard the anointed and powerful preaching of John. Towards the end of his life,

John was teaching that there were many false prophets and many deceivers

Grievous Wolves

(I John 4:1; 2 John 7). This situation must have increased in severity, for Polycarp was

wont to say, when he heard of another heresy, "O good God, for what times hast thoukept me, that I should endure such things!"27 There are no trinitarian writers until after

the death of Ignatius. In the latter part of Polycarp's life there were some writers whoexpressed early trinitarian ideas; however, we do not see them in fellowship with

Polycarp.

The earliest possible trinitarian writer, who used a trinitarian-type Logos doctrine, wasQuadratus (AD 117-25) of Athens. He has sometimes been called the first Christian

apologist, for he dedicated a defense (apology) of Christianity to the Emperor Hadrian

(AD 117-38).28

Quadratus was a Greek philosopher, and in another probable work of his, The Epistle to

Diognetus (c. AD 125), we get a glimpse of emerging Logos theory. Quadratus claimedto have been a disciple of the apostles and consequently a "teacher of the gentiles." The

Logos was "the Eternal One who today is accounted a Son." He also called the Logos

"He who glorifies the Father." He said there was no life without gnosis (knowledge,especially spiritual or esoteric knowledge), for gnosis is the avenue to life. He spoke of

the true Gnosis and attaining full gnosis. He urged, "Let gnosis be in your heart." This

language certainly sounds like there is a connection between the early heresy known as


7/94

Gnosticism and the beginnings of the trinitarian Logos teaching.

We see an early type of trinitarian thought in Quadratus's idea of the Logos as apreexistent Son, planning creation together with the Father: "After He had already

planned everything in union with the Son . . ."29 In another place, Quadratus separated

God the Father from the Designer and the Architect of the universe: "No, He [God theFather] sent the Designer and Architect of the Universe in Person -- Him, by whom He

created the heavens."30

This idea that there is a divine person different from God the Father who serves as the

agent of creation does not comport with the Scriptures:

"I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; thatspreadeth abroad the earth by myself" (Isaiah 44:24).

God said that He created the heavens and the earth alone. There was no other divineperson with Him. He actually spoke the worlds into existence. He said, "Let there be

light," and there was light (Genesis 1:3). Quadratus, therefore, was not in harmony with

the clear teaching of the Scriptures.

This kind of a construct is not seen in Polycarp. The idea of the Logos as a distinct divine

person emanating from God the Father and operating as a creative Demiurge would havebeen foreign to Polycarp. The old patriarch, Polycarp, died a martyr's death on February

23, AD 156. He was captured by the authorities and brought into a public amphitheater at

Smyrna. A great crowd of bloodthirsty pagans began to shout with uncontrolled fury and

anger, "This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, the destroyer of our gods!"

Polycarp and eleven Christians from Philadelphia were put to death. Polycarp was burnt

at the stake since the "hunting sports" (the use of wild animals) was closed for the day.

Before he died, Polycarp testified that he worshiped Christ alone. The description of hisdeath, which is in some places somewhat fanciful and may contain interpolations, is in a

manuscript entitled The Martyrdom of Polycarp. It was in the hands of Irenaeus in thesecond century AD.31 Polycarp was the last-known great Christian who had walked and

talked with the apostles.

Spiritual Babylon began to rise up to crush the true apostolic religion. The Montanistcontroversy, which seems to have been a charismatic vehicle used to thrust the trinitarian

Logos teaching into the churches, began to spread like wildfire through Asia Minor,

especially following the death of Polycarp. This does not seem to be coincidental,although there were earlier trinitarian assemblies. Athens, for example, had an assembly

that early on began to advocate a trinitarian-type Logos doctrine, probably by AD 117.

Other large cities in the Roman empire (Alexandria, Carthage, Antioch, and even Romeitself) had churches with similar teachings in the second century, although these are seen

mostly from 140 on.

In the first century, the apostles Paul and John were already seeing an increase in early

Gnostic type of teaching. Paul, for example, warned Timothy (AD 66) about "oppositions

of science [gnosis] falsely so called" (I Timothy 6:20). Moreover, it appears that

Gnosticism contributed ideas that gave rise to the trinitarian theory.


8/94

Let us look at the Christian writers of the minority viewpoint in the second century, who,

after the political triumph of the Catholic Church, were enshrined as the "Christian

Apologists."

Apologists

"Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition ofmen, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ" (Colossians 2:8).

The Christian Apologists of the second century are the leading theological writers whose

works remain from that time. They do not seem to have been in the mainstream of the

Christianity of that century, however. The majority of Christians in the second century

were modalistic Christians, yet we do not see their spokesmen making apologies (or"formal justifications") for Christianity to the pagans. The small group of apologists

whose writings have been permitted to survive were all teachers of the Logos doctrine

that was later used to support trinitarianism, namely, the idea that the Logos (Word) wasa second person. If there were apologies for Christianity from modalistic Christians, they

have been suppressed or destroyed.

The second-century apologists have made a great impact upon the history of Catholic

Christianity. Adolph Harnack, a recognized authority on church history, wrote that the

apologists wrote the prolegomena (introduction) for "every future theological system inthe church."1

The apologists were obviously influenced by Greek philosophy.2 It is contradictory on

the surface, but while they opposed certain of the Gnostics, they themselves demonstratedGnostic ideas in their philosophical brand of Christianity. Their indebtedness to Greek

philosophy and Gnostic thought in the development of their doctrine of God can scarcely

be denied, nor can one deny the influence of Philo, the Jewish philosopher of Alexandria.

It is amazing that modern trinitarians try to deny the influence of philosophy on thetrinity.

Yet these early apologists believed in the power of God. The first known apologist,

Quadratus of Athens (previously mentioned), referred to persons living in his day (AD

100-125), whom Jesus had healed or raised from the dead.3

Justin Martyr, the foremost Christian apologist, who was converted about AD 133, told of

divine healings in about AD 150.4 He also related how demons were cast out: "For

numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of ourChristian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ . . . have healed and do heal,

rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men" (Second Apology).5

The apologists of the second century believed in the gifts of the Holy Spirit. It appears

also that they continued to preach the baptism of the Holy Spirit. But they held a different

position on the Godhead. Jesus Christ was in the second place: " Jesus Christ . . . wereasonably worship Him, having learned He is the Son of the true God Himself, and

holding Him in the second place, and the prophetic Spirit in the third" (First Apology).6

Thus the apologists introduced the idea of subordinationism, the idea that Christ as God


9/94

must forever be subordinated to the second place. This faulty thinking is still prevalent in

the common belief of trinitarianism.

Clement, Ignatius, and Polycarp, by contrast, held that Jesus Christ was God Almighty

manifest in the flesh, the first and the last.7 The teaching of Justin is not wholly derived

from the Scriptures but rather from Greek philosophy and in some ways is descendedfrom the religion of Babylon. Justin was born in Palestine, a native of Flavia Neopolis

(modern Nablus), and was apparently of Roman and Samaritan descent.

Justin Martyr

Even after Justin's conversion to Christianity, he continued to wear the pallium (the

philosopher's cloak). As Fairweather said, "His Platonism colored his thinking to thelast."8 Justin wrote his First Apology AD 140. In this work, Justin promoted a concept of

the Logos that is derived from Platonism and mythology with an admixture of Scripture.

According to Justin's conception, the Logos is a divine person through whom God(another divine person) created and arranged all things.9 John Chapman indicated that

Justin knew about contemporary Christians who taught the oneness of God.10 In FirstApology 63, Justin referred to those who affirmed that the Son was the Father, and hecondemned them. He repeated this condemnation of Oneness teachers in Dialogue with

Trypho 128.11 These struggles with Oneness Christians occurred decades before the

controversy over the modalists led by Noetus of Smyrna (AD 180), whom sometrinitarian writers claim began the "heresy" of Oneness!

Trinitarian scholars are well aware of the unorthodoxy (according to modern trinitarian

standards) of Justin, yet they claim him as one of the architects of the trinity doctrine.Philip Carrington, for example, pointed out his blatant subordinationism: "Justin himself

is led away by the use of the words `Logos' and `Angelos' to represent the Second Person

as a subordinate being, though, where he is not philosophising, his language is clearenough."12 This error remains today among those who identify the angel of the Lord

with the second divine person of their trinity (in other words, misidentifying the Deity

with one of His angelic beings). Some, however, consider the angel of the Lord to be atheophany (manifestation of God).

By AD 180, we find the use of the word triados (triad) by Theophilus of Antioch in a

possible effort to describe the concept of "three divine Persons."13 As we have alreadynoted, the corollary of a preexistent Son as a distinct divine person probably occurred

earlier with Quadratus (125 AD): "And He [God the Father] formed in His mind a great

and unspeakable conception which He communicated to His Son alone."14 We have noindication as to why God the Father did not also communicate this "conception" to the

third divine person! Justin was influenced by Albinus, a Middle Platonic philosopher ( inSmyrna AD 151 and earlier), and, to a lesser degree, by Philo Judaeus of Alexandria.15Justin's enchantment with Greek philosophy led him to identify the different

manifestations of God as different divine persons: "He who is said to have appeared to

Abraham . . . and who is called God, is distinct from Him who made all thingsnumerically, I mean, not [distinct] in will" (Dialogue with Trypho 61).16

Justin admitted that there were Christians in his day, whom he called "heretics," who did


10/94

not teach that the "us" in Genesis 3:22 (see also Genesis 1:26) meant more than one

divine person: "For I would not say that the dogma of that heresy [sect] which is said to

be among us is true, or that the teachers of it can prove that God spoke to angels."17 Acommon Oneness explanation of the plural passages in Genesis is that God spoke to the

angels. (See Job 38:7, which demonstrates that the angels were present when God laid the

foundations of the earth and undoubtedly at the creation of humans). And it is clear thatJustin was not referring to Jews, but rather to a group of Christians. Justin maintained that

normally "that which is begotten is numerically distinct from that which begets [it]."18

But, as in Dialogue with Trypho 128, he referred to a modalistic argument against Christas a separate power (person) from God:

"Those who maintain that this power [Christ] is indivisible and inseparable from the

Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is indivisible and inseparablefrom the sun in the heavens; as when it sinks, the light sinks along with it; as the Father,

when He chooses, say they, causes His power to spring forth, and when He chooses, He

makes it return to Himself."19

This, of course, is reminiscent of the modalism that we see in John's Gospel. In John'sGospel, Jesus declared that He and the Father are one (John 10:30). He also said that Hecame forth from the Father (as the Word that was made flesh and not as a second divine

person) and that He returned to the Father (John 16:28). Justin certainly had a far-

reaching influence. His stamp is seen upon the doctrines of Irenaeus, Tertullian,Hippolytus, Cyprian, and Novatian. At least Justin was willing to give his life for his

Christian faith. He died a martyr at the age of fifty-one in Rome (AD 165).

There are certain affinities between the apologists of the second century and Gnostics thatcannot be denied. The Gnostics were spreading their doctrine all over the Roman Empire

in the second century. Valentinus, a Platonic Christian philosopher from Alexandria,

settled in Rome (AD 140), where Justin also taught (although we have no evidence of anyfellowship between Justin and Valentinus). But, like Justin, it was the goal of Valentinus,

with his elaborate Christian Gnostic system, to harmonize pagan philosophy with

Christian doctrine.20 The Gnostics claimed personal instruction from the apostles.Valentinus, according to Clement of Alexandria, claimed one Theudas as a teacher, who

was supposedly a disciple of Paul. Another Gnostic, Basilides, who appeared in

Alexandria AD 133, claimed Glaucias, said to have been the apostle Peter's interpreter, as

his master.21 While the Gnostic groups found themselves at odds with both the Onenessand early trinitarian groups, it is nevertheless true that both trinitarian and Gnostic groups

had a common base in pagan philosophy.

Marcion, a prominent heretic of this period, apparently continued to baptize in Jesus'

name despite his erroneous views. He had an idea (which is Gnostic) of a good,

unknowable God above the God Jehovah of the Old Testament, whom Marcionconsidered to be evil. The unknowable God (God the Father) was revealed through Jesus

Christ. Marcion was probably raised as an apostolic Christian in Sinope. He became a

wealthy shipmaster of Pontus (in Asia Minor) and relocated to Rome, at first becoming azealous member of the apostolic assembly pastored by Hyginus and later by Pius.

Marcion presented a gift to the Roman church of 200,000 sesterces (possibly 20,000

dollars), but then he fell into error under the influence of the Syrian Gnostic Cerdo, who


11/94

had recently arrived in Rome. The church returned his generous gift, and he left the

church in AD 144, setting up his own church with Cerdo.22

Marcion retained the basic practice of baptizing his converts in the name of Jesus

Christ.23 He would baptize none who were married, unless they were dying. He allowed

a second or third baptism in case of sin after baptism, misconstruing Luke 12:50, whereJesus speaks of another baptism, to justify this.24 He was accused of docetism, teaching

that Christ did not have a real flesh-and-blood body. He is also said to have denied the

resurrection of the physical body.25 He accepted only portions of the New Testament.26

Tertullian, writing later, said that Marcion was the leader of a large group. For at least

two hundred years, the Marcionites were rivals of the early Christians. Jocelyn Rhys said

that Marcion considered himself to be the upholder of the pure primitive faith.27 He wassaid to have refused the Old Testament. His followers, Politus, Basilicus, and Apelles,

continued the sect, which lasted for a number of centuries up to the Middle Ages.28

Some have speculated that Marcion was actually apostolic because of the reports that hebaptized in Jesus' name. His teaching on the Godhead, however, was not apostolic.

Moreover, he seems to have denied the genuine humanity of Christ.

An early Christian writer of note was Irenaeus (AD 135-200) of Lyons (in France). It

appears that Irenaeus was probably a Oneness Christian for many years who made a

transition from apostolic Oneness doctrine to trinitarianism. He claimed to have been, inearly youth, a disciple of Polycarp in Smyrna. There is no confirmation of this and no

acknowledgment by Polycarp. Irenaeus claimed that the only succession that mattered

was the succession of the bishops and presbyters, which could be directly traced back to

the apostles.29 While this idea has some merit, we should point out that even though achurch could trace a line of bishops back to the apostles, the important thing is whether or

not it still taught the doctrine of the apostles in its fullness.

In the second century, it was common throughout the empire for Christians to believe in

the gifts of the Spirit. Even early trinitarians of this time believed, as many do today, in

the gifts and the baptism of the Holy Spirit. Irenaeus wrote that many brethren in thechurch possessed prophetic gifts and through the Spirit "spoke all kinds of tongues."30

While Irenaeus wrote about spiritual gifts in the period of an apparent alliance with the

Montanists, it is likely that in AD 185 most Christians spoke with tongues and taught thebaptism of the Spirit. The churches of that period cast out demons in the name of Jesus,

prophesied, saw visions, and prayed for healing of the sick by laying on hands. Irenaeus

wrote, "Yea, even the dead have been raised up."31 Certainly, tongues had not ceasedthroughout the Christian communities in AD 185. And this was nearly a century after the

Bible was finished!

But Irenaeus apparently allied himself with a group of Christians who had lost sight of

the Almighty God manifest in the flesh. Jesus is both Lord (Father) and Christ (Son)

(Acts 2:36). When Irenaeus saw Jesus, he no longer saw the Father (John 14:9). Instead,it seems that Irenaeus became a supporter of the new Logos doctrine and a supporter of

the Montanists.


12/94

Jaroslav Pelikan, a well known modern historian, stated that Irenaeus was "acquainted"

with the apologetic doctrine of the Logos, but he did not make much use of it.32 It is true

that there are statements in Irenaeus's writings that appear to be compatible with Onenessdoctrine. For example, he wrote, "The Father is that which is invisible about the Son,

[and] the Son is that which is visible about the Father."33 And we have this striking

phrase: "The Father is God revealing Himself, and the Son is God revealed."34

The first statement is supportive of Oneness since we may see the human Christ as the

image of the invisible God and not a second divine person. (See 2 Corinthians 4:4;Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 1:3.) And the second statement is reminiscent of John 1:18.

But Irenaeus revealed a trinitarian type of thinking by holding that the Son of God was

begotten before creation and that it was the Son of God (and not God the Father) whowas incarnated: "Son of God, pre-existing with the Father, begotten before all creation of

the world, and at the end of times appearing to all the world as man."35

In this manner, supporters of the trinitarian Logos doctrine have robbed God the Father of

His eternal glory, which He Himself revealed at Calvary, since it was He Himself (andnot another) who took on the robes of flesh and came in flesh as the Son of God, born ofthe virgin Mary when the fullness of time was come (Galatians 4:4). For they have said

that another divine person besides God the Father (a divine person who was begotten

before the creation) was the one who was incarnated. Irenaeus wrote that the Son of Godexisted before He appeared in the world and before the world was made.36 He wrote,

"The Son of God became Son of Man."37 These statements were written c. AD 190, later

in his life.

Irenaeus attempted to influence the bishop of Rome (who was apostolic Oneness,

according to our information) to recognize the trinitarian Montanists in Asia Minor, from

AD 170-180. He was undoubtedly indebted to Justin, and not to Polycarp, for thefollowing trinitarian teaching: One of the three angels who appeared to Abraham at

Mamre was the Son of God.38 In his Apostolic Preaching, Irenaeus quoted Genesis

19:24, "And the LORD rained . . . from the LORD out of heaven," stating that this meanstwo Lords and that the Son (one Lord) received power to punish Sodom from the Father

(another Lord).39 This is a common trinitarian misconception. God Almighty is

omnipresent (Jeremiah 23:24). Why should it seem strange that God the Father could

simultaneously be on earth and in heaven? There are not two Lords, but there is only oneLord (Ephesians 4:5).

The immediate origin of the idea of Christ as a separate power or person from God theFather was, of course, Gnosticism. As Larson wrote, "The Gnostic heresy had its roots in

the concept that Christ had existed as a separate power since the creation of the world." Ineffect, he identified the Catholic concept of Christology as something that was modeledafter the Greek mystery religious idea of soter (savior).40

In other words, the apologists borrowed from the pagan mystery religions descendedfrom Babylon. The new half-breed of Greek philosopher and Christian (such as Justin

Martyr) had made this possible, as Fairweather wrote: "Hitherto it had been customary to

regard philosophy as subversive of Gospel teaching (Colossians 2:8), and it was a new


13/94

departure when a professed philosopher came forward to defend Christianity as a

philosophy."41

These second-century apologists were on the fringes of Christianity. They were not

apparently endorsed by the apostle's church. Yet to the victor belongs the spoils, and

since the Catholic Church became the state church of the Roman Empire in the fourthcentury, these men became the heroes of the Catholic movement and trinitarianism. What

is ironic is that modern "heroes" of trinitarianism today unashamedly appeal to the

apologists for verification of their own "orthodoxy," and yet they themselves would beconsidered "heretics" by the second-century apologists!

Besides Quadratus, Justin, and Irenaeus, Athenagoras (AD 110-80) was an important

writer of the second century whose works have been preserved. Athenagoras was a Greekphilosopher from Athens who became a Christian. Late in his life (AD 177), he presented

his Apology to the Emperor Aurelius (reigned AD 161-80). In this Apology, we find the

use of the unscriptural trinitarian term "God the Son" in the following phrase: "God theFather, and of God the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, who declare both their power in union

and their distinction in order."42

He did not use the term "God the Holy Spirit," since the second-century apologists had

not really developed the status of the Holy Spirit as the "third person." This elevation of

the Holy Spirit as a coequal "third person" seems to have begun with Tertullian and thelater Montanists.

Nonetheless, Athenagoras gave a somewhat greater position to the Son:

The Son of God is the Logos of the Father, in idea and in operation; for after the pattern

of Him and by Him were all things made, the Father and the Son being one. And, the Son

being in the Father and the Father in the Son, in oneness and power of spirit, the

understanding and reason is the Son of God.43

This understanding of the Logos is, of course, a philosophical understanding with Greekorigin. Athenagoras was an Athenian philosopher, and this is how he viewed the Logos,

after the pagan manner of a philosopher's interpretation of the Logos. It is certainly not

the Jewish view of the Messiah that we see in the Scriptures.

The biblical view of the Son of God is somewhat different. In the Scriptures, the Son of

God is actually God Himself (the Father) manifest in the flesh (I Timothy 3:16), and He

was made of a woman when the fullness of time was come (not in eternity) (Galatians4:4). The Son was that "holy thing" born of Mary (Luke 1:35) and "the only begotten of

the Father" (John 1:14), which refers to the virgin birth and not to eternity!

The Son did not preexist as a separate or distinct divine hypostasis (person, being), for

there is only one divine hypostasis, who is a Spirit (John 4:24; Hebrews 1:3). Jesus Christ

preexisted as God the Father, and that is who was incarnated. We cannot say that the Sonwas incarnated, but the One who was incarnated and born of Mary is called the Son of

God. In other words, the Son is God manifest in the flesh.

Philip of Side said that Athenagoras was the head of the famous catechetical school of


14/94

Alexandria. If so, Athenagoras had the distinction of being an instructor of a noted early

trinitarian, Clement of Alexandria. He was succeeded by Pantaenus as head of the

school.44 The Alexandrian school played an important role in developing the trinitariandoctrine and preparing the way for the Council of Nicea some 145 years later.

The doctrinal change of church districts in the Roman Empire was, in some cases, quiterapid. For example, it appears that the Antioch district fell from apostolic Oneness

doctrine to incipient trinitarianism in less than fifty years. The central problem was a

misidentification of Jesus.

Earl Morse Wilbur, a Unitarian historian, discussed the process by which early Christian

writers began to identify the biblical Messiah with the Greek Logos: "For Christianity

encountered in the world of Greek thought the conception of a personified Logos orWord, a kind of world soul intermediate between . . . deity and . . . sinful man; . . . the

critical step was taken when the Jewish Messiah . . . came gradually to be identified with

the Greek Logos."45

When Christians accepted the Greek Logos as the Messiah, in effect they acceptedanother Jesus, theologically speaking. Unfortunately, untold millions have been led downthis primrose lane. The Jesus of the Greek Logos tradition does not accurately reflect the

Jesus of the Bible.46 In the next chapter, we shall look at one of the Oneness champions,

who withstood the introduction of the second-century Logos doctrine.

Noetus:

"Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation, it wasneedful for me to write unto you, and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the

faith which was once delivered unto the saints" (Jude 3).

Noetus was born in Smyrna in Asia Minor, possibly as early as AD 130.1 Some sourceshave Noetus residing in Ephesus and teaching as late as AD 220-45. This, if true, would

make his birth somewhat later; however, these late dates for his death seem to be basedon a misinterpreta- tion of the ancient Catholic writer Epiphanius.2

Hippolytus, in his polemic Contra Noetum, attempted to make Noetus the "founder" of

the monarchian "heresy," but most scholars now recognize that Noetus was simplyholding on to an earlier faith, the Asiatic modalism of Ignatius and Polycarp. At least, he

was not the originator of Oneness doctrine.

One might speculate that Noetus sat under the ministry of Polycarp of Smyrna. Polycarp

remained alive until AD 156. Moreover, unlike Irenaeus in his later life, Noetus taught

the oneness of God, as indeed Polycarp had. And LeBreton has pointed out that thedoctrine of Noetus was similar to that of Ignatius.3 We have already shown that Ignatius

and Polycarp were in fellowship with one another. Therefore, it is logical to place Noetus

in the same genre of theology as these two worthy men.

Smyrna, a commercial port city, lies within modern Turkey. It is located on the river

Meles at the eastern end of the ancient Sinus Smyrnaeus, whose depth allowed the largest

ships to anchor at the very walls of the city. Smyrna was at the lower end of the great


15/94

valley of the Hermus, in which lay the rich city of Sardis, of which Smyrna served as the

principal seaport. The city itself stood partly on the seashore and partly on Mastusia Hill,

and it had streets paved with stone.4 Smyrna's location was important. Certainly, the citywas a concern of the Lord, and He sent an anointed message (through John, AD 96) to

the church in Smyrna (Revelation 2:8-10). Apparently the church at Smyrna was

struggling then with economic poverty but was spiritually on fire. The church waswarned of a future trial, which would last for ten years (a period that probably came to

pass during the reign of Emperor Trajan, AD 98-117). The church was troubled also by a

group that the Lord called "the synagogue of Satan."

Polycarp became the bishop of Smyrna AD 107 (or perhaps earlier) and served until his

martyrdom AD 156. Following the death of Polycarp, tradition tells us that Papirius

succeeded him as bishop and that Papirius, upon his death, was succeeded by Camerius.5Somewhere between AD 156 and 180, the church at Smyrna began to allow early

trinitarian teaching to come in. Asiatic modalism was challenged. The man who

attempted to stop the introduction of the trinitarian Logos doctrine was none other thanNoetus. Hippolytus, an enemy of the original Oneness teaching, is the primary source for

what happened at Smyrna. Noetus was called on the carpet by the presbyters for

preaching his Oneness doctrine.

On the first confrontation with the presbyters, Noetus and his unnamed brother minister

were accused of put- ting themselves out as some kind of "Moses" and "Aaron."6 Theydenied the charge. Whether they were preaching something about the soon return of the

Lord, we just do not know. A second confrontation with the presbyters in Smyrna

occurred about AD 180 concerning their teaching on the Godhead. After some

discussion, Noetus asked the presbyters, "What evil, then, am I doing in glorifyingChrist?" The presbyters could not answer Noetus's question but stated what has been put

forward as one of the first creeds to indicate a plurality of divine persons:

"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 wehave learned and we allege."7

While these presbyters acknowledged that they believed in one God, they added a phrase,

in apposition to this, stating that they also believed in Christ. They said, "We, too, knowin truth one God," which indicates that Noetus was accusing them of no longer believing

in one God, since they had seemingly added the divine Logos as a second person. There

also seems to have been some question of who was incarnated. The presbyters affirmedthat the Son suffered (which normally would not be a matter of contention unless,

perhaps, Noetus had asserted that God the Father was incarnated). This might have been

the presbyters' way of asserting that it was the Son who was incarnated, thinking that thiswas the only way for salvation to come. Noetus, on the other hand, apparently maintained

that it was indeed the Father who had suffered vicariously, that is, through the flesh.

Hippolytus stated that the presbyters expelled Noetus from the church and that he

established a school.8 Hippolytus accused Noetus of blasphemy against the Holy Ghost

(no proof was given of this), and of being puffed up with pride, and of being "inspired by


16/94

the conceit of a strange spirit."9

But we are grateful to Hippolytus for his polemic against Noetus, since we are permittedto view a portion of Noetus's teaching:

"There exists one and the same Being, called Father and Son, not one derived from the

other, but Himself from Himself, nominally called Father and Son according to thechanging of the times; and that this One is He that appeared to the patriarchs, and

submitted to birth from a virgin, and conversed as man among men. On account of Hisbirth that had taken place, He confessed Himselfto be the Son to those who saw Him,

while to those who could receive it, He did not hide the fact that He was the Father."10

This explanation of the Incarnation and the Godhead seems to have been well thoughtout. Noetus attacked the idea of derivation, which implies subordination and has plagued

the trinitarian model since it was introduced. Noetus also upheld the passibility of the

Father in the same manner that Ignatius had in Epistle to Polycarp 1:15. It was the Fatherwho had appeared to the patriarchs, and it was the Father who submitted to birth from a

virgin (in the flesh). The one who was impassible (not able to suffer) became passible(able to suffer through the Incarnation) for our sakes.

Hippolytus would have us believe that this type of Asiatic modalism was something

"new," but even he admitted, "Now that [Noetus] affirms that the Son and the Father arethe same, no one is ignorant."11 In other words, his teaching was not new after all! What

was new about Noetus was that he was resisting the new Logos doctrine.

Hippolytus attacked Noetus's explanation of the Incarnation by attempting to make itlook ridiculous that God Himself had appeared as His own Son: "When indeed, then

[according to Noetus], the Father had not been born, He was justly styled `Father'; and

when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He Himself became

His own Son, not another's."12

It is in this manner, said Hippolytus, that Noetus "thinks to establish the sovereignty [ofGod], alleging that Father and Son, [so] called, are one and the same [substance], but

Himself from Himself."13 Of course, Noetus, if he used the phrase "Himself from

Himself," referred to the Incarnation and not to some eternal "begetting."

It is interesting that this seems to be the first use of the Greek word homoousios ("same

substance"). It was used by a modalist! Later, in the third century, Paul of Samosata

would use homoousios against the trinitarians. Then it was appropriated by thetrinitarians at Nicea to clumsily attempt to rectify the inherent built in subordinationism

in their trinitarian model. In this manner, they hoped to maintain Christ's deity while

continuing to hold Him forth as a distinct, second divine person.

The Noetians appealed to a number of passages in the Old Testament that exhibit the

oneness of God:

"I am the God of thy father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.

And Moses hid his face; for he was afraid to look upon God" (Exodus 3:6).


17/94

"Thou shalt have no other gods before me" (Exodus 20:3).

"Thus said the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am thefirst, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God" (Isaiah 44:6).

Hippolytus noted:

Thus they say they prove that God is one. And then they answer in this manner: "If

therefore I acknowledge Christ to be God, He is the Father Himself, if He is indeed God;and Christ suffered, being Himself God; and consequently the Father suffered, for He

[Christ] was the Father Himself."14

They employed a basic logic: (a) If Christ is God, and (b) if God is the Father, then (c)Christ is the Father, if He is indeed God. It is clear from later information on modalist

doctrine that they agreed that God was manifest in the flesh when they spoke of the

Father suffering. It was the mystery of the Incarnation (not the mystery of the trinity) thatmade it possible for God the Father to be able to suffer. Ignatius taught that God the

Father became able to suffer for our sakes through the Incarnation. The Christian Platonic

philosophers, however, taught that the unknown Father remained forever impassible(unable to suffer) and so sent another who could. The Noetians rightly concluded that this

view was ditheism (belief in two gods). The Noetians also made use of Isaiah 45:14:

"Surely, God is in thee; and there is none else, there is no God."

In the New Testament, the Noetians leaned heavily upon the Gospel of John (John 2:19;

10:30; 14:9). These are well-known Oneness passages. They also quoted Romans 9:5,

another passage that uplifts the deity of Christ "over all."15 Noetus left Smyrna and wentto Ephesus AD 180.16 There was coincidentally a series of devastating earth- quakes that

hit the Smyrna area AD 180.17 It seems that Noetus held the rank of bishop and

continued his ministry in the area of Ephesus.18

Ephesus was a key city. It was the capital of Asia Minor and a focal point for the valleys

of the Cayster, Meander, Hermus, and Caicus Rivers. It was a beehive of Christianmissionary activity.19 Cities in this region are well-known from the Epistles of Paul and

the writings of Ignatius: Colossae, Laodicea, Hierapolis, Philadelphia, Magnesia, Tralles,

and Troas. Ephesus was the home base of the apostle John in his final years. Clement of

Alexandria wrote that it was in Ephesus that John appointed pastors in Asia Minor,reconciled whole churches, and ordained men pointed out to him by the Spirit.20 When

Ignatius wrote to the church of Ephesus AD 110, the district seemed to be maintaining

apostolic tradition.21 Seventy years later, a church split occurred, and two groups eachclaimed apostolic succession. The last quarter of the second century saw the growth of

the new Logos movement (which became Catholic trinitarianism), energized as it was bythe Montanists, the charismatics of their day. It would reach a crescendo in the thirdcentury. The teachers of the new Logos doctrine made much of John's use of the term

Logos (the Word) in the Gospel of John. John purposely wrote that the Logos (the Word)

was pros ton theon ("pertaining to God") in John 1:1 and then proceeded to demolish thefalse Logos theory by adding that the Logos "was God" (identifying the Logos as God the

Father).


18/94

Nevertheless, the supporters of the new Logos theory claimed the Gospel of John as their

Gospel and attempted to say that Oneness Christians did not accept John.22 Stewart

McDowall wrote that elsewhere in the New Testament, the same phrase John used inJohn 1:1, pros ton theon, means "pertaining" or "relating" to God (Hebrews 2:17; 5:1).

McDowall further stated that pros seldom means "with" and that the normal Greek word

meaning "with" is an entirely different preposition. Thus, an accurate understanding ofJohn's terminology would reveal that the Word was in the beginning and it pertained to

God. The term Logos thus refers to God, like His "hand" or His "arm." McDowall asked,

"God is Love. . . . Would `Love' be another `Person' in the Godhead?"23 Is God's Word adifferent person from God Himself? Is a human being's word a separate person from that

individual? Many, upon hearing the voice of someone speaking, will exclaim, "That's

Johnny!" or "That's Susie!" But it was actually the word of the individual that they heard.

Larson expressed the contradiction of maintaining that Christ is truly God but denying

that He could be God the Father--perhaps unwittingly--when he wrote about the

consternation of philosophically minded Christians over the patripassianism of Noetus:

"The horror aroused among the orthodox by the thought that God the Father had beennailed to a tree, approached hysteria: and this, we believe, resulted from the fact that noone ever quite accepted the doctrine that Jesus was truly God. For were He actually so,

why was it less horrible for Him to suffer crucifixion?"24

If early trinitarians really believed that Jesus was a genuine human being, then they

should have had no trouble with the crucifixion. But the new Logos teachers believed that

the Son had been made flesh. This left no room for the incarnation of the Father. With

their Greek philosophy of the unknown God, who was impassible, trinitarians could notbelieve that God the Father was incarnate. Noetus, on the other hand, taught that Christ

was God because He was indeed God the Father manifest in the flesh: "I am under

necessity since one God is acknowledged, to make this one [God] the subject ofsuffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being Himself the Father,

that He might be able to save us."25 This is not much different from the teaching of

Ignatius some seventy years earlier. Ignatius had written to the Ephesians that "God wasmanifest as man." These early Oneness teachers did not conceive of God as a second

divine person.

The author of the Second Epistle of Clement had warned against thinking any less ofJesus: "Brethren, we must think of Jesus Christ as of God."26

John Chapman said that Noetus and his school were the first to come out and "denycategorically that the unity of the Godhead is compatible with a distinction of Person."27

This time period is the roughly the time of the Alogi ("those against the Logos").However, the opposition of Noetus was not the introduction of Oneness teaching, whichwas 150 years old by this time, but rather a reaction to the rising popularity and spread of

the second-century Logos doctrine that made the Logos a second person. Chapman also

stated that the Noetians were modalists (although he misinterpreted their teaching) andagainst the Logos doctrine. (In effect, he called them Alogi.) "They seem to have

regarded the Logos as a mere name, or faculty, or attribute, and to have made the Son and

the Holy Ghost merely aspects or modes of existence of the Father, thus emphatically


19/94

identifying Christ with the one God."28

It is certainly incorrect of Chapman to state that Noetus made the Son merely an "aspector mode of existence" of the Father. For one thing, Noetus stated that the Son (as to His

deity) was the Father, "not one derived from the other," but Noetus did not deny the

existence of the Son of God (the human being). In other words, he upheld the genuinehumanity of the Son ("a man among men"). "Modes of existence" sounds like something

Karl Barth would say. But if mode of existence is restricted to the explanation of the

Incarnation, this might be a more accurate description.

There are some indications that Noetus, as so many other prominent Christians, spent

some time in Rome.29 If so, it could possibly have been after the Smyrna encounter (AD

180) sometime between AD 180-89, during the episcopate of Eleutherus (AD 174-89). G.T. Stokes said that Noetus also got into trouble with the Roman church, but there is no

evidence of this; Stokes apparently confused Rome and Smyrna. Bishop Noetus also had

a deacon named Epigonus. Epigonus came to Rome during the episcopate of Victor (AD189-98). Epigonus taught in Rome and founded a school (or Bible college), which was

endorsed by the church at Rome.30 This was the same school that Sabellius was later toattend some thirty years later. All of this time, the Roman church was officially Oneness!

Moreover, the teaching of Noetus was highly popular at this time, contrary to what his

detractors have written. Those who condemned him as a "heretic" were themselves in theminority and not accepted by the general Christian population or leadership.31

Friedrich Schleiermacher wrote that Hippolytus and, later, Epiphanius could not reply

against Noetus's use of John 2:19, where Jesus declared that He would raise His ownbody from the grave. Schleiermacher remarked, "Even [Noetus's] opponents felt

themselves obliged to concede, that the raising from the dead is a thing that must be

accomplished by a peculiar power, and that such [a] power has claims to unity ofsubject."32 Jesus had said, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up" (John

2:19). In verse 21, the apostle John explained that Jesus was referring to the resurrection

of His body. This is a powerful argument in favor of the identification of Jesus as God theFather incarnate, for the Scriptures are clear that it was God the Father who raised up the

man Jesus.

J. Z. Mozley stated that Noetus was "the most crudely patripassian . . . of all the modalistteachers."33 The Noetians, according to Mozley, were anxious to assert "as emphatically

as possible the full deity of Jesus Christ." They could see no other way of doing it than

"by distin- guishing Fatherhood and Sonship in the one God only as the invisible and themanifested."34 The Noetians made it clear that "the element of passibility in the divine

nature was wholly dependent upon God's free resolve to enter the world for the salvationof men."35 And, as Isaak A. Dorner noted about Noetus' doctrine: "[God's] essencecannot be a check on his will, but remains subject thereto, and on that account [He] can

be made passible, mortal, and so forth."36 In other words, why could not God the Father

be manifested in the flesh as Jesus Christ, if He so desired? Why did He have to sendanother divine person?

We should note that Mozley used the word "Sonship" to describe God manifest in the


20/94


21/94

coming of the Paraclete (Holy Spirit or Prophetic Spirit) promised in John 14:12-18. He

further believed that the apostles did not have the "perfection" of the Holy Ghost

according to I Corinthians 13:8-10, and this was reserved for "new prophets" promised byChrist.3 Montanus established his headquarters church at Pepuza, not far from the

Phrygian Pentapolis, and named it Jerusalem, as he apparently believed that Christ would

return to that spot.4 The Montanists had a unique manner of coming into a church andprophesying, which created a great deal of strife and confusion, according to critics. They

split many assemblies and took control of many. A few congregations accepted

Montanism but maintained their Oneness doctrine; however, most of them accepted thenew Logos doctrine along with Montanism. The movement spread like wildfire

throughout Asia Minor, into Western Europe, and down into northern Africa.

Praxeas (AD 150-220) came from somewhere in Asia Minor--perhaps Smyrna, Ephesus,or Byzantium, but we do not know. He arrived in Rome during Victor's episcopate (AD

189-98).5 There are no details on his origin or youth. His very name is an alias provided

in deri- sion by an enemy named Tertullian (a trinitarian Montanist). Praxeas means"busybody." Why Tertullian apparently did not wish to name "Praxeas" is unclear. It is

certain that Praxeas, whoever he was, was an important church official with a great deal

of influence, for he was able to convince the Roman bishop to reinstate a ban on thechurches in Asia Minor that had been taken over by the Montanists. Who was this famous

minister? Some have suggested that it was Epigonus, the deacon of Noetus, who had also

come to Rome from Asia Minor about this time.6 Another noted visitor to Rome aboutthis same period was Theodotus of Byzantium, who was said by Hippolytus to have been

a member of the Alogi. What little information we have on Praxeas, we have from one of

his enemies, Tertullian. Tertullian did state that Praxeas was noted among the brethren

for having been imprisoned for his faith in Christ:

"Praxeas was the first to import into Rome from Asia [Minor] this kind of heretical

depravity, a man in other respects of a restless disposition, and above all inflated with thepride of confessorship simply and solely because he had to bear for a short time the

annoyance of a prison."7

We are not told how long the "short time" was that Praxeas was in prison for his faith.

We should note also that Tertullian, like his fellow polemical writer Hippolytus, accused

his opponent of "introducing" a new heresy without adducing any evidence to support

such a statement. A close examination of Praxeas's reported teaching reveals that it wasdefinitely not new, nor did Praxeas introduce it to the church in Rome, which already

held such views on the Godhead!

The bishop of Rome, Victor (189-98 AD), who might be styled a district superintendent

today, seems to have received Praxeas as a dignified visitor and esteemed his advice very

highly. This is doubtless true because both Victor and Praxeas were Oneness ministers ina Roman district of churches that had been Oneness apostles Paul was there in AD 67.

Historical tradition points to the apostle Paul as the founder of the Roman church as earlyas AD 42.8 Paul probably was executed in Rome during the Reign of Nero in 64 AD. He

designated Linus as the next bishop.


22/94

Listed below are Oneness apostolic bishops from the apostle Paul to the last bishop of

Rome known to have taught Oneness. The dates are approximate.

1.) Paul, AD 42-67 2.) Linus, AD 67-79 3.) Anacletus, AD 79-90 4.) Clement, AD 90-99

5.) Evaristus, AD 99-107 6.) Alexander, AD 107-16 7.) Sixtus, AD 116-25 8.)

Telesphorus, AD 125-36 9.) Hyginus, AD 136-40 10.) Clement of Rome Pius, AD 140-54 11.) Anicetus, AD 154-65 12.) Soter, AD 165-74 13.) Eleutherus, AD 174-89 14.)

Victor, AD 189-98 15.) Zephyrinus, AD 198-217 16.) Callistus, AD 217-22

We have the writings of Clement, the fourth bishop following the apostle Paul. He

probably sat personally under the teaching of Peter and Paul. We see no trinity in his

writings. Polycarp quoted from I Clement. Polycarp also had fellowship with the sixth

and the eleventh bishop of Rome. It is also likely that Ignatius was in fellowship with thesixth bishop, Alexander, at the time of Ignatius's martyrdom. The tenth bishop, Pius, was

the half-brother of the famous Hermas, who wrote The Shepherd, a monarchian piece of

literature. We also know that Soter, Eleutherus, and Victor stood against the Montanistsand the second-century Logos doctrine. Victor was in fellowship with Praxeas, a known

modalistic monarchian. Zephyrinus and Callistus were known modalistic monarchians (orone God with three primary functions or modes). We have the writings of Callistus(quoted by his enemies) to prove this. Therefore, we see no reason not to believe that the

first fourteen bishops of Rome were all Oneness Christians and not trinitarians, as has

been com- monly believed in Catholic history. Clement himself has been accused bysome Catholic writers of "not honoring" the trinity.9 The early monarchian doctrine of

the ancient Roman church is known but is glossed over by Catholic and Protestant

writers.

Ignatius praised the Roman church in AD 115 (when Alexander was the bishop), calling

it a church "worthy of God, and a bearer of the Father's name."10 This probably refers to

the practice of baptizing converts in the name of Jesus Christ. Neither Ignatius orPolycarp (who was said to have been present on a visit in Rome at this time) raised any

issue of heresy in the Roman church. It is likely that the church at Rome continued to

baptize in the name of Jesus Christ up through at least AD 222 (and most likely continuedfor some years after this), because of the Oneness doctrine. The practice of baptism in the

name of Jesus seems to have continued even after Logos supporters took control of the

district, and it continued alongside the introduction of water baptism in the three titles.

This is demonstrated in the time of Stephen, bishop of Rome, and Cyprian, bishop ofCarthage (AD 258). Praxeas did not come to a church where Montanism was popular.

Indeed, the Roman church had opposed Montanism from its very inception. Soter (AD

166) opposed the Montanist uprising, refusing to recognize them. His successor,

Eleutherus (AD 174-89), was visited by a delegation led by Irenaeus of Lyons (in modernFrance), urging him to recognize the Montanists. He refused to do so.

Adolph Harnack held that Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus were all

modalists.11 Without a doubt, it was a Oneness church at Rome which Praxeas visited. It

held to the orthodox Christian faith. Under the urgings of Logos supporters such asIrenaeus, the district was under great pressure to have fellowship with the Montanists.

Victor, the bishop of Rome (AD 189-98) when Praxeas arrived (probably around AD

190), had not been superintendent long and had been persuaded to issue a letter of


23/94

fellowship to the Montanist churches in Asia Minor. We do not know much about Victor.

He was said to have been of North African origin.12

We also know that at about this time there was a widespread controversy between the

churches of the West and the churches of Asia Minor. We are told in the official Catholic

version of history that this only involved a petty dispute over the date of celebratingEaster (Paschal). Victor is blamed because of his "African disposition" and his desire "to

maintain Rome's preeminent position."13 To resolve the controversy, a church council

was held at Rome in AD 190. It is not coincidental that this is about the time that Praxeasarrived in Rome to consult with Victor about the Montanist situation. Praxeas convinced

Victor to recall the letter of peace he had sent to the Montanist churches.14 This enraged

Tertullian, a Roman Christian, who openly joined the Montanists. He denounced Praxeas

(but would not name him):

[Praxeas] by . . . urging false accusations against the [Montanist] prophets . . . and their

churches, and insisting on the authority of the bishop's predecessors in the see [district],compelled [Victor] to recall the letter of peace which he had issued, as well as to desist

from his purpose of acknowledging the gifts. By this Praxeas did a twofold service for thedevil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight theParaclete, and he crucified the Father."15

Now, Tertullian cannot have been unaware (he was an educated lawyer) of the stand ofthe Roman bishops from the time of Soter (AD 166) and probably even from the time of

his predecessor, Anicetus, against Montanism. Moreover, he would have been extremely

ignorant not to know that the Roman district had an official doctrine of modalism. Yet he

made the outrageous and untrue statements that we read above, brazenly claiming that itwas "Praxeas" who brought in "heresy"! This man, Tertullian, is one of the architects of

the trinity doctrine!

We note, though, that there is generally an element of truth in such propaganda.

Tertullian admitted that Praxeas "insisted" on "the authority of the bishop's predecessors

in the see." Possibly this means that Praxeas reminded Victor of the solid opposition ofprevious Roman bishops such as Soter and Eleutherus to the Montanists. While we can

demonstrate that the Roman leadership (the elders) in the Roman church remained solidly

monarchian or Oneness, it cannot be denied that changes were taking place in the district.

Eusebius, in writing on this period (reign of Emperor Commodus, AD 180-93), stated, "Alarge number of people from Rome, distinguished for wealth or birth, turned unto

salvation, together with all their households and families."16

The wealth and influence of the Roman church was beginning to grow tremendously.

Bishop Victor supposedly developed an inside line to the court of the EmperorCommodus through Marcia (the concubine of the emperor), whose foster father,Hyacinthus, was a Christian.17 With the help of Marcia, Bishop Victor was able to

procure the release of a number of Christians sent to the Sardinian mines. But while the

district was becoming increased with goods and gaining some secular influence, no oneaccused Bishop Victor of departing from the Oneness teaching of his predecessors. In

fact, Tertullian was angry over the corroboration of the teaching of Praxeas by Victor.18

And a monarchian leader, Artemon of Rome, writing some thirty or forty years after


24/94

Victor, maintained that Victor had upheld the teaching of the apostles.19 What, then, was

the doctrine of Praxeas (and therefore by extension the doctrine of Victor)? Pseudo-

Tertullian (not Tertullian), in his Against All Heresies, wrote about Praxeas: "He(Praxeas) asserts that Jesus Christ is God and Father Almighty. Him he contends to have

been crucified, and suffered and died; beside which, with a profane and sacrilegious

temerity, he maintains that He is Himself sitting at His own right hand."20 And Pseudo(false) Tertullian, whoever he was, also mentioned that bishop Victor (whom he

mistakenly called "Victorinus") "corroborated" the doctrine of Praxeas. Clearly, Praxeas,

according to this ancient writer, identified Christ as God the Father incarnate.

Most of our information about Praxeas comes from Tertullian himself. As is standard

with trinitarian thinking and theology, Tertullian expressed great incredulity about God,

in any manner, communicating with Himself. He also greatly emphasized the"impossibilities" of God acting in multiple roles. Praxeas, for example, "would have it

that the Father came out of Himself and then departed to Himself."21 This aspect of

modalism seemed very puzzling to Tertullian. But if God were manifest in the flesh (theIncarnation) and yet remained God in heaven, this supposed impossibility would have to

be part of the miracle of the Incarnation or manifestation of God in the flesh. Even as

Jesus said, "I and my Father are one," and He also identified Himself as the Fatherincarnate (John 14:7-9). Yet again, Jesus said, "I came forth from the Father, and am

come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father" (John 16:28).

If we identify Christ as God (the Father), then we must admit that it is God who came

forth and it was God who returned. This is the essence of modalism. What necessitated

the "coming forth" and the "returning"? The Incarnation. The Word was made flesh (John

1:14), and a human being (God manifested in the flesh) walked among us. That glorifiedhuman being (after the resurrection), ascended into heaven (God manifested in the flesh).

Psalm 47:5 states, "God is gone up with a shout, the LORD with the sound of a trumpet."

If we admit that Jesus Christ is God (the Father), then we must agree with Praxeas.

Tertullian attempted to marginalize the teaching of Praxeas by alleging that he clung to

just two or three passages of Scripture:

As in respect to the [Old Testament], they hold to nothing else but "I am God and there is

none other beside me"; so in respect to the gospel, they defend the response of the Lord

to Philip, "I and the Father are one; he who seeth me seeth also the Father"; and again, "Iam in the Father, and the Father in me." To these three summaries of doctrine, they would

that the whole of both the Old and New Testaments should give place.22

It is obvious to the intelligent reader that Praxeas used more than just one passage in

Isaiah and two passages in John. Raising the Greek philosopher's horror of theparticipation of the unknown Father (the unknowable God) in His own creation,Tertullian professed outrage at the patripassianism of Praxeas: "In the course of time,

then, they say the Father forsooth was born, and the Father suffered -- God Himself, the

Lord, the Almighty, whom in their preaching they declare to be Jesus Christ."23

Tertullian could not believe that it was God the Father who was incarnate in the virgin.

Only another divine person could possibly do this! Therefore, the Incarnation required


25/94

two divine persons. Praxeas, however, taught that it was the Father who was incarnate,

although, like the later Sabellius, Praxeas did not teach that the Father suffered directly,

but rather in the flesh (that is, as the Son). Praxeas was careful to uphold the dual natureof Christ: "So that, all in one person, they [the Praxeans] distinguish two, Father and Son,

understanding the Son to be flesh, that is man, that is Jesus; and the Father to be Spirit,

that is God, that is Christ."24 The Praxeans answered, "Since we find two and one,therefore both are one and the same, both Father and Son."25 This is reminiscent of what

John wrote: "He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the

Son" (II John 9). Christ is both the Father and the Son.

Tertullian admitted that Praxeas and his followers (and by implication, the bishop of

Rome and the majority of the Roman Christians!) considered themselves to pos-ess the

"pure truth." They thought that one could not believe "in only one God in any other waythan by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame

Person."26 Tertullian, a disciple of Justin, could not accept that. He maintained a doctrine

of derivation and subordination concerning the Son and the Holy Ghost: "The Son Iderive from no other source but from the substance of the Father. The Spirit is third from

God and the Son."27 Interestingly, in this statement, not only did Tertullian saddle the

Son with derivation and subordination, but he apparently upheld the "procession"(although he did not use such language) of the Spirit from both the Father and the Son. It

was later to become a bone of contention between the Eastern Orthodox and Roman

Catholic Churches, as to whether the Spirit proceeded from the Father alone (the EasternOrthodox position) or from both the Father and the Son (the Roman position).

Friedrich Schleiermacher pointed out that Tertullian was driven to the idea of the

"derivation" of the Son in order to refute the simple scriptural logic of Praxeas. Tertullianwrote: "The Father is the whole substance; the Son, the derivation and apportionment of

the whole." Thus Schleiermacher observed, "We may readily say that [Tertullian]

Arianizes."28 That is, Tertullian anticipated the error of Arius, a teacher in the fourthcentury who made the Son inferior to the Father. Trinitarians unsuccessfully attempted to

correct this idea of subordination and derivation of the Son in the fourth century.

Tertullian accused Praxeas of holding to a "Jewish faith": "But this is a Jewish faith, so tobelieve in one God, that you are unwilling to comprise the Son with Him, and after the

Son, also the Spirit."29

Obviously, Tertullian was playing upon the anti- Semitic feelings of some of his Gentilereaders. He possibly forgot that Jesus, the twelve apostles, and the apostle Paul were all

Jews! We should note again that Tertullian, who was a Montanist, emphasized the

"Spirit" as being in the third place. He acknowledged in Against Praxeas that modalist

preachers constantly accused him and others of preaching two gods and three gods."While they," said Tertullian, "take to themselves preeminently the credit of being

worshippers of one God."30 It is interesting that both the phrases "two gods" and "threegods" were used as accusations against the trinitarians. This lets us know that the

doctrine of the third divine person, the Holy Spirit, was not yet universally accepted by

all supporters of the new Logos doctrine. Tertullian indicated that some modalisticChristians were, like Noetus, bold patripassians, while others were more circumspect.

"The most conceited monarchians maintain that He Himself made Himself a Son to


26/94

Himself!"31 Tertullian was obviously exasperated. He exclaimed, "A father cannot be his

own son!" His opponents replied by quoting Matthew 19:26 and Luke 18:27 (that with

God nothing is impossible) and I Corinthians 1:27 (God uses foolish things to confoundthe wise).

One can almost hear the sigh of Tertullian across the centuries as he concluded, "Wehave read it all." Tertullian agreed with his opponents that God can do anything, even to

have "extinguished Praxeas and all other heretics at once." He compared Praxeas to a

troublesome bird, a "kite," and mocking Praxeas he added, "It was necessary also that theFather should be crucified!" And he challenged, "Prove Tertullian to us that He [God]

actually did it."32 Tertullian maintained (incorrectly) that the teaching of the trinity

actually preceded Oneness doctrine. He tried to emphasize this by accusing Praxeas of

being "a pretender of yesterday."33

From the biographical information that we have, it appears that Tertullian was a fairly

new Christian when Praxeas came to Rome. He was said to have been born AD 145 asthe son of a Roman army officer, educated as a lawyer, and converted at about the age of

forty.34 A. C. Coxe and others have estimated that he turned to Montanism AD 199.Certainly, he became an architect of the trinity doctrine as a Montanist. He was highlyinfluenced also by Justin. Tertullian admitted that his doctrine of the trinity was not

popular among the Christian people of his day. He stated that the "majority of the

faithful," whom he termed "simple people," were reluctant to accept "the economy" (i.e.,the distinction of divine persons).35 This is an important admission. It lets us know that

the trinitarian teaching was not the orthodox teaching of the majority of Christians even

as late as the latter part of the second century and the early part of the third century. It

was accepted only by a (growing) minority of Christian ministers. How long did Praxeasremain in Rome? Bishop Victor died in AD 198, and Zephyrinus became bishop of

Rome. Praxeas remained in Rome until about AD 208, when he departed for Carthage (in

northern Africa, near modern Tunis).

Tertullian also, after converting to Montanism AD 199, had gone to Carthage. There he

challenged Praxeas, and he claimed to have "stopped" him by exposing his "errors." Hestated that Praxeas even signed a statement admitting his errors in the presence of

Catholic officials at Carthage. Schleiermacher opined that the report was false, for

Tertullian himself admitted that Praxeas continued to preach vigorously in the entire area

of Carthage and beyond, making many converts.36 The dubious episode of the statementsigned by Praxeas supposedly occurred during a church split in Carthage (AD 210- 12).

By AD 213, the trinitarians had gathered enough churches in Carthage to elect

Agrippinus as bishop. He chaired a conference of ministers that year, who decided that all

"heretics" (modalists) had to be rebaptized into the trinity.37

Praxeas played an important role in keeping the great Roman district from becomingentangled in Montanist and trinitarian doctrine for some thirty-two years. He then sailed

to Carthage and preached there, standing for the truth of the Oneness message. While

Praxeas was in North Africa preaching the Oneness message, a young man from Libyawas in Rome preparing himself in the Oneness doctrine. He would set the religious world

aflame with his great stand for the truth of the oneness of God. But before we examine

the teaching of Sabellius, let us first look at the history of baptism in the name of Jesus


27/94

Christ.

Water Baptism

"Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of

Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost"

(Acts 2:38).

The apostolic church has been baptizing converts in the name of Jesus Christ for overnineteen hundred years, according to Acts 2:38 and the other passages of Scripture

pertaining to water baptism.

There has always been a church down through the centuries that has refused tocompromise the truth. (Read Romans 11:5.) And although the apostolic church was

scattered, especially after the Roman Catholic Church became the state sponsored church

in the fourth century, there have always been assemblies of Jesus Name Pentecostalsworshiping somewhere on the planet. Perhaps they were hidden in the mountains of

Eastern Europe or somewhere in the backwoods of Western Europe. Rest assured, they

were there, preaching Acts 2:38 and the apostolic message. This is borne out in ourreview of history. On the birthday of the church, Peter preached the first sermon, and in

Acts 2:38 he gave the New Testament plan of salvation as he had been carefully

instructed by Jesus:

1. Repent of all your sins.

2. Be baptized by immersion in water in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission(forgiveness) of your sins.

3. Receive the heaven sent gift of the Holy Ghost.

We note that in Acts 2:38 (as in Acts 8:16; 10:48; 19:5) the saving name to be used in

water baptism is Jesus. No verse of Scripture says the name must be pronounced orwritten in Hebre

Oneness Believers

Documents

Transcript of Oneness Believers