|
THE FALL
OF THE ANCIENT APOSTOLIC CHURCH BY WILLIAM B. CHALFANT |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
paper will attempt to examine the rise and fall of the ancient apostolic
church by concentrating on the fate of the Roman church or district. It
is not within the scope of this paper to examine the circumstances that
led to the downfall of each apostolic bishopric or district within the
general church. Hopefully it will be shown that the Roman church was
founded by the apostles, remained Oneness or apostolic in its teaching
on the divine Godhead and in the administration of water baptism in the
name of Jesus until c. A.D. 222. After that time it began to uphold the
trinitarian teachings that we recognize today in the Catholic-Protestant
theology. Controversy
in the Second Century In
the first half of the second century A.D., there are only about three
documents extant that contain what one might call "hard
evidence" of trinitarian theology: (1) the anonymous Epistle to
Diognetus (c. 125), (2) the spurious Epistle of Barnabas (c. 120-130),
and (3) the Didache (some say before 150). Neither one of the first two
documents have any valid claim to apostolicity, and the Didache probably
contains interpolations and Montanist terminology, which would relegate
it to the second half of the second century. 1 Other
than the trinitarian interpretation of the Scriptures and of the later
apostolic fathers such as Clement of Rome and Ignatius, there is little
other evidence that the early second-century church received a
trinitarian legacy from the apostles. The evidence is mounting that the
early church fathers were actually patripassian, or what we would call
Oneness today. The true history of the Christian church reveals that the
theology of the United Pentecostal Church International is the orthodox
one. The
Logos doctrine, keystone doctrine of trinitarian theology, when it was
introduced into Christianity in the second century caused an uproar. We
have identified the orthodox Christians who resisted this teaching. The
Alogi mounted the "first specific revolt" against
trinitarianism. 2 It
was Philo of Alexandria (d. A.D. 54) who identified the pagan Logos, the
messenger god of the Greeks and Babylonians, with the Old Testament
"angel of the Lord," or the Creator, who he said was a
"second God" and not the Most High. There can be little doubt
that this identification exercised a great influence upon the Catholic
fathers. Wolfson felt that Justin Martyr and the Catholic fathers
identified the Logos of John with the Logos of Philo. 3 Philo
had argued that God made man in the image of His Logos, "the second
God." He did not believe that anything could be in the image of the
Most High, the Father. 4 Young has stated that Philo's writings were
cherished by the early trinitarian fathers and "provided the
inspiration for a sophisticated Christian philosophical theology."5
Harnack noted that the philosophic Christology arose at the
"circumference" of the church and moved gradually to the
center of Christianity. 6 The
Alexandrian Catholics, Clement of Alexandria and Origen, openly followed
Philo in the effort to unite philosophy and Revelation. 7 Although
the importance of the influence of philosophy upon early trinitarians
has not been denied, the ramifications of this influence in terms of the
doctrine of the trinity has not been thoroughly investigated by modern
theologians. Carrington
was aware of this influence. He wrote: "Justin Martyr, Tertullian,
and nearly all of the early Christian Fathers were Platonists before
they were Christians. They brought into their new religion as much of
their old philosophy as they could." 8 Certainly,
the development of the trinity doctrine has been affected by the
philosophical theories of these men. Wolfson says that the apologists
were the first "to openly introduce into Christianity the view that
the Logos and the Holy Spirit were two distinct Beings." 9 The
stream of orthodox Christianity, in my view, must be traced through the
Asiatic modalism of Ignatius; Jewish Christianity, meaning those
Ebionites who accepted the virgin birth and the writings of Paul; and
the Alogi, the forerunners of the monarchians. 10 Oneness
scholars have been challenged to show from history where the
introduction of the trinitarian doctrine caused controversy. Our
trinitarian friends maintain that the trinitarian teaching was the
original teaching and that it was not until the third-century
introduction of Oneness doctrine that dissension came about. But it is
the introduction of the Logos doctrine in the second century that caused
a reaction among Christians. The
Alogi represent those Christians who opposed the Logos theology. They
have been falsely accused of rejecting the Gospel of John. John of
Damascus (c. A.D. 743) wrote, "The Alogians reject the Gospel
according to John and his Apocalypse, because they do not accept the
divine Logos as proceeding from the Father and existing eternally."
There
are men of the Alogi who quoted extensively from John. Theodotus, the
dynamic monarchian (c. 140210), considered by Hippolytus to be "a
remnant of the Alogi," quoted extensively from John
12 Praxeas, another probable Alogi from Asia Minor (c. 150-220),
used John frequently in his teaching. Noetus also relied heavily upon
John. It is obvious that these men were all against the Logos theology,
but used John as Scripture. They represented the majority of Christians.
13 The
Apostolic Roman Church As
the Oneness-trinitarian controversy grew within the Roman Empire, it was
inevitable that it should center upon the hub of the empire, the city of
Rome. Paul had written to the Roman church c. A.D. 54: "First, I
thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your faith is spoken
of throughout the whole world" (Romans 1:8). Rome was the center of
the known world. The Temple of Jerusalem would be destroyed in A.D. 70,
and the Jews were to be scattered. Forty-two
years later, c. A.D. 96, Clement of Rome, who had perhaps witnessed the
death of Paul some nineteen years earlier, linked Paul and Peter
together in martyrdom in his Epistle to the Corinthians. Although he did
not specifically mention that they died in Rome, the implication is
there. A
contemporary, Ignatius of Antioch, wrote to the Roman church c. 107,
calling Jesus Christ "our God" (Epistle to the Romans 1,
Wake's translation) and associating the church with the apostles.
"I do not," he wrote, "as Peter and Paul, command
you" (Romans 2:6, Wake). This is far too early for there to be any
kind of a Catholic "primacy conspiracy." I believe the Roman
church was apostolic and an important church district in its own right. Irenaeus
(c. 135-200), writing about 118 years later, states, "Matthew also
issued a written gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialects, while
Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations of the
church (Against All Heresies, III, 3.1). 15 We have heard statements
from eyewitnesses, and from men who knew men who were eyewitnesses. Why
should we doubt that Peter was at Rome? Alzog
believes that Peter was in Rome as early as A.D. 42, making a number of
visits to Antioch, Corinth, and other places within the Roman Empire.
Certainly, Peter was as able to travel as Paul, although he was not a
Roman citizen. Rome, at this time, was styled "Babylon" by
ancient Christians. 16 Peter
wrote, "The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you,
saluteth you; and so cloth Marcus my son" (I Peter 5:13). Irenaeus,
using the lost writings of Papias, tells us that Mark was Peter's
interpreter at Rome. Tradition has it that Mark wrote his Gospel at
Peter's dictation while in Rome (c. A.D. 45). 17 Dionysius
of Corinth (c. 170) tells us that Peter had a role in the founding of
the church at Corinth (c. 55-58). Peter may have returned to Rome c. 62
18 If Peter was in Corinth, why would anyone find it difficult to
believe that he made it on to Rome? Perhaps there are theological
reasons for not wanting to believe this. Tertullian
wrote that Peter personally baptized converts in the Tiber river at
Rome. 19 Caius,
a Roman presbyter (c. 198-217), wrote that Peter and Paul were the ones
who founded the Roman church and that they were both buried in Rome. 21 The
doctrine of the Catholic primacy of Rome was not brought up until well
after the Roman church had ceased to be apostolic. Bishop Cyprian, a
trinitarian of Africa, called the Roman church the "See of
Peter" c. 252. 23 It
is probable that Simon Peter was in Rome and is associated with the
establishment of that church. The apostolic grounding of the Roman
church was so strong that it did not become trinitarian until c. 222. Tertullian,
a native Carthaginian who spent time in Rome, was converted to
Christianity c. 185-196. 24 Even though he was at odds with the Roman
bishops over the doctrine of the Godhead, his estimation of the Roman
church was, at least at the first, very complimentary: What
a happy church is that whereupon the Apostles poured out their whole
doctrine together with their blood; where Peter suffers a passion like
his Lord's, where Paul is crowned with the death of John (the Baptist),
whence John the Apostle, after being immersed in boiling oil and taking
no hurt, is banished to an island. 25 Such
matters were common knowledge among the ancient Christians centuries
before the Catholic doctrine of the primacy of Rome and Peter. Below
is a list of Roman bishops from the time of Peter to the first
trinitarian bishop, Urban. Although this list may contain some
inaccuracies, it is probably basically reliable. It is derived from the
work of three historians: Hegesippus (c. 154-174), Irenaeus (c. 185),
and Eusebius (c. 354). According to Eusebius, Hegesippus, who was an
authorized church historian (and most likely apostolic), drew up a list
of the Roman bishops from the archives of the Roman bishops up to his
own time. 26 List of Roman Bishops
There
are many indications that the Roman church was apostolic or monarchian,
and not trinitarian, up through 222. The
Roman Monarchian Tradition The
monarchian tradition was begun at Rome by the apostles and is evident as
early as c. 96 in the writings of the Roman bishop Clement:
"Content with the provision which God has made for you, and
carefully attending to his words, ye were inwardly filled with his
doctrine, and his sufferings were before your eyes" (/ Clement, 2,
italics mine). 27 Otto
Pfleiderer suggests that this is "a way of looking at things which
later became known as modalism or patripassianism." 28 There is no
suggestion in any of the literature during this period that this was
"heretical." Clement is a contemporary of the apostle John,
who also identified Jesus as "God" (John 20:28) and revealed
Him as "the Father" (John 14:7-9). Another
contemporary, Ignatius, frequently refers to Jesus as "God"
and comments on "the sufferings of my God ' causing J. N. D. Kelley
to admit that Ignatius was also a patripassian. 29 The
early Christians did not think of Jesus Christ as a separate person from
God the Father when they thought of Him as God. In his Epistle to the
Magnesians, Ignatius wrote: "Jesus Christ, who was the Father
before all ages, and appeared in the end to us" (Magnesians 6.1,
Vossius's text). 30 Ignatius did not know of any preexistent
"second person ' nor did he subscribe to any "two-stage"
theory of a Logos, where the birth at Bethlehem was preceded by
begetting of the Logos. H. B. Swete wrote that Ignatius "predicated
generation [birth] of manhood only. . . the doctrine of Eternal
Generation (of the Son) was unknown to Ignatius." 31 The viewpoint
of Ignatius was the prevailing one in the early second century. He was
in fellowship with the Roman bishop, with Polycarp, and with the
churches of Asia Minor. These men had sat at the feet of the apostles
and heard them preach and teach. Trinitarian
historians also claim men like Polycarp, Ignatius, and Clement of Rome,
but they are hard pressed to find genuine trinitarian theology in their
writings. The doctrine is not there. None of the trinita words are
there. Instead, the language is scriptural, using the incarnational,
modalistic distinctions. Heresies,
with controversies surrounding the church, began to become prominent in
the fourth decade of the second century. Marcion, who founded one of the
larger heretical movements, left the Roman church c. 144. Even though he
fell under the influence of the Syrian Cerdo, he continued to baptize
his converts in the name Jesus. 32
We are reasonably certain that t church continued the apostolic
practice of baptism in the name of Jesus during this period.
This is seen in the writings of Hermas, the brother of Pius,
bishop of Rome, 140-54 33 While
the Roman church was probably baptizing converts in the name of Jesus
during 140-54, there were also other groups in Rome who were using the
trinitarian for- tin Martyr was a member of such a congregation. It is
unlikely that this group was in close fellowship. Certainly, there are
no indications that the Roman bishopized Justin All of his fame is
posthumous. The
Roman Bishops and the Montanists There
are some indications that Justin Martyr may have been connected with the
Montanists. In The Martyrdom of the Holy Marytrs, mention is made of
brethren from Phrygia and Cappadocia in the Roman congregation where
Justin had fellowship. 34 And Justin repeatedly used the phrase
"the Prophetic Spirit" which seems to be a Montanist
trademark. Justin was executed in c. 165, which is well into the
Montanist period. Justin's
Logos doctrine was not in the mainstream of Christianity. He was aware
of this, I believe, and did not name those who disagreed with him on the
Godhead doctrine. He admits, however, that they disagreed with his
conclusion that the Logos is "numerically distinct" from the
Father. Jean Danielou notes that there are those who suggest that the
people who were against the Logos doctrine and to whom Justin referred
in Dialogue with Trypho (128) were "forerunners of Sabellius and
the modalists." 35 Justin was promoting the Logos doctrine, but
these people were against the Logos doctrine. The
Montanists sprang up during the decade of the fifties in Asia Minor in
the second century. It is not within the scope of this paper to examine
the Montanist heresy. Suffice it to say that it was charismatic,
trinitarian (with a few noted exceptions), and quite virulent. The
Roman bishops took an early stand against Montanism. The Roman Bishop
Soter (166-174), according to a fifth-century writer Predestinatus,
wrote against the Montanists. 35 It was about this time (c. 170) that
the district of Corinth fell into the hands of heretics. Is it not
strange that Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Hippolytus do not give The
role of the Montanists in the fall of the apostolic church must be
further investigated. They are, in my opinion, the catalyst that brought
down the churches of Asia Minor and elsewhere, and caused them to split
and adopt trinitarian doctrine. It is interesting to note the
associations of leading trinitarian exponents with the Montanists: (1)
Justin may have had an indirect role, (2) Irenaeus was favorable to the
Montanists, and (3) Tertullian actually became a Montanist. On
the other hand, the Alogi and the monarchians were allied with the
bishops of Rome, who opposed the Montanists. Eleutherus,
bishop of Rome (174-89) following Soter, continued in opposition to the
Montanists. A delegation from Lyons, France, led by Irenaeus, came to
Eleutherus in c. 177, advocating a more lenient attitude towards the
Montanists. 38 Apparently it was unsuccessful. The
turmoil in Asia Minor continued. The incident at Smyrna (c. 180)
involving Noetus and a number of other ministers who espoused the
Oneness doctrine, took place at this time. Kelly noted that the Noetians
rejected the Logos doctrine and maintained that the prologue of the
Gospel of John was to be taken allegorically. 39 This undoubtedly was
the position of the Alogi. Moreover,
as we are able to more clearly define who the Alogi were, we begin to
see that the Montanists and the trinitarians were aligned against the
Roman bishops and the Alogi-Ebionitic-monarchians, whom we know today as
Oneness. One
of the associates of Noetus, Epigonus, came to Rome during the bishopric
of Zephyrinus (198-217). 40 Cleomenes was associated with Epigonus.
Alzog wrote that Cleomenes "continued to be the head of both the
patripassianist and Ebionitic-monarchist schools during the pontificates
of popes Zephyrinus and Callistus (198222)."41 It soon becomes
evident that the terms "patripassianist," Alogi, Ebionitic (in
some cases), medalist, and monarchian all denominate Oneness people of
this period. That
things were not well in the Roman district becomes apparent with the
naming of Victor as bishop (189-98). Pressure was apparently mounting to
recognize the Montanists. In perhaps a hasty decision, the Roman bishop
sent a letter of peace and recognition out to the churches in Asia Minor
that had accepted the Montanist doctrine. 42 But
Tertullian tells us that a very influential minister from Asia Minor
"compelled" Victor to recall the letter of recognition by
insisting upon the "authority of the bishop's predecessors in the
see." 43 We would probably say they had a board meeting and
reversed their decision. Who
was this "Praxeas"? The name is obviously a pseudonym as it
means "Busybody." We know little about him. It may have been
Noetus or Epigonus. This would have been very embarrassing to the
trinitarians of later years. Tertullian
does, however, let us know that Praxeas was Oneness in his doctrine.
Praxeas taught that Jesus Christ was God Himself, the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost being the very self same Person. 44 The
Logos doctrine, by the admission of Tertullian, was not the doctrine
held by the "majority of believers." They were
"startled" at the trinitarian doctrine. "Their very rule
of faith," Tertullian confessed, "withdraws them from the
world's plurality of gods to the only true God." 45 The
majority of believers assumed "the numerical order and distribution
of the Trinity . . . to be a division of the Unity." 46
Tertullian's real problem with Praxeas is not so much the charismatic
excesses of the Montanists as it is the doctrine of the trinity.
Tertullian formulated his views on the trinity in opposition to Praxeas
and the monarchians. 47 The development of the trinity was accomplished
in opposition to the older doctrine of the orthodox monarchians. The
fact that Tertullian was championing a new doctrine is evident in the
following statement: They
are constantly throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods
and three gods, while they take to themselves preeminently the credit of
being worshippers of the one God.... "We," say they,
"maintain the Monarchy, or sole government of God." 48 It
is the monarchians who hold the high ground here. The phrase "two
gods and three gods" is interesting also. It indicates that some of
the trinitarians had embraced the triad while others still did not have
a distinct doctrine of the Holy Spirit as a separate person. Tertullian
went to great lengths to defend the Logos doctrine against Praxeas.
Praxeas was among those who were against the Logos doctrine. Tertullian
wished to give Jesus Christ, or the Logos, a pre-Bethlehemic birth.
Tertullian said that when God the Father said, "Let there be
light" (Genesis 1:3), that this constituted the "perfect
nativity of the Word (Logos)," and goes on to write: "Thus
does He make Him [the Logos] equal of Him: for by proceeding from
Himself, He became the first-begotten Son, because He was begotten
before all things." 49 This is the heart of the trinitarian error,
which produces a Son outside of the virgin birth at Bethlehem. It
is interesting in these monarchian-trinitarian controversies that
Tertullian, even though he knew several of the Roman bishops possibly
well, never uses their names, even though we may easily surmise of whom
he is writing. 51 E.
G. Welton has pointed out that the Roman bishops kept no company with
Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, or Origen. 52
Is it not rather odd that those who are known today as the architects of
the trinity had no close association with the Roman bishops? Where is
the trinitarian correspondence of the Roman bishops? Victor
(189-98) is known to have left written works, but we are informed by the
Catholic father Jerome that the writings of Victor are
"mediocre." Victor had written an epistle on The Paschal
Controversy and "some other small works." 53 If the Roman
church had been such an outstanding example of trinitarian orthodoxy,
then we would expect that the written works of such men as Soter and
Victor would have been carefully preserved. R.
B. Tollinton says that Victor and the famed trinitarian educator,
Clement of Alexandria (c. 160-220), knew each other at most by name, and
"certainly neither would have appreciated the other's
qualities." 54 On
the other hand, observe the relationship between Rome's bishops and the
monarchians. Neander noted this unusual relationship and wrote:
"The Monarchians of the third century appeal to the agreement of
the older Roman bishops with their views.... The Monarchian tenet was in
this church originally the prevailing one, while the doctrine of the
Logos was unknown to it." 55 The
Roman church was hardly a friend to Tertullian and Origen, but Larsen
has written, "Oddly enough, it was such arch-heretics as Tertullian
and Origen who contributed most to the evolution of the Catholic
dogma." 56 Yet today this dogma is termed orthodox. Rufinus
of Aquileia (c. 345-410), writing over a century after the
monarchian-trinitarian controversy in the Roman district, did not
believe that the Roman creed had been altered, but he admitted that the
creeds of the churches in northern Italy had been altered "due to
the heresy of Sabellianism, which our people call patripassianism."
And he goes on to state: This
is the heresy which alleges that the Father Himself was born from the
virgin, and declares that He was thereby made visible and suffered in
the flesh. In order to eliminate any such impious notions about the
Father, our predecessors appear to have added these predicates,
describing Him as "invisible" and "impassible." For
obviously, it was the Son, not the Father, who became incarnate and was
born of human flesh, and the Son, who through this birth in human flesh,
was made visible and passible. 57 This
statement by Rufinus would indicate that there was a previous time when
such "impious notions about the Father" were not considered
heretical. Since Rufinus speaks of "our redecessors" and was
born c. 345, we might estimate that these credal changes took place in
the early part of the third century. Insofar
as the Roman creed is concerned, the fullest references are said to be
found in Tertullian (after 190), and we do not really know that this was
the true Roman creed. 58 Artemon
(c. 235-70) declared that the Roman creed had been changed and the
apostolic truth had been kept intact up through Bishop Victor (189-98)
but had been "falsified" from the days of Zephyrinus
(198-217). This is an interesting statement because Artemon was a
monarchian and had sat under Theodotus, whom the trinitarians claimed
was dis-fellowshipped by Victor. Yet Artemon does not claim that there
was anything wrong during Victor's episcopate. 59 Zahn
believes that such a falsification, or "change," did occur in
the Roman church between 198-217, and he believes that it also
represents a change in the Roman baptismal creed. 60 The
Final Controversy at Rome A
very serious situation developed in the Roman church during the time of
Bishop Zephyrinus (198-217). The district now contained a number of
trinitarian ministersh who began to oppose the bishop, or at least the
monarchians, in the district. Hippolytus
(c. 160-235), one of the leaders of the trinitarian faction, recorded
the drama of the final controversy that resulted in the fall of the
apostolic church at Rome. Rome was apparently the last major district of
the empire to officially leave the apostolic teaching of Oneness. Calvin
Beisner, in God in Three Persons, wrote: "Monarchianism in its
respective forms was answered primarily by the Fathers of the third
century (especially Hippolytus against modalism, and Tertullian against
dynamic monarchianism)." 61 The truth of the matter is that
Tertullian wrote against modalistic monarchianism and Hippolytus wrote
against modalism and dynamic monarchianism. We cannot say that the
Catholic fathers answered monarchianism because we have not been
privileged to hear what the monarchians had to say in their own words,
since their writings have been lost or destroyed. Mr.
Beisner's knowledge of present-day Oneness organizations is also rather
limited, for he wrote that "Monarchianism is represented today by
the United (Jesus Only) Pentecostals and by the small sect which calls
itself the 'Local Church,' led by Witness Lee." 62 Hippolytus
was reputedly a disciple of Irenaeus. 63 As a Roman minister, however,
he did not share Irenaeus's fondness for Montanists, although he
admitted that their teachings on Christ were similar to his own. He may
have been for a short time a disciple of Clement of Alexandria. 64 He
pastored a church at Portus, a harbor city near Rome. This gave him
membership in the great Roman district. 65 Hippolytus was probably a friend of and collaborator with Origin (c. 185-254), who reportedly visited a church in Rome where Hippolytus was preaching c. 211. It is quite likely that Origen supported Hippolytus against Callistus and Zephyrinus. 66 Milman adds that Origen was "a stranger without rank or authority" when he visited Rome. 67 As his
contemporary Tertullian had done, Origen confessed that the majority of
Christians in his day were Oneness. 68 In his Commentary on Titus,
Origen also remarks on the simplicity of those who were attracted to
Oneness: "They do not wish to seem to affirm two gods; they do not
wish to deny the divinity of the Savior; they then end by admitting
merely two names and one single Person." 69 It
must also be admitted that the trinitarian ideas were gaining in
popularity. Otherwise, it would not have been possible for ministers and
teachers espousing these ideas to have risen to prominence in the
various church districts throughout the empire. Hippolytus
reports the basic elements of the dispute that led to the final split
and downfall of the apostolic church at Rome in his Refutation of All
Heresies (c. 21722). Although Hippolytus was an accredited minister of
the Roman district, he did not share the doctrine of the leadership or
the mind of the majority of the believers. He did not have sufficient
votes to become the next bishop upon the demise of Zephyrinus in 217,
and so he left the district. Hippolytus
had a low opinion of bishop Zephyrinus, whom he termed "an ignorant
and illiterate individual, and one unskilled in ecclesiastical
definitions." 70 Hippolytus
felt that one of the ministers in the district, Callistus, who was a
trusted advisor to Zephyrinus,
was controlling Zephyrinus for his own gain. He wrote, "Callistus
succeeded in inducing Zephyrinus to create continually disturbances
among the brethren, while he himself took care subsequently, by knavish
words, to attach both factions in good will to himself."
71 Hippolytus accused
Callistus of secretly siding with both trinitarians and Oneness. He
would make "dupes" out of the trinitarians by privately
telling them "that they held similar doctrines (with
himself)." 72 Then he would do the same thing with those who
embraced "the tenets of Sabellius." 73 It
is possible to accept the cynical interpretation of Hippolytus and admit
that Callistus was attempting to build his own little kingdom. On the
other hand, Callistus may have been involved in the often thankless task
of being a "peacemaker." Sabellius
(c. 180-260), one of the most famous of the monarchian church fathers,
is described rather sympathetically by Hippolytus. 74 Hippolytus charges
Callistus with "perverting" Sabellius, even though he had the
ability and the opportunity of "rectifying this heretic's
error." 75 Sabellius, who must have been a mature young man in his
thirties at that time, did not apparently openly dispute with Hippolytus: For
(at no time) during our admonition did Sabellius evince obduracy; but as
long as he continued alone with Callistus, he was wrought upon to
relapse into the system of Cleomenes by this very Callistus, who alleges
that he entertains similar opinions to Cleomenes. 76 Apparently,
Sabellius and Callistus held the same views that Cleomenes, a disciple
of Noetus and Epigonus, held. This further strengthens our view that the
Roman district was still clinging to the older Asiatic modalism. We have
also seen the older Asiatic modalism described as patripassianism. Patripassianism
a Corollary of Monarchianism Patripassianism
is an axiom in any Oneness understanding of the divine Godhead and
Incarnation. In one form or another it has to exist in all Oneness
teaching or Christology. It has gone through various refinements, but
the principle remains the same. We
see the principle of patripassianism first enunciated in the New
Testament. The apostle Paul was a patripassianist. He said: "Take
heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the
Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he
hath purchased with his own blood" (Acts 20:28). Clement
of Rome and Ignatius had merely stated that Jesus was God and that God
suffered for us. Noetus,
insisting on the absolute identification of Jesus as God the Father,
maintained that this identification, in effect, meant that God the
Father had indeed suffered. Praxeas,
Sabellius, and Callistus had qualified such statements by saying that
the Father suffered in the Son. 77 Some have identified this later view
as "compatripassianism," as though it were an entirely
different doctrine. It is, however, merely a refinement of the earlier
patripassianism. It depends upon whether one wishes to stress the unity
of the Godhead or the activity of the Incarnation. Hippolytus
and the trinitarians, however, made an issue out of the extreme
expressions of patripassianism. It was repugnant to many educated Romans
and Greeks to seemingly violate the "impassibility" of God.
Greek philosophy postulated a God who was above passion and suffering.
The patripassian pointed to the Incarnation a. the means whereby God
could suffer, but the Platonist did not understand any means by which
God could permit Himself to become passible. This would require two
separate persons. Ignatius
had explained that Jesus as God was impassible but had become passible
in the flesh. The ditheistic thinking about God and His Logos, however,
permitted God to forever remain detached and impassible. It
was this kind of thinking in the Roman district that caused Zephyrinus
to make the following statement of clarification: "I know that
there is one God, Jesus Christ; nor except Him do I know any other that
is begotten and amendable to suffering.... The Father did not die, but
[rather] the Son." 78 This is hardly a trinitarian statement, but
it is rather a refinement of the patripassian viewpoint. Hippolytus
had attacked the earlier teaching of Noetus on patripassianism: "He
[Noetus] alleged that Christ was the Father Himself, and that the Father
Himself was born, and suffered, and died. Ye see what pride of heart and
what a strange, inflated spirit had insinuated themselves into
him." 79 Noetus
apparently responded to such accusations in the following manner:
"If I therefore 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 was the Father
Himself." 80 Noetus was not saying that Christ suffered as the
Father, but he was saying that the Father suffered as Christ. He was not
saying that it was not Christ who suffered, but rather he was
maintaining that one cannot separate Christ from the Father insofar as
the unity of the Godhead goes. Even
though there is a human and a divine nature involved, there is, after
all, only one solitary Individual. Since
Jesus had revealed Himself as the Father (John 14:7-9), Noetus perhaps
felt that he could not compromise this revelation even by agreeing that
the Father did not suffer. Noetus, in one instance, quoted from Isaiah
45:14-15 and then stated: Do
you see . . . how the scriptures proclaim one God? And as this is
clearly exhibited, and these passages are testimonies to it, I am under
necessity . . . since one is acknowledged, to make this One the subject
of suffering. For Christ was God, and suffered on account of us, being
Himself the Father, that He might be able to save us. 81 Noetus
is making the assertion that there is not one who suffered and another
who did not. Noetus would allow no such refinements to do away with the
absolute oneness of God. The
patripassian doctrine of Noetus, other than in its expression, is not
different in principle from that of Praxeas, Sabellius, or Zephyrinus.
All were Oneness. None would have held that the Spirit died or suffered
physical pain at Calvary. But who would have disputed that the Spirit
was not grieved and did not feel compassion? Would they have denied that
the Spirit could not have experienced death or pain in a vicarious
fashion? If the Father could look out of His eyes at Philip and answer
Philip, "Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not
know me, Philip?" (John 14:9), then why do we find it so hard to
believe that the Father could not have experienced the nails that were
driven into His hand? Callistus
was a patripassian, but according to Hippolytus, he "masked"
his views by stating "the Father suffered [along with] the
Son." Hippolytus wrote that Callistus did not wish to state that
the Father suffered, because he was being "careful to avoid
blasphemy against the Father." 82 But
Hippolytus well knew that Callistus confessed that the Father and the
Son were one person. Hippolytus quotes Callistus's statement of faith,
which is probably an older Roman creed than the one attributed to
Tertullian: The
Father is not one Person and the Son another, but ... they are one and
the same.... The Spirit which became incarnate in the virgin, is not
different from the Father, but one and the same.... That which is seen,
which is man [is] the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in
the Son [is] the Father.... I will not profess belief in two Gods,
Father and Son, but in one . . . for the Father, who subsisted [rested]
in the Son Himself, after He had taken unto Himself our flesh, raised it
to the nature of Deity, by bringing it into union with Himself, and made
it one; so the Father and the Son must be styled one God, and that this
person being one, cannot be two. 83 The
corollary of patripassianism, seen in the teachings of Clement of Rome
and Ignatius, is ever present in the monarchian, whether it be stated
boldly in its consequences concerning the unity of the Godhead, or
whether it be refined to its narrower implications in the Incarnation.
which is after all where the suffering took place. Martin A. Larsen, a trinitarian, could not understand why the trinitarians made such an issue over patripassianism: The horror aroused among the
orthodox by the thought that God the Father had been nailed to a tree
approached hysteria: and this, we believe, resulted from the fact that
no one 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? 84 The
Fall of the Roman Church When
Zephyrinus died in 217, much to the consternation of Hippolytus
Callistus was elected the next bishop of Rome. 85 In
the ensuing division that developed, Hippolytus left the district and
set himself up as an opposing bishop. Later, Sabellius and Cleomenes,
along with his school, left the district. If we may believe Hippolytus,
Sabellius was dis-fellowshipped by the new bishop Callistus for not
holding "right opinions." 86 Sabellius
reportedly accused Callistus of transgressing his "first
faith." 87 We are not privy to the exact nature of the break
between Callistus and Sabellius. It is doubtful that Callistus changed
his doctrine in view of the statements attributed to him during his
episcopate. Nonetheless, it seems quite obvious that a number of Oneness
churches left the district. Callistus
publicly called those of the trinitarian persuasion
"ditheists" or "worshippers of two gods." 88 According
to tradition recorded in the Liber Pontificals, Callistus, a Roman by
birth, pastored a small church in the Roman section called Trastevere,
just across the Tiber in a poor Jewish area. Tradition has it that he
was snatched from a church service, thrown out a window, and hurled down
a well by an angry lynch mob in 222. 89 Callistus
is the last bishop of Rome on record who believed the Oneness message.
With the election of the new bishop Urban in 222, the leadership of the
church passed into the hands of trinitarians. Thirty-three
years later, the church at Rome, under the leadership of Bishop Stephen,
was no longer baptizing in Jesus' name, although they still defended the
legitimacy of such baptism and accepted those who had been so baptized.
90 Stephen admitted that baptism in Jesus' name was "an ancient
custom among the Roman churches." 91 Summary The
last notable bastion of the ancient apostolic church fell when the Roman
church went trinitarian in A.D. 222. Nearly three centuries later, the
trinitarian Roman papacy would begin to exercise papal rule over Western
Christendom. The
apostolic church had lost it's status as the visibie,organized Christian church and was soon, in the fourth century, to
begin losing its right to public legitimacy in the empire even though
the Roman rulers had granted "religious freedom" to
Christians. The apostolic churches continued to exist under heavy
persecution, but they no longer had the capability of mounting a
worldwide thrust through the vehicle of a worldwide organization. The
church continued to exist, but the vehicle had been subverted and
commandeered. I
would like to make the following list of points that I hope have been
addressed in this paper: 1.
There is not enough documentation in the first half of the second
century to establish that trinitarian theology was the theology
bequeathed to the followers of the apostles. Patripassianism and
monarchianism are much more likely candidates for the apostolic
theology. 2.
It was the introduction of the Logos doctrine in the mid second century
that caused the dissension and disunity over the Godhead. 3.
The roots of the apostolic church can be traced through the Ebionites
who believed in the virgin birth, the Asiatic modalists, the monarchians,
and the Sabellians, which terms identify Oneness believers who held the
same theology as the U.P.C.I. today, rather than through Logos
Christians, who developed the trinitarian theology. 4.
By concentrating on the Roman church as a role model we are able to see
an apostolic church founded by the apostles, espousing Oneness or
monarchianism, with patripassianism, down to A.D. 222. There we are able
to observe the transition from a Oneness church to a trinitarian church
as it must have happened elsewhere in the empire. 5.
Patripassianism is a necessary corollary of monarchianism or Oneness.
Its expression may vary among the ancients, but its principles are the
same among Oneness believers. The
relation of the Montanists, a trinitarian movement, and the Catholic
church fathers, being opposed by the Alogi-monarchians and the Roman
bishops, sharpens the identity of the ancient apostolic church and the
lines of controversy during the period A.D. 150-250. 6.
The heritage of the apostolic church does not lie with the Catholic
fathers, but rather with the legitimate apostolic bishops (e.g., the
Roman bishops) of the second and early third centuries and with those
who were variously termed Ebionites, Asiatic modalists, patripassians,
Alogi, monarchians, and Sabellians. 7.
By observing the situation in Rome at the beginning of the third
century, we can determine that the fall of the apostolic church came
about, at least in one area, by allowing those who did not uphold the
articles of faith to coexist and not only to coexist but to have access
to the hearts of the people. The
ancient apostolic church fell in the sense that the organizational
structure that it was using to reach for the ancient world collapsed.
God's church did not go down and never will, but the organizational
framework and the collective means to gather men, material, and
resources to commit them into a worldwide battle fell under its own
weight. In
this latter day, let the apostolic church resolve to keep the unity of
the Spirit until we all come into the unity of faith so that we might,
with the help of the Lord, raise up a spiritual organization that will
be able to reach the five billion lost souls who need the truth. Notes 1.
James A. Keist The Didache, in Ancient Christian Writers (Washington,
D.C.: Catholic University Press, 1961), no.6, 153. See also my Ancient
Champions of Oneness (Hazelwood, Mo.: Word Aflame Press, 1979), chapter
2. The Didache may also be interpolated because it contains references
to both baptismal formulae. 2.
Rufus M. Jones, The Church's Debt to Heretics (London: Clarke and
Company, 1924), 68-69. 3.
H. A. Wollson, The Philosophy of the Church Fathers (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1964), 1:193-234. 4.
Quoted in Frances Young, "Two Roots of a Tangled Mess ' The Myth of
God Incarnate, ed. John Hick (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1977),
114. See also David Bernard, The Oneness of God (Hazelwood: Word Aflame
Press, 1983), 266. 5.
Young, 115. 6.
Adolph von Harnack, History of Dogma, 3rd ed. (London: Williams and
Norgate, 1897), 5. I make no apologies for my use of the German
historians. They were excellent historians whose scholarship has not
been matched in our present day. 7
James Shell, Greek Thought and the Rise of Christianity (New York:
Barnes & Noble, 1968), 78. 8.
Philip Carrington, Christian Apologetics in the Second Century (New
York: Macmillan, 1921), 94. 9.
Wolfson, 234. 10.
Hilary of Poitiers, The Trinity (Washington, D.C. Catholic University
Press, 1954), tr. Stephen McKenna, 2:47-48. Hilary identifies some
Ebionites as being "anti-Logos." See also John Alzog, Manual
of Church History (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke, 1899), 353, J. Estlin
Carpenter Phases of Early Christianity (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1916),
134. Theodotus is identified with the Ebionites. 11.
John of Damascus, Writings (Washington, D.C.: Catholic University,
1958), tr. F. Chase, 124. 12.
In Carpenter, 134. 13.
See Ancient Champions of Oneness, 60. 14.
George Edmundson, The Church in Rome in the First Century (London:
Longman, Green and Company, 1913), 50. 15.
Irenaeus, Against All Heresies, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers [hereinafter
ANF], (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, rpt. 1986), 1:416. 16.
Alzog, 179-180. Suetonius tells us there were Christians in Rome at
least by A.D. 49. 17.
Edmundson, 68. 18.
Michael M. Winter, Saint Peter and the Popes (Westport: Greenwood Press,
1979), 89. 19.
Tertullian, On Baptism, ANF 3:671. Probably written c.18599. 20.
In Winter, 89. 21.
Caius, Fragments, ANF 5:601. 22.
Ibid. 23.
Shotwell and Loomis, The See of Peter (New York: Octagon, 1965), 61. The
argument "the keys of Peter" may have been used as early as
the time of Callistus. Pontianus (230-35) used it, as did Fabian, a
contemporary of Cyprian. Origen argued against it in his In Matthaem,
X11.10-14. 24.
T. Herbert Bindley, in Tertullian: On the Prescription of Heretics (New
York: E. S. Gorman, 1914), x. Friedrich Ueberweg says he was converted
c. 197. Friedrich Ueberweg, History of Philosophy (New York: Scribner
and Sons, 1909), trans. George Morris, 1:303. 25.
Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics, ANF 3:260. 26.
Frederick J. F. Jackson, A History of Church History (Cambridge: W.
Heffer and Sons, 1939), 60. See also The Roman Martyrologe, 1627,
English Recusant Literature, 1558-1640 A.D. (London: Scolar Press,
1974), 222, ed. D. M. Rogers, 204. 27.
Clement of Rome, I Clement, ANF 1. 28.
Otto Pfleiderer, Primitive Christianity (London: Williams and Norgate,
1911), 4:351. 29.
J. N. D. Kelley, Early Christian Doctrines (New York: Harper and Row,
1960), 143. 30.
Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to the Magnesians, in The Lost Books of The
Bible and Forgotten Books of Eden (New York: William Collins, 1963),
Vossius's 1646 text, trans. by Archbishop Wake, 173. 31.
H. B. Swete, The Apostles' Creed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1899), 28. 32.
In Cyprian's Epistle to Jubianus 72.4, ANF 5:379-86. 33.
Hermas, Vision 111.76, The Lost Books of the Bible and Forgotten Books
of Eden, 206. 34.
Anonymous, The Martyrdom of the Holy Martyrs, ANF; 1:305-6. 35.
Jean Danielou, A History of Early Christian Doctrine Before the Council
of Nicea (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1973), 2:355. 36.
Berthold Altaner, Patrology (New York: Herder and Herder, 1961). 37.
W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (New York:
Anchor, 1967), 279-80. 38.
Altaner. 39.
Kelley, 120. See also Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ANF, 5:223-31. 40.
Kelley, 121. 41.
Alzog, 353. 42.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, ANF 3:597. 43.
Ibid. 44.
Ibid., 598. 45.
Ibid., 599. 46.
Ibid. 47.
Carpenter, 110. 48.
Tertullian, Against Praxeas, 599. 49.
Ibid., 601. 50.
Ibid., 602. 51.
Jackson, 60. 52.
E. G. Weltin, The Ancient Popes (Westminster: Newman Press, 1964), 27. 53.
R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria (London: Williams and Norgate,
1914), 1:115. 54.
Ibid., 117. 55.
Quoted in Alvan Lamson, The Church of the First Three Centuries (Boston:
Walker, Wise and Company, 1860), 156. 56.
Martin A. Larson, The Story of Christian Origins (Washington D.C.: New
Republic, 1977), 505-7. 57.
Tyrannis Rufinus of Aquileia, A Commentary on the Apostles' Creed
(London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1955), trans. J. N. D. Kelly, 37. 58.
See Tertullian, Prescription against Heretics (chapter Xll), and The
Veiling of Virgins (chapter 1), c. 204-7, ANF:, vol. 3. Tertullian does
not himself identify his creedal statements as being specifically the
"Roman" creed. 59.
Caius of Rome, Fragments, 601. 60.
Zahn in A. E. Burn, "Creeds" Encyclopedia of Religion and
Ethics (New York: Scribners, n.d.), ed. James Hastings, 4:238. 61.
E. Calvin Beisner, God in Three Persons (Wheaton: Tyndale House, 1984),
18. 62.
Ibid. 63.
Photius, Bibliotheca 121 (c. 891), cited in J. Lightfoot, The Apostolic
Fathers (London: Macmillan, 1885), 1:435. 64.
Cited in Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen (189-92), ANF
(Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1868), 4:10 fn. 65.
Henry Milman, History of Latin Christianity (New York: A. C. Armstrong,
1899), 75. 66.
E. G. Weltin, 109. 67
Milman, 73 fn. 68.
In Origen, Commentary on John, II.iii.27-31, cited in Jules LeBreton and
Jacques Zeiller, The History of the Primitive Church (London: Burnes,
Oates and Washburne, n.d.), 597. 69.
Cited in ibid. 70.
Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ANF:, 5:128. 71.
Ibid. 72.
Ibid. 73.
Ibid. 74.
See my Ancient Champions of Oneness, 85-97. 75.
Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ANF, 5:128. 76.
Ibid. 77.
Kelly, 121. 78.
Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ANF:, 5:128. 79.
Hippolytus, Against Noetus, ANF, 5:223. 80.
Ibid., 224. 81.
Ibid. 82.
Hippolytus, The Refutation of An Heresies, ANF, 5:130. 83.
Ibid. 84.
Martin A. Larson, 541. 85.
J. P. Kirsch, The Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Appleton, 907),
15:757. 86.
Hippolytus, The Refutation of All Heresies, ANF, 5:130. 87
Ibid. 88.
Ibid. 89.
In Liber Pontificalis, cited in Weltin, 97. 90.
Cyprian, Epistle to Stephen (255), ANF 5:378. 91.
Ibid. RESPONSE
By
Rodney Pamer I
would like to thank Brother William Chalfant for his time and research
that he has given in writing this paper, as well as his previous work in
this area. The Oneness movement has benefited from his scholarly work.
This response will not conflict with his purposes but hopes to
strengthen his argument by the critique process. The
paper seeks to examine these aspects of the church in Rome: 1.
It was founded by the apostles. 2.
The church believed in Oneness. 3.
Water baptism was in Jesus' name until c. 222. 4.
After c. 222, it began to uphold the trinitarian doctrine. Following
are some points that should be addressed concerning this paper. Title.
The title does not reflect the content of the paper. Some reference to
the church in Rome should be included, as well as the mention of the
Oneness controversy, in the title. Other factors relate to the fall of
the ancient apostolic church, but the paper deals only with the Oneness/trinitarian
controversy. Structure.
Headings or subtitles would help the first time reader better understand
the development of the subject. This is especially true in the beginning
of the paper. Some transitions are abrupt and difficult to follow. An
organizational framework using time sequence, topical development,
geographical location, and so on would allow the reader to better digest
the excellent content of the paper. Logos
doctrine. The paper contains good research concerning the history of the
Logos doctrine during this time. For example: "Although the
importance of the influence of philosophy upon early trinitarians not
been denied, the ramifications of this influence in terms of the
doctrine of the trinity has not been thoroughly investigated by modern
theologians." And the next paragraph states that the trinitarian
view of the Logos doctrine is not found in the New Testament. The
Ebionites The term "Ebionite" is used several times in the
paper. The paper defines the Ebionites as Oneness, but according to
Walker, Schaff, Latourette, and many historians, the Ebionites were
Adoptionists. There is sufficient evidence to prove the Oneness doctrine
as the apostolic doctrine without making reference to the Ebionites. The
Alogi. The paper defends the Alogi and their acceptance of the Gospel of
John. Later, it is noted that the Alogi took the position that the
prologue of the Gospel of John was to be taken allegorically. These
portions of the paper seem to be in conflict. Whatever the true position
was of the Alogi, the thesis is weakened, not strengthened, by including
the Alogi. The consensus by historians is that they rejected the Gospel
of John. Peter
in Rome. The author makes an excellent, thorough, and well-documented
defense linking Peter with the church in Rome. However, this is another
controversial issue among historians. Oneness scholar Robert Sabin finds
it critical to prove that Peter was in fact not in Rome. The Petrine
doctrine is defended by the Roman Catholic Church in its attempt to
validate papal succession. Montanists.
A strong case is made regarding the role of the Montanists as the
catalysts of the fall of the church in Asia Minor. However, it should be
noted that some evidence exists that some Montanists were, in fact,
modalists. Along with this is a good presentation of Tertullian's
writings. Concerning Tertullian's defense of the Logos doctrine, the
paper makes an important poet: "This is the heart of the
trinitarian error, which produces a Son outside of the virgin birth at
Bethlehem." Dynamic
Monarchians. Artemon and Theodotus are cited as being Oneness. These
dynamists are uncomfortably grouped together with the modalistic
monarchians. In the author's earlier valuable work, Ancient Champions of
Oneness, he proposes that their Oneness beliefs have been misunderstood
by historians. Most primary sources would seem to indicate that the
dynamists were closer to Socinianism than to modalistic monarchianism.
Whatever their beliefs, an alliance with the dynamists of history could
possibly confuse some non-Oneness people as to our definition of the
Oneness doctrine. Patripassianism. The strongest part of the paper may
be the discussion on patripasssianism. The explanation of
compatripassianism and impassibility is excellent. The author explains
how the doctrine of impassibility may have led the Greeks to a belief in
two separate persons. Conclusions.
The conclusions listed were helpful, and each point has been addressed
in the paper. These seven points help to synthesize the parts of the
paper. Sources.
The paper used a number of primary sources, within the limitations of
the study. Further primary sources are available and would serve to
strengthen the thesis for the non-Oneness reader. While many secondary
sources were used, other important church historians were excluded and
would give additional and valuable documentation. Key
Terms. Most guidelines for historical research require the inclusion of
a section where key terms are defined. This would be a valuable addition
to help many more readers benefit from the research. Finally,
I must commend the author for his comprehensive research in producing
this study. Early church history is only significant in documentation,
not to be used in formulation or development of doctrine. This study is
helpful in documenting our history. Rodney
Pamer is youth pastor of the Apostolic Faith Assembly of Barbertnn,
Ohio, and former national youth director for the Assemblies of the Lord
Jesus Christ. William
Chalfant is pastor of Truth Tabernacle in Leavenworth, Kansas, Sunday
school director of the Kansas District, and editor of the district
paper. He is the author of one book. He attended the University of
Maryland and received his Bachelor of Science degree magna cum laude
from the University of Kansas. He has also earned the Master of Theology
degree from the International Bible Institute and Seminary. THE
ABOVE MATERIAL WAS TAKEN FROM THE SYMPOSIUM ON ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM
1988 AND 1990, AND PUBLISHED BY WORD AFLAME PRESS, 1990, PAGES 351-389. THIS
MATERIAL IS COPYRIGHTED AND MAY BE USED FOR STUDY & RESEARCH
PURPOSES ONLY. |