A History of the Oneness of God in Christianity

(Baptism in 1esus Name, the Godhead in Christ)
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
DEDICATION (3)
INTRODUCTION (20)
CHAPTER 1 THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT ONENESS APOSTOLIC
PENTECOSTALS (22)
Praxeas` History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Noetus` History and One God Doctrine
Cleomenes Godhead Doctrine
Catholic Pope Zephyrinus One God Doctrine
Catholic Pope Callistus Godhead Doctrine
Earlier Modalist Monarchians Believed Christ, as the Father,
Had A Soul and Spiritual Glorified Body in the Old Testament
Sabellius` Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Commodian`s Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Marcellus` Godhead Doctrine
Photinus` One God Doctrine
CHAPTER 2 THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND THREE
GODS:
THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE (35)
Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confess That the Trinitarian Doctrine Is Obscure
in Its Present Form, and Cannot Be Found in the Old Or New Testaments
The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods
107 AD Ignatius` Doctrine, 150 AD, 1ustin Martyr`s Doctrine, 160 AD Titian`s
Doctrine, 170 AD Theophilus` Doctrine, 180 AD Irenaeus` Doctrine, 200 AD
Tertullian`s Doctrine, 215 AD, Origen`s Doctrine, 250 AD, Dionysius` Doctrine, 300
AD, Lactanius Doctrine, 312 AD Alexander`s Doctrine
The Origin of the Catholic Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods
3000 BC Zoroaster`s Teaching, Hermes` Teaching, the Sibyls` Teaching,
387 BC Plato`s Teaching, 57 AD Philo`s Teaching
The Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine of the Ministry
The Arian Doctrine of the Godhead (310 AD)
The Catholic Binitarian Doctrine of Two-Equal-gods or the Nicene Creed (325 AD)
The Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-
Constantinople Creed (381 AD)
CHAPTER 3 THE PAGAN ORIGIN O THE CATHO!IC DOCTRINE O THE
TRINIT" (#$)
Comparing the Trinity of Pagans With the Trinity of Catholicism
A Summary of the History and Development of the Trinity of the Babylonian
Religion
What Does the Bible Mean by the Term Mystery Babylon
When and Where Did the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion Begin
Who Started the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion
What Kind of Religion Was Mystery Babylon
How Did the Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod,
Change into A Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One God
The Babylonian Mystery Religion Spreads Throughout The World
The Babylonian Doctrines that Catholicism Christianized Before the End of the
Fourth Century
CHAPTER 4 HISTORY REVEALS THAT GOD`S APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL
CHURCES
WERE IN THE VAST MA1ORITY FROM 33-399 AD (70)
Catholic Cardinal Newman`s Confession
Protestant Doctor 1ames Hastings` Confession
107 AD, Catholic Priest Ignatius` Confession
150 AD, Catholic Priest 1ustin Martyr`s Confession
180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus` Confession
200 AD, Catholic Priest Tertullian`s Confession
225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus` Confession
Protestant Doctors M'Clintock and Strong`s Confession
Protestant Professor Adolf Harnack`s Confession
The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia Confession
CHALPTER 5 HISTORIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE OF GOD`S
APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IN EACH CENTURY (76)
CHAPTER 6 THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC TRINITARIAN FORMULA
FOR BAPTISM (119)
150 AD, Catholic Priest 1ustin Martyr Changed the Mode and Formula for Baptism,
and the Catholic Church Adopted His Teaching
The Pagan Origin of Trine Immersion and the Use of the Triune Titles of God
in the Formula for Baptism
255 AD, Catholic Priest Cyprian Changes the Catholic Formula for Baptism by
Takings the Name
of the Lord 1esus Christ Out of Their Second Immersion, and Replacing It with the
Title Son
BIBLIOGRAPHY (130)
ENDNOTES (136)
Copyright May 30, 1996 by Harry A. Peyton under the title of ~The Doctrines Of
Christ.¨
A Note from the Author: Since Almighty God, the Lord 1esus Christ, gives His
Salvation and His Word to all freely (Rev 22:17, Mt 10:7-8), this book, and all other
books, are given without charge. Feel free to copy it in digital or written form, and
share it with others.
A%% CAPITA!I&ATION and ITA!ICI&ATION in 'UOTE( )*ed in thi* +oo, i* always
-INE. A%% /i+%ica% 0)ote* )*ed in thi* +oo, 1i%% +e in dar, red2 and fro3 the Ne1 4in5
6a3e* 7er*ion of the /i+%e2 )n%e** another 7er*ion i* *tated a* the reference. The 7a*t
3a8orit9 of a%% tran*%ation* of the /i+%e2 a* 1e%% a* He+re1 and Gree, !e:ica% definition*
and 5ra33ar2 1i%% co3e fro3 /i+%e;or,* co3<)ter *oft1are <ro5ra3 7er*ion $.0. The
a)thor in 3o*t <%ace* 1i%% 0)ote 7er*e* fro3 the /i+%e in*tead of co33entin5 on a 7er*e
and 5i7in5 a reference= for He +e%ie7e* that the 1ritten ;ord of God>* ha* 5reater <o1er
to in*<ire and en%i5hten a heart to )nder*tand and act )<on tr)th2 than the e%e5ant orator9
or 1ritin5* of an9 3an.
DEDICATION
This book is dedicated to all the courageous men, women and children of the present
and past centuries, who loved the Lord 1esus Christ and believed His Truths. I
would especially like to acknowledge those who suffered social scorn, loss of income,
loss of property, imprisonment, torture and martyrdom for their faith in Christ`s
New Birth message and their monotheistic belief in 1esus` Supreme Deity.
INTRODUCTION
~1esus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever¨ (Heb 13:8).
~In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was
God.. He was in the world, and the world was made through Him, and the world
did not know Him.. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we
beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and
truth¨ (1n 1:1, 10, 14).
Napoleon Bonaparte speaking of the Deity of our Lord and Savior 1esus Christ and
the conquering power of His Cross said: I know men; the life and death of 1esus
Christ was not that of a man. If the death of Socrates was that of a sage, the death of
1esus Christ was that of God. The gospel of 1esus Christ is no mere book but a living
creature with vigor, a power that conquers all that opposes it. Alexander,
Charlemagne, and myself have founded great empires, but upon what did the
creation of our genius depend, upon force: but, this man 1esus Christ has founded
His empire upon love, and to this day millions would die for Him. ¡1]
Have you ever wondered why there are so many different teachings or diversity of
beliefs in the religious world pertaining to the doctrine of godhead? Have you ever
wondered how one God can be three separate persons or beings? If so, let me assure
you, that you are not alone. There have been a host of others throughout all ages
that have asked the same questions. There has been in the history of the church
basically five teachings on the godhead.
The Modalist Monarchian Doctrine: This is oldest teaching known in church
history. It declares that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are titles by which the one
God has revealed Himself to His children. They proclaim that 1esus is the Father
incarnated in a human body. They believe in one and only one person in the
godhead and that is Christ. This teaching started with the apostles in 33 AD and it
can be found throughout church history.
The Doctrine of the Semi-Arians or the Belief in Two-Unequal-gods: The second
teaching on the godhead to arise, according to church history, was what history calls
the ~Semi-Arian¨ belief. I call it the belief in two-unequal-gods. This was the
teaching of a group that broke from the monotheism of the Modalist Monarchians
some time after 70 AD. These apostates called themselves Catholics. The majority of
them taught that the Father and Son were two separate and distinct gods, beings or
persons in the godhead. They did not teach an equality of persons.
They taught that the Father created another god or being or person before the
world began, which He called the Son. This meant that they considered 1esus to be
~homoiousios¨ or ~of like substance¨ with the Father, which made Him a lesser God
than the Father since He did not share in the Father`s substance. They also believed
that the Holy Ghost was an impersonal spirit and another name for Christ.
The Arian Doctrine or the Denial of 1esus` Deity: This was the third teaching on the
godhead to arise. It started in 310 AD with a Catholic Presbyter in Egypt by the
name of Arius. In a few years Arius had a large following that challenged the
godhead doctrine of their fellow Catholic ministers. This teaching stated that the
Father was the one and only God, and 1esus was not God in any sense, but was the
highest or greatest angel in God's creation.
According to Professor Philip Schaff in work entitled History of the Christian
Church: The Arians made the Holy ¡Spirit] the first creature of the Son, and as
subordinate to the Son as the Son to the Father. The Arian trinity was therefore not
a trinity immanent and eternal, but arising in time and in descending grades,
consisting of the uncreated God and two created demi-gods. The Semi-Arians here,
as elsewhere, approached the orthodox doctrine, but rejected the consubstantiality,
and asserted the creation of the Spirit. ¡2]
The Doctrine of the Binitarians or the Belief in Two-Equal-gods: The fourth
teaching on the godhead was a belief in two-equal-gods or persons. This doctrine
started in 325 AD. The Catholic Church started this doctrine in an effort to combat
the Arian doctrine of the godhead. They put their doctrine into a written form and
called it the Nicene Creed. They said that 1esus was ~homoousios¨ or ~of the same
substance¨ with the Father, thus making Him an equal God with the Father, since
He now shared in the Father`s own substance. Therefore, they change their godhead
doctrine and traded in their forefather`s belief in two-unequal-gods for a belief in
two-equal-gods. This Creed speaks of the Holy Ghost, but does not tell us what they
believed about the Holy Ghost.
Catholic Bishops as a whole at this time did not believe that the Holy Ghost was a
separate person in the godhead. In fact most of them did not know what to believe
about the Holy Ghost. The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely informs us what
the Catholic Bishops at Nicea believed about the Holy Ghost. Under the heading of
the Trinity, the Catholic Church made a good and honest confession about the
development of their Trinitarian doctrine. It stated: In the last analysis, the 2nd
century theological achievement was limited.. A Trinitarian solution was still in the
future. The Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of
anticipation, one might say too impersonally.... On the eve of Nicene 1, the
Trinitarian problem raised more than a century earlier was still far from settled. It
was the problem of plurality within the single, undivided godhead. ¡3]
Even as late as 375 AD, most Catholics Bishops still did not believe the Holy Spirit
was a person or even God. Gregory the Catholic Bishop of Nazianzus, who later
became a Pope, said: Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an
influence ¡meaning not a person], others a creature ¡meaning an angel or a created
spirit being], others God himself, and others know not which way to decide. ¡4]
The Doctrine of the Trinity or the Belief in Three-Equal-gods: The fifth teaching to
arise on the godhead was the Trinitarian doctrine. In 381 AD Catholic Bishops
dreamed up yet another creed, which they called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan
Creed. This creed was the same as the Nicene Creed but it made the Holy Ghost a
person in the godhead. But it did not spell out his relationship to the Father and
Son. Therefore, they change their godhead doctrine again; they traded in their belief
in two-equal-gods for a belief in three-equal-gods. The Father, Son and Holy Ghost
were now three separate and distinct persons (Greek - hypostases) or beings.
In 382 AD, Catholic Pope Damascus called a Roman Council in which he perfected
their belief in three-equal-gods. This council defined the Trinitarian doctrine as
three persons who were equal in power, glory, knowledge, and all other attributes of
God. At last Lucifer finally had his Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead
in his Roman Catholic Church.
CHAPTER 1
THE GODHEAD BELIEF OF ANCIENT
ONENESS APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTALS
This history is a sketch or an outline of this subject, and it is no way intended to be a
complete history. It is designed to give my readers a basic understanding of the great
history of 1esus` name baptism and the godhead in Christ. The true history of the
one God, 1esus` Name Pentecostal Church has been destroyed. All the writings of
her great Apologists have been burned, and if any survived, they are probably hid in
a room in the Vatican Library that could withstand an atomic blast.
The only history we have of Christ`s Bride is the one that was written by the
Catholic Nicolaitan priests who hated her. Therefore, it is hard to tell to what extent
Catholicism twisted their teachings. It is impossible to present a history of God`s
people without giving a history of both their belief in 1esus` Name Baptism, the
Supreme Deity of Christ and Speaking in Tongues, because Catholic and Protestant
histories distinguishes them from all other religions by these doctrines.
The greatest tragedy of history is not only the loss writings of God`s inspired
preachers, but also the assumption of historians that Catholicism was the original
Church instead of a church setup by apostates somewhere after 70 AD. Even though
historians know right well, that the writings of these early apostates and some of
their disciples have been corrupted or altered, they still proclaim her as the original
church. Why? Because the only history they have to base theirs opinions on is
Catholic history. It is not hard to pervert history when you destroy the writings of
all your competition.
It is obvious from the writings of the fathers of Catholicism that many books were
written against them by the Apologists of the God`s Apostolic Church, and the
writers of various denominations. Professor Charles Guignebert, in his book The
Early History of Christianity, confirmed this when he said: these people had written
a great deal against her ¡Catholicism], or concerning her; this literature has almost
entirely disappeared and the little that remains is only enough to show us how great
would be the service it might render. Because it has no alternative but to use (a)
polemical or exegetical writing mainly, badly emended by accounts reputed to be
historical, but written long after the events and at a time when they were scarcely
understood.... It is right and necessary that we should not forget that fact. For
example, to try to exact from the collection of ¡Catholic] Christian documents alone
an exact idea of the early times of the Church was to give way to a tantalizing
delusion; whether the fact was realized or not, the undertaking ¡of it by historians]
was inspired by prejudgments of the faith.... They endeavored to preserve its old
standing as an originality, and this desire was fed from more than one root in the
theological postulate of revelation. ¡5]
Therefore anyone who reads and study the writings of the Catholic Ante, Nicene,
and Post Nicene Fathers should keep in mind the following facts, which Professor
Guignebert and other Church historians have boldly proclaimed: First, we know
from the writings of the apostles and disciples that false doctrines existed in their
day, which later developed into a denominational systems known as Gnosticism and
Catholicism.
Thi* i* 1h9 Pa)% to%d the /i*ho<* in the Ch)rch of E<he*)*? @I ,no1 thi*2 that after 39
de<artin5 *ha%% 5rie7o)* 1o%7e* enter in a3on5 9o)2 not *<arin5 the f%oc,. A%*o of 9o)r
o1n *e%7e* *ha%% 3en ari*e2 *<ea,in5 <er7er*e thin5*2 to dra1 a1a9 di*ci<%e* after the3A
(Act* 20?2BC2D)2 and 6)de ad3oni*hed the Ch)rch in hi* da9 the9 *ho)%d? @earne*t%9
contend for the faith2 1hich 1a* once de%i7ered )nto the *aint*A (6)de 1?3). The
doc)3ent* ,no1n a* The Constitutions of the Holy Apostles and the Didache2 that 1ere
3a*0)erade a* the 1ritin5* and teachin5 of the a<o*t%e* are deno)nced +9 the 3a8orit9 of
te:t)a% *cho%ar* a* fa+rication* that Catho%ic <rie*t* of the *econd or third cent)r9
in7ented.
Second, Nicene and Post Nicene priests had a tendency to alter manuscripts that
were written by their Ante Nicene predecessors in the ministry. They did this by
either adding to or takings out certain lines that either confirmed or denied a certain
doctrine; and because of their hatred of the denominations that opposed them, they
had a tendency to misrepresent or twist the teaching of their antagonist, as Dr.
Guignebert so competently pointed out. Third, because of the denominational biases
of some of the reformation leaders and modern day church historians, there was a
tendency to misinterpret the writings and beliefs of these ancient Catholic priests, in
order that, their denomination may have a historical foundation for some of their
beliefs.
Before I begin my history of God`s Modalist Monarchian preachers, it would be to
my readers` advantage for me to define their one God doctrine, as well as the two-
god doctrine believed by the early writers of Catholicism; for the Ante Nicene
Catholic priests were not Trinitarians but believed in two-unequal-gods, the Nicene
priests were Binitarians or taught two-equal-gods, while the Post Nicene priests
were Trinitarians or believed in three-equal-gods. This way my readers can receive a
better understanding of the history they are about to read.
Modalist Monarchianism may be defined as a first century belief that God is one
person as well as one being, who is the Lord 1esus Christ. The ancient preachers of
oneness were anti-Trinitarians, who believed that the Father, Son and Holy Ghost
were titles, offices, modes of revelation, or characters as in a play, that the one
person of God has revealed Himself to His Children. As the Father, the one God
revealed Himself as the Creator of man and the cosmos. As the Son of God, the
Father revealed Himself as the Savior of all mankind by becoming a man, and as a
man died for their sins. As the Holy Spirit, the Father revealed Himself as the
Regenerator of man, by comes in and dwelling in him for the purpose of redeeming,
empowering and transforming him into Christ`s likeness.
Even though ancient oneness preachers proclaimed that the Lord 1esus Christ was
Father manifested in the flesh, they all did not hold the same Christology views.
They all believed that the Logos pre-existed as the Father and was not a being
separated from Father, but was His visible form or body. They also believed that it
was the Christ that became 1esus or the Son of God at Bethlehem, and the Holy
Spirit was another name for the Logos. The early Oneness believers held two
different Christology views on the Logos` incarnation. One group of oneness
preachers believed that God`s entire Spirit and body substance was incarnated at
Bethlehem. The other group of preachers, such as Sabellius, believed that the only
the visible portion or body of God the Father`s own substance became incarnated. I
understand this to mean that God the Father`s Holy Spirit Nature stayed in heaven
while His Spiritual Body Nature became incarnated and His Soul Nature dwelt in it.
The early Catholics began their apostasy from the true believers over the godhead
and ministerial order in the local church. Since they were few in number, they
organized and became known as the Roman Catholic Church. These early apostate
believed in two separate and distinct persons in the godhead. They believed that
God the Father created, begot, or generated before time began a second god called
the Logos. They taught that this Word was a pre-existing Son of God who became
1esus at Bethlehem. They also believed that the Holy Spirit was another name for
the Logos.
Basically the one major difference between the earlier Oneness and the Catholic
believers is their belief concerning the identity of the Logos. Now this is a very
important point that my beloved readers should keep in mind. Who is the Logos? Is
He the same person as the Father, or is He someone different from the Father? Is He
the Father the one and only God, or is He a second god different from the Father. Is
He someone less than God or is He equal to the Father? Is He an eternal being or is
He a created being? If He is God, did He retain His deity when He was born of Mary
as a man?
The entire godhead dispute was basically over these issues until 381 AD, when the
Catholic Church officially adopted the concept of the Trinity of Babylon. The
Catholic Church in all their creeds did not teach a Trinity of three separate persons
in the godhead before this time. If it was not for the pride of the apostates Ignatius
of Antioch, Clement of Rome, and the early Catholic apologists, and their love of
Greek Philosophy, especially the writings of Plato and the corrupt 1ewish writings
of Philo, their doctrine of two-gods, which later developed into a doctrine of three
gods, would have never came into being. In fact, their doctrine of two gods really
originated in Zoroastrianism. Let us examine three historical references that verify
these points.
The Ancient Oneness Godhead Doctrine: The Catholic Encyclopedia gave a fair
explanation of the origin and differences of belief between the Modalist
Monarchians and the early Catholics. It revealed that the 1esus` Name
Monarchians: made the Son and the Holy Ghost merely aspects or modes of
existence of the Father, thus emphatically identifying Christ with ¡the Father] the
one God.... They spoke of the Father as Spirit and the Son as flesh. ¡6]
The Ancient Catholic Godhead Doctrine: This same encyclopedia went on to reveal
that the 1esus` Name Modalist were against the Catholic adoption of Plato and Philo
doctrine of two gods, in others words: the learned philosophizing of the Christology
of Catholicism. This godhead doctrine: to the simplicity of the ¡Catholic] faithful
looked too much like a mythology or a Gnostic emanationism. The Monarchians
emphatically declared that God is one, wholly and perfectly one, and that 1esus
Christ is God, wholly and perfectly God. This was right, and even most necessary,
and whilst it is easy to see why the theologians like Tertullian and Hippolytus
opposed them for their protest was precisely against the Platonism which these
theologians had inherited from 1ustin and the Apologists.
The Alexandrians alone insisted rightly on the generation of the Son from all
eternity; but thus the Unity of God was even less manifest. The writers who thus
theologize may often expressly teach the traditional Unity in Trinity, but it hardly
squares with the Platonism of their philosophy. The theologians were thus defending
the doctrine of the Logos at the expense of the two fundamental doctrines of
Christianity, the Unity of God, and the Divinity of Christ. They seemed to make the
unity of the godhead split into two or even three, and to make 1esus Christ
something less than the supreme God the Father. This is eminently true of the chief
opponents of the Monarchians, Tertullian, Hippolytus, and Noatian. ¡7]
Dr. 1ames Hastings in his Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, speaking about this
controversy declared: Modalist Monarchianism was powerfully supported by the
critico-historical school of exegesis which grew up at Antioch in opposition to the
speculative, allegorizing school of Alexandria. He went on to say that on one side of
this great battle was: Monarchianism, the Antiochene historical-critical school of
interpretation, and rationalism, which opposed Catholicism, with its. allegorical
interpretation, and its metaphysic of deity. ¡8]
The !nternational "tandard #i$le Encylopaedia speaking of the formulation of the
doctrine of the Trinity gave this summation: In the nature of the case the formulated
doctrine was of slow attainment. The influence of inherited conceptions and of
current philosophies inevitably showed itself in the efforts to construe to the intellect
the immanent faith of Christians. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and
neo-Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and
produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a
prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a
world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected
altogether (Trinity, sec 22).
Praxeas` History and Modalistic Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Praxeas, A One God, 1esus` Name Man of God: Quintus Septimius Florens, better
known as Tertullian, embraced Catholicism when he was about 30 years old. When
he was 40, he embraced some of the heresies of Montanus, and became one of their
chief preachers. Around AD 200, he wrote a work entitled %&ainst 'ra(eas, who was
a holy 1esus` Name Preacher of that day. Tertullian, who lived in Carthage, which is
in northern Africa, revealed that Praxeas came to Rome during the time that Victor
was Bishop (AD 189-199).
According to History of Do&ma by professor Adolph Harnack, Eusebius claimed
Praxeas was in Rome when Eleutherus was Bishop (AD 175-189). Catholics call
Bishops of Rome Popes. Harnack says: If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and that is
probable from Eusebius H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession
who declared themselves in favor of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus,
Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus. ¡9] We do not know who among God`s people
converted Pope Eleutherus and Victor to the truth concerning the supreme deity in
Christ 1esus, but we do know that Zephyrinus and Callistus were converted by
Cleomenes, who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of Noetus.
Tertullian said Praxeas came to Rome after he had suffered imprisonment for his
unwavering faith in the almighty God in Christ 1esus. Praxeas, like the great
apostles Peter and Paul, suffered much for the Gospel sake. The angry Tertullian
tried to belittle Praxeas suffering by called it: the annoyance of a prison, and no
doubt slandered him in an attempt to discredit him. Tertullian, the Montanist, was
angry with Praxeas because he had Eleutherus brand Montanus as a heretic. ¡10]
Some historians, like Harnack, believed Montanus was a Modalist Monarchian in
his godhead belief. But, I find this hard to believe since Tertullian definitely had a
two god or person belief, and not only that, but according to 1ohn Blunt, in his work
entitled Dictionary of "ects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical 'arties, and "chools of )eli&ious
Thou&ht, Montanus used the Catholic formula for baptism. He wrote: Montanus
himself had retained the Catholic form. For this we have the evidence of
Athanasius... (cont. Arian. Or. ii, 43). He is writing of baptism, and the names` are
the names of the Persons of the Holy Trinity. ¡11] Montanus was excommunicated
for heresy. Some historians say that Montanus claimed to be the voice of the Holy
Ghost,` while others say he claimed to be the embodiment of the Spirit.` Even if
Montanus had a ~one God belief¨ from the beginning, these accusations against
him, if they are true, are enough to brand him as a heretic.
Tertullian could have been angry with Praxeas for another reason. It is a historical
fact that a great number of the Montanist were converted to the truth and became
Modalist Monarchians, especially in Africa. In fact the main body of Apostolic
Montanist broke away from Montanus and Tertullian`s two-god group somewhere
around c. 190. The Catholic Encyclopedia confirmed this when it stated: A number of
Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists. It also went on to confess that
Tertullian may have twisted the teachings of Praxeas, and Hippolytus may have
done the same with Noetus. It declared: It is true that it is easy to suppose Tertullian
and Hippolytus to have misrepresented the opinions of their opponents. ¡12]
Tertullian and Hippolytus were both Bishops, and no Nicolaitan-Balaamite pastor
enjoys losing their people, who are their bread and butter. Also, these men did not
like it very much when the great mass of Christians in their day called them
heretics.
For Eleutherus, the Bishop of Rome, to condemn Montanus, he must have had a lot
of faith and confidence in Praxeas as a man of God. So, it is obvious, Eleutherus had
to be a 1esus` Name Preacher. Tertullian really does not say why Praxeas had
Montanus condemned as a heretic. Callistus excommunicate Sabellius supposedly
for some heresy, so why should it be thought strange for Eleutherus to
excommunicate Montanus for some heresy. My readers should bear in mind that
Sabellius was a convert of Callistus. They both were Modalist Monarchians in their
godhead belief. So, it would appear that it was not because of Sabellius` godhead
belief that he was excommunicated. Callistus no doubt was probably fearful and
jealous of Sabellius for he was very popular with the people as a teacher.
Many Earlier Modalist Monarchians, Such as Praxeas, Believed that Christ or the
Father Had A Body in the Old Testament: According to Tertullian, in 200 AD,
oneness preachers must have believed that Christ or the Logos, as God the Father,
must have dwelt in a bodily form in the Old Testament, even though they believed
God is a Spirit Being, or Tertullian following argument would make no sense!
Tertullian speaking of Christ preexistence as ~the form of God¨ (Phil 2:6) declared:
In what form of God? Of course he ¡Paul] means in some form of God. For who
¡among the 1esus` Name Preachers] will deny that God is a body, although God is a
Spirit? For Spirit has a bodily substance of its own kind, in its own form.... But you
will not allow Him to be really a ¡different] substantive being by having a ¡separate
body or] substance of His own; in such a way that He may be regarded as an
objective thing and a ¡separate] person, and so be able as being constituted second
to God the Father, to make two, the Father and the Son, God the Word. ¡13]
Tertullian went on to say: Since they are unwilling to allow that the Son is a distinct
'erson, second from the Father, lest, being thus second, He should cause two Gods
to be spoken of.. They make selections from the Scriptures in support of their
opinion.. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than,
I am God, and beside me there is no God;` so in the Gospel they simply keep in view
the Lord`s answer to Philip, I and my Father are one;` and, He that hath seen me
hath seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me.` ¡14]
Therefore these early heroes of faith must have believed that Christ, as God the
Father in the Old Testament, must have had some kind of body! Most of God`s
people in the earlier ages did not allowed God`s substance to be divided. How can
anyone divide God`s Spirit Nature from His Soul or Human Nature and make two
separate and distinct persons is beyond me? I will speak more of God`s Spirit and
Soul Nature later. According to Tertullian, Praxeas must not have believed God to
be an omnipresent Spirit Being in His true essence or substance. Omnipresence is
one of God`s many attributes but it is not His personal essence. He also implied that
the 1esus` Name Preachers believed that God the Father`s essence or substance was
contained in a personal body.
Praxeas` One God Doctrine: Tertullian mocked Praxeas because he and his
forefathers believed the entire godhead dwells in one person. He said they taught:
They distinguish two, Father and Son, understanding the Son to be flesh, that is
man, that is 1esus; and the Father to be Spirit, that is God, that is Christ. Thus they,
while contending that the Father and the Son are one and the same ¡person].. Such
a monarchy as this they learnt.. The Word of God or the Spirit of God is also called
the power of the Highest, whom they make the Father.. See, say they, it was
announced by the angel: ~Therefore that Holy Thing which shall be born of thee
shall be called the Son of God.¨ Therefore, (they argue,) as it was the flesh that was
born, it must be the flesh that is the Son of God. ¡15]
Tertullian went on to say: Now, although when two substances are alleged to be in
Christ - namely, the divine and the human - it plainly follows that the Divine
Nature is immortal, and that which is Human is mortal, it is manifest in what sense
he ¡Praxeas] declares Christ died` - even in the sense in which He was flesh and
Man and the Son of Man, NOT as being the Spirit and the Word.. ¡These Oneness
Pentecostals declared,] we do not maintain that He died after the Divine Nature, but
only after the Human. ¡16]
All theologians and historians, who claimed oneness preachers` taught that God died
at Calvary, should repent of that lie. Surely this passage was not hidden from their
view. Even though 1esus Christ is God the Father in the flesh, it was not the Divine
nature that died, but it was His human nature only that was subject to pain, death,
and other human frailties. God cannot die! Man cannot kill God! I have asked
Trinitarian preachers who declare lie this question: ~Do you believe that 1esus
Christ is God, or is He nothing more than a mere man?¨ Every Protestant preacher
I have asked this question to has responded by saying: ~1esus is God.¨ I then
declared to them: ~You must either preach our position, or you must teach that God
died on Calvary`s cross, and God laid dead in a tomb for three days before He came
back to life again, also that mortal man had the power to kill God.¨
Noetus` History and One God Doctrine
Noetus, A True Man of God: Hippolytus wrote a work entitled The )efutation Of %ll
Heresies around 225 AD. This man was a heretical Catholic bishop, whose church
was in a suburb of Rome. He was a contemporary of Tertullian and an older
contemporary of Cyprian, and like them, he belonged to the North African or
Western School of Doctrine. Hippolytus wrote against Noetus and his disciples.
Noetus was from Smyrna. My beloved readers may recall what our Lord said about
the true believers who lived in the Smyrna Church Period; He said: ~I know the
blasphemy of them ¡the Catholic apologists], which say they are 1ews ¡children of
God], and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan¨ (Rev 2:8-11, also see Mt 7:15-
23). Noetus, unlike Hippolytus, was a true man of God.
Noetus` One God Doctrine: Hippolytus went on to say: Noetus affirms that the Son
and Father are the same ¡person], no one is ignorant. For he makes his statement
thus: `When indeed then, the Father had not been born, He yet was justly styled
Father: and when it pleased Him to undergo generation, having been begotten, He
Himself became His own Son, not another's.. He is styled by the name of Father
and Son, according to the vicissitude of times, ¡or at different time periods]. He
confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He made no secret to
those who could comprehend Him of being the Father. ¡17]
Epigonus, Cleomenes, Zephyrinus, and Callistus were all men of God. Hippolytus
wrote not only against Noetus but also against Zephyrinus, who was a Bishops of
Rome from c. 199-210, and Callistus, who was a Bishop of Rome from c. 210-222.
Hippolytus was furious because the people of Rome branded him as a heretic and
did not want him as one of their Bishops, so he set himself up as a rival Bishop or as
some historians prefer an anti-Pope. Therefore, he lied and slandered the character
of Noetus and all of the real Bishops of Rome.
Cleomenes Godhead Doctrine
Hippolytus informed us that Catholic Bishops or Popes Zephyrinus and Callistus
were disciples of Cleomenes, who was a disciple of Epigonus, who was a disciple of
Noetus. According to Harnack, Epigonus was in Rome during the time Zephyrinus
was Bishop, or shortly before. ¡18] Hippolytus says that Cleomenes started a
Theology School in Rome. He wrote: the school of these ¡so-called] heretics during
the succession of such Bishops continued to acquire strength and augmentation from
the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail. ¡19]
Harnack declared: Cleomenes and his party maintain that He who was nailed to
the cross, who committed His Spirit to Himself, who died and did not die, who
raised Himself on the third day and rested in the grave, who was pierced with the
lance and fastened with nails, was the God and Father of all. ¡20] With the
information I have at this moment, it is hard for me to determine how many of the
Bishops of Rome before the Council of Nicene really believed and preached the
truth. It is obvious from these statements that Zephyrinus and Callistus must have
had a One God, 1esus` Name belief.
Catholic Pope Zephyrinus One God Doctrine
Hippolytus continued: Callistus attempted to confirm this heresy.... Now Callistus
brought forward Zephyrinus himself and induced him publicly to avow the
following sentiments: I know that there is one God, 1esus Christ; nor except Him
do I know any other. ¡21] Zephyrinus also boldly declared: For the Father, who is in
the Son, deified the flesh, after He had assumed it, and united it with Himself, and
established a unity of such a nature that now Father and Son are called one God,
and that henceforth it is impossible that this single person can be divided into two.
¡22]
Catholic Pope Callistus Godhead Doctrine
According to Hippolytus, Callistus publicly reproached him and his very small band
of rebels by saying: Ye are Ditheists, which is a belief in two gods. Callistus then
expounded the truth to the real Christians of Rome. Hippolytus stated: Bishop
Callistus alleges that the Logos Himself is the Son, and Himself is the Father; and
though denominated by different titles, yet that in reality he is one indivisible Spirit.`
And he maintains that the Father is NOT one person and the Son another, but that
they are one and the same.... For that which is seen, which is man,` he considers to
be the Son; whereas the Spirit, which was contained in the Son, to be the Father.`
For says Callistus, I will NOT profess belief in two gods, Father and Son, but in
one; for the Father subsisted in the Son Himself.. So that Father and Son must be
styled one God, and that this person being one, CANNOT be two persons. ¡23]
Let my readers take note that these zealous Modalistic Monarchians accused
Hippolytus` Catholic group of believing in two separate persons or gods in the
godhead. They did not accuse them of being Trinitarians, which is the belief in three
separate and supreme persons or gods. The early Catholic apostates and their
deceive followers, as I have said before, did not believe the Holy Ghost to be a
person.
Sabellius` Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Harnack stated that Cleomenes remained the head of the Oneness Theological
School of Rome until c. 215, when Sabellius succeeded him. Even though all oneness
preachers believed in God`s form or body in the Old Testament, they held two
different ideas concerning the Logos` incarnation. One group of oneness preachers
believed that God`s entire Spirit and bodily substance was incarnated at Bethlehem.
The other group preachers, such as the Sabellians, believed that the only the visible
portion or the humanity of God the Father`s own substance became incarnated.
Harnack speaking about Sabellius` godhead belief says: The one being was always
called by Sabellius uiopatwr ¡son-father], an expression which was certainly chosen
to remove any misunderstanding, to make it impossible to suppose that two beings
were in question. ¡24]
Alexander (315 AD) declared that Sabellius taught that the Logos had a corporeal
pre-existence. Alexander believed that the Logos as the Son of God was begotten
before time began. Speaking of the Logos` pre-existence, Alexander wrote, we
believe: in one Lord 1esus Christ, the only-begotten Son of God; not begotten of
things which are not, but of Him who is the Father; not in a CORPOREAL
MANNER ¡i.e. tangible body] by excision or division as Sabellius and Valentinus
thought, but in a certain inexplicable and unspeakable manner. ¡25]
Blunt speaking of Sabellius says, according to Hilary: In place of the Unity of Three
distinct Persons we have the entire coalescence of what are distinguished only in
name, not in substance (Hilary de Trinity. vii. 5).... The only Divine Sonship allowed
by Sabellius` doctrine being then that which took place in time at the Incarnation,
there was also at that time, a division of the Union.... If Hilary be a competent
witness, that Sabellius did assert a separation of the Protensio,` which reaching
usque ad Virginem,` took the name of Son. This last step was taken to avoid the
charge of Patripassianism... by asserting that only a portion of the Divine Nature
became incarnate.... Epiphanius... adds that this conception was likening the Father
to the body, the Son to the SOUL, the Holy Ghost to the spirit.¨ ¡26]
Socrates Scholasticus in his history spoke of the Creed of Sirmium, which was
published in 352 AD in the Presence of the Emperor Constantius. In it the Catholic
Church described some of the Godhead teaching of God`s 1esus` Name People of
that day by pronouncing a large number of anathema on them. The Creed stated:
~If any one shall dare to assert that the *n$e&otten, or a part of him, was born of
Mary, let him be anathema. If any one should say that the "on was of Mary
according to fore+nowled&e ¡i.e. existed in prophesy only as God becoming a human
being], and NOT that he was with God, begotten of the Father before the ages. let
him be anathema. If any man affirming him that was born of Mary to be God and
man, shall imply the un$e&otten God himself, let him be anathema.. If any one says
that it was not the Son that was seen by Abraham, but the un$e&otten God, or a part
of him, let him be anathema. If any one says that it was NOT the Son that as man
wrestled with 1acob, but the un$e&otten God, or a part of him, let him be
anathema.. If any one should say that the Father, Son, and Holy? Spirit are one
person, let him be anathema. If any one, speaking of the Holy "pirit, the Comforter,
shall call him the un$e&otten God, let him be anathema.¨¡27]
It is very obvious that Catholicism was very unhappy with God`s people. The
portion of the Father`s own Nature that became born of Mary was His Glorified
Spiritual Body, and His Soul dwelt in it. Catholicism has always pronounced curses
on God`s people in every century. They have always been afraid that God`s people
once again would prevail over all of Christendom. The Catholic Encyclopedia stated:
In the fourth century the Arians and Semiarians professed to be much afraid of it
¡Sabellianism], and the alliance of Pope 1ulius and Athanasius... gave some color to
accusations against the Nicene formulas as opening the way to Sabellianism. This
same encyclopedia also gave us some insights into Sabellius beliefs. It says: Saint
Athanasius tells us that he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one
in hypostasis but two in name. ¡28]
Commodian`s Modalist Monarchian Godhead Doctrine
Commodian was another great man of God. He was a Bishop in a church in Africa
around c. 250. According to Harvard professor Harry A. Wolfson, in his work
entitled The 'hilosophy Of The Church ,athers, Commodian taught in verse 91 of
his Carmen %polo&eticum: the Father went into the Son, at Bethlehem. This revealed
that the Father was the God who was in the Lord 1esus Christ. He also added:
Commodian speaking for himself, says almost in the words quoted above ¡i.e. God is
only one person] as representing the views of Praxeas and Noetus. ¡29]
Professor Schaff wrote: Commodian was a Patripassian in Christology and a
Chiliast in eschatology. Schaff also gave a brief description of Commodian`s book.
He says: it discusses in 47 sections the doctrine of God, of man, and of the Redeemer
(verses 89-275); the meaning of the names of the Son and Father in the economy of
salvation (276-573); the obstacles to the progress of Christianity (574-611); it warns
1ews and Gentiles to forsake their religion (612-783); and gives a description of the
last things (784-1053). ¡30] It is a shame that no one has translated this great work
into English. I have a copy of it, which is written in Latin, in my library.
The writers of The Catholic Encyclopedia classified Commodian`s godhead beliefs
with that of Praxeas and Noetus. It stated: in the west they ¡the Modalist
Monarchians] were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are called
Sabellians. It went on to declare: Sabellius or at least his followers may have
considerably amplified the original Noetianism. There was still Sabellianism to be
found in the fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra developed a Monarchianism of his
own, which was carried much further by his disciple ¡Photinus]. Priscillian was an
extreme Monarchian and so was Commodian. ¡31]
Marcellus` Godhead Doctrine
Blunt speaking of the fourth century Sabellianism stated: Marcellus, Bishop of
Ancyra in Galatia, and his followers held a third and advance stage of Sabellianism;
for this ¡so-called] heresy Marcellus was condemned by several Arian Councils,
particularly by that of Constantinople in AD 336. Socrates states... that he held the
Son of God to have His beginning from His birth of the Virgin and the kingdom of
God not to be without an end (H.E. ii. 33).... Marcellus held, according to Eusebius,
that there was but one person in the Divine Nature. ¡32] Marcellus despised the
Catholic doctrine of two gods or persons in the godhead. He boldly proclaimed that
the Father became the Son and Holy Ghost in time, and at the end of time, these
offices will ceased and He will only be know as the Father. This was basically the
doctrine of Sabellius. Edward Gibbon, in his book entitled The Decline and ,all of
the )oman Empire, declared: Athanasius defended above twenty years the
Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra; and when al last he was compelled to
withdraw himself from his communion, he continued to mention with an ambiguous
smile the venial errors of his respectable friend. ¡33]
Photinus` One God Doctrine
Blunt speaking of Photinus, who was a disciple of Marcellus, and those who followed
him said: Theodoret says that Photinus differs from Sabellius only in phraseology....
Photinus held the tenet of an Antitrinitarian Monarchian, and that 1esus Christ was
born of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of the Divine
Substance, which he called the Word, descended upon and acted through the man
1esus Christ; that on account of this association of the Word with the human nature
1esus was called the Son of God, and even God Himself; that the Holy Ghost was not
a distinct Person, but a celestial virtue proceeding from the Deity (Epiph. Haer.
Lxxi.; Hilary de Trin. vii. 3,7, viii. 40; Socr. H. E. i. 18, 19, 30; Sozom. iv. 6). These
tenets are sufficiently stated in the article Samosatenes, and other articles regarding
the various Monarchian sects.
Blunt went on to say: Marius asserts that Photinus held the Divine element that
acted in our Lord`s Person to be substantivum or ousiwdes.` Now Photinus denied
the personality, and consequently the Sonship of the Word, but allowed its eternity
as existing in the one undistinguished God. We are therefore thrown back upon the
tenet described in Sabellians as the division of the Union, namely, that the Deus
protensus,` not being a distinct Person, is separable from the Godhead, or that a
certain portion of the Divine Substance added to the human nature formed 1esus
Christ the Son of God. ¡34] If my beloved readers desire to read a Biblical exegesis
on the godhead, I would suggest my book ~The Mysteries of the Godhead )eealed.
CHAPTER 2
THE ANCIENT CATHOLIC BELIEF OF TWO AND THREE GODS:
THE OBSCURE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TRINITARIAN DOCTRINE
God`s people in the Old Testament went into apostasy several times. They keep
going into Lucifer's Mystery Babylonian Religion, or in other words, Lucifer`s
Babylonian Trinity. This trinity consisted of: Baal, Ashtaroth, and Tammuz. Baal
represented god the father, the sun god; Ashtaroth represented the mother god or
the mother of the gods, the moon goddess; Tammuz represented the son of god or
god the son, who was also known as the sun god.
The Bible stated: ~They forsook the LORD, and served Baal and Ashtaroth¨ (1ug
2:13). God told Ezekiel: ~You will see greater abominations that they ¡the House of
Israel] are doing.` So He brought me to the door of the north gate of the LORD`s
house; and to my dismay, women were sitting there weeping for Tammuz¨ (Eze
8:13-14). God told 1eremiah: ~The children gather wood, the fathers kindle the fire,
and the women knead dough, to make cakes for the Queen of Heaven; and they
pour out drink offerings to other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger¨ (1er
7:18).
God`s people did not do this one time, but throughout their history. Israel forsook
the LORD and worshipped and served the Babylonian Trinity. Here are just two
examples: The prophet Samuel speaking to the house of Israel said: ~Then Samuel
spoke to all the house of Israel, saying, If you return to the LORD with all your
hearts, then put away the foreign gods and the Ashtoreths from among you, and
prepare your hearts for the LORD, and serve Him only; and He will deliver you
from the hand of the Philistines. So the children of Israel put away the Baals and the
Ashtoreths, and served the LORD only¨ (1Sa 7:3-4). Years later, the people of Israel
went into Baal worship again. They cried unto the LORD and said: ~We have
sinned, because we have forsaken the LORD and served the Baals and Ashtoreths;
but now deliver us from the hand of our enemies, and we will serve You¨ (1Sa
12:10).
Noted Trinitarian Bible Scholars Confess that the Trinitarian Doctrine
Is Obscure in Its Present Form,
and Cannot Be Found in the Old or New Testaments
Doctor Hastings under the heading of the Trinity stated: The Old Testament could
hardly be expected to furnish the doctrine of the Trinity.... In the New Testament we
do not find the doctrine of the Trinity in anything like its developed form, not even
in the Pauline and 1ohannie theology. Hastings continued: The story of the Trinity
in ecclesiastical history is the story of the transition from the Trinity of experience,
in which God is self - revealed as the Father or Creator and Legislator, the Son or
Redeemer, and the Spirit or Sanctifier, to the Trinity of dogma.. To say that there
are three separate personalities in the Godhead would be polytheism. ¡35]
In The Encyclopedia of )eli&ion, which is composed by many Trinitarian scholars,
we read: Exegetes and theologians today are in agreement that the Hebrew Bible
does not contain a doctrine of the Trinity.... Further, exegetes and theologians agree
that the New Testament also does not contain an explicit doctrine of the Trinity....
Some theologians have concluded that all post-biblical Trinitarian doctrine is
therefore arbitrary ¡meaning based on one`s preferences, notions, or whims]; while
it is incontestable that the doctrine cannot be established on scriptural evidence
alone. ¡36]
The Encyclopedia #ritannica speaking of the Trinity stated: In general we may say
that the Trinity takes on four differing aspects in the Christian church: in its more
common and easily apprehended form as three gods, in its ecclesiastical form as a
mystery which is above reason to be accepted by faith.... To some Christians the
doctrine of the Trinity appeared inconsistent with the unity of God which is
emphasized in the Scriptures. ¡37]
Trinitarian doctors 1ohn M`Clintock and 1ames Strong, in their Cyclopedia of
#i$lical Theolo&ical and Ecclesiastical -iterature declared: Respecting the manner in
which the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost make one God, the scripture teaches
nothing, since the subject is of such a nature as not to admit of its being explained to
us. ¡38] What these scholars are saying is that the Babylonian Trinity is a mystery.
Now, have you not heard other Trinitarian Preachers say the very same thing?
German professor Harnack says: The doctrine of the Trinity, as professed by the
Church ¡meaning Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches], is not contained in the
New Testament. He continued by saying: At first the Christian faith was not
Trinitarian in the strictly ontological reference ¡meaning in the beginning, or as it
first existed]. It was not so in the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, as reflected in the
NT and other early Christian writings. Nor was it so even in the age of the ¡Catholic]
Christian apologists. ¡39] What Dr. Harnack is saying is this, Catholic apostates of
the apostolic and sub-apostolic ages, along with their deceived converts, did not
believed in a Trinity of three persons in the Godhead. None of these heretics
considered the Holy Spirit to be a separate person in any sense of the word; also
none of these Catholic Priests considered the Son equal to the Father in origin,
power, and other attributes.
The renowned Catholic professor 1ohn Henry Cardinal Newman, in his work entitled Essays and "+etches, presented
Catholicism as the original Church. But even he had to admit that the doctrines of the Trinity, apostolic succession, the
Eucharist, and the Mass were not found in the Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still believed they were true.
He defends them not from a Biblical point of view, but from the traditions of the early Ante Nicene Catholic Preachers.
He admonished all Protestants to accept by faith these Catholic doctrines, since they have accepted the Catholic doctrine of the
Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof. In volume one, he made the following statements: Where was your Church
before Luther? The obvious and historical answer is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then proceeded by saying:
Take a large view of the faith of Christians during the centuries before Constantine established their ¡meaning the Roman
Catholic] religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism? ¡40] The obvious answer is no. He then went on to prove
that historically, by comparing the teachings of the Reformers with that of the Catholic Ante Nicene Fathers.
After that, Father Newman made a very shocking confession. Let us hear this
Priest`s confession and see if He makes a good and true confession, before we grant
him absolution. He said: all parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity
is not brought out in form upon the surface of Scriptures. As I have said more than
once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear Scripture proof are mere
peculiarities of each sect ¡meaning different religious systems]; so that if all
Protestants were to agree to put out of sight their respective peculiarities ¡meaning
unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed set forth distinctly, clearly,
and adequately, in Scripture. For take that single instance, which I referred to in a
former Lecture, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Is this to be considered as a mere
peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity ¡for] it is not brought out in form in
Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I ask how many of the
verses of the Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in Scripture? ¡41] The answer
to Newman`s question is very few.
Newman continued his confession and reproach of Protestants by saying: He who
admits the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in
itself or in its proof - who submits to the indirectness ¡meaning lack] of the Scripture
evidence as regards that particular doctrine - has a right to be told those other
doctrines, such as the apostolic succession. ¡42] Newman proceeded with his
confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters of Catholicism by saying: not
Scripture, but history ¡meaning the tradition of the Ante Nicene Priests] is our
informant in Christian doctrine. All Protestants who consider the Bible as the one
standard of faith, meaning those who say they base their beliefs on the Bible and not
tradition, let no one take refuge and comfort in the idea that he will be what is
commonly called an orthodox Protestant, .¡if] he will admit the doctrine of the
Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic Succession.. ¡For] this is an impossible
position: it is shutting one eye, and looking with the other, shut both or open both.
¡43]
What confessor Newman is saying is this, since Protestants have accepted and
believed the Catholic version of the Babylonian Trinity by faith, that is without any
real scriptural proof, they then have earn for themselves the right to accept and
believe by faith all other Catholic doctrines, which are also not taught in the Bible,
as Newman openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No matter what people
may or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and true
confession, for which God`s people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him
absolution.
Comparing the Trinity of Pagans with the Trinity of Catholicism: Trinitarian minister and historian Alexander Hislop, in his
great book The Two #a$ylons, compared the Trinity of Roman Catholicism with that of the Trinity of the Babylonian and
other Pagan Religions. He writes: I have to notice, first the identity of the object of worship in Babylon and Rome. The ancient
Babylonians, just as the modern Romans, recognized in words the unity of the godhead; and while worshipping innumerable
minor deities ¡demons], as possessed of certain influence on human affairs, they distinctly acknowledged that there was one
infinite and Almighty Creator, supreme over all. Most other nations did the same.... In the unity of that one only god of the
Babylonians, there were three persons, and to symbolize that doctrine of the Trinity, they employed, as the discoveries of
Layard prove, the equilateral triangle, just as it is well known the Roman Church does at this day.. The Papacy has in some
of its churches, as for instance, in the monastery of the so-called Trinitarians of Madrid, an image of the triune god, with three
heads on one body. The Babylonians had something of the same.... In India, the supreme divinity, in like manner, in one of the
most ancient cave-temples, is represented with three heads, under the name of Eko Deva Trimurtti, one god, three forms. ¡44]
There can be no room for doubt that the Babylonian Trinity, of three separate persons or beings in the godhead, was taught by
all heathen nations long before Christianity can into being. The devil has always imitated and perverted God`s plan in all ages.
He took God`s triune revelation of Himself to His children, and made three separate persons or beings out of the One God.
The .ewish Encyclopedia under the heading of the Trinity, has this to say about this truth: The idea of a Trinity, which, since
the council of Nice, and especially through Basil the Great ¡370 AD], had become the Catholic dogma, is of course regarded by
1ews as antagonistic to their monotheistic faith and due to the paganistic tendency of the ¡Roman Catholic] Church: God the
Father and God the Son, together with the Holy Ghost... have their parallels in all the heathen mythologies, as has been shown
by many Christian scholars. ¡45]
1ust as God`s people in the Old Testament went into to apostasy, some of God`s
people in New Testament times also went into apostasy. It started with a group of so-
called theologians known in history as the Ante-Nicene Fathers or the Catholic
Fathers. Most of these men were students of Greek Philosophy. The churches these
apostates started became known as the Roman Catholic Church. The following brief
history of how the Babylonian Trinity came into apostate Roman Catholic
Christianity, for the first four hundred years, should give my beloved readers, some
idea of the magnitude of the subject of the Godhead.
The Catholic Semi-Arian Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods
Somewhere after 70 AD, Ignatius, one of the bishops of Antioch, and other apostate
bishops of other cities, apostatized from God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Church, and
came together and formed the Catholic Church. The apostle 1ohn spoke of it this
way: ~Little children, it is the last hour; and as you have heard that the Antichrist is
coming, even now many antichrists have come, by which we know that it is the last
hour. They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they
would have continued with us; but they went out that they might be made manifest,
that none of them were of us¨ (11n 2:18-19). It was Ignatius who invented the
Catholic Nicolaitan Doctrine, along with its Monarchial Bishop Doctrine, which God
and His Church hated (Rev 2:6, 15).
Professor Harnack in his book The Mission and E(pansion of Christianity spoke of
the apostasy of Ignatius and other Bishops of that ilk when he declared: As early as
the second century the ¡Catholic] Church had conquered the people.... By the
opening of the third century ¡200 AD], no layman ventured any longer to call
ecclesiastics, brethren.` The layman is a layman because he has not been set apart
from the people by ordination.. After the close of the second century ¡the
Monarchical] bishops were the teachers, high priest, and judges of the church.
Ignatius already had compared their position ¡as bishop or pastor] in the individual
church to that of God in the church collective. ¡46]
Harnack speaking of the enormity of their apostasy from God says: The most
momentous result was the gradual assimilation of the entire ¡Catholic] Christian
worship to the nature of the ancient mysteries. By the third century ¡200 AD] it
could already rival the most imposing cultus in all paganism, with its solemn and
exact ritual, its priest, its sacrifices, and its holy ceremonies. ¡47] If my readers
would like to read a history of the Nicolaitan doctrine, I would suggest my book %
'rophetic History of God/s %postolic 'entecostal Church or The Heresy of the
Nicolaitans.
One of the greatest problems, God`s Churches had during the first four hundred
years, was with Satan`s Churches blaspheming God; they did this by christianizing
pagan doctrines and then calling themselves Christians or Churches of the Lord
1esus Christ. As I stated before, when these apostates first began, they did not
believe in a Trinity of three separate persons, but believed that there were only two-
persons in the godhead. They believed that the Father was the supreme God being
uncreated or unbegotten, and the Son was a lesser or inferior God because He was
begotten by the Father. They believed the Father created Him from a ~homoiousios¨
or a ~like substance¨ to God the Father`s own personal substance. Where did the
godhead teaching of these apostates originate? History reveals that these Catholic
Ante Nicene Priests received they pagan godhead from Philo, who received it from
Plato, who received it from the Sibyls, who received it from the Zoroastrian doctrine
that was taught in the Babylonian Religion.
Who were the early Catholic Fathers who started the Catholic Church and what did
they teach about the godhead? According to history this godhead doctrine started
with Ignatius (c. 70) and Clement of Rome (c. 70), who were among the first
apostates to teach this pagan heresy, and they were the ones who formed the
Catholic Nicolaitan Church in the first century. The main Catholic Nicolaitan
heretics of the second and third centuries, who taught this godhead doctrine were:
1ustin Martyr (c. 150), Clemens of Alexandria (c. 200), Tertullian (c. 200),
Hippolytus (c. 225), Origen (c. 215), and Cyprian (c. 250). All of these heretics loved
the writings of the Greek philosophers, especially Plato, and the allegoric method of
interpreting the scriptures that was used by Philo.
My beloved readers should bear in mind, that none of the early fathers of
Catholicism or their heretical disciples, who are called apologist, believed in a
Trinity of three separate and equal persons in the godhead. In fact, the Trinity they
believed in was composed of two persons or gods each having a separate body and
existence from the other, and one impersonal spirit which had no body, which
represented the power of Christ, or as some prefer, the Logos` other self.
The !nternational "tandard #i$le Encylopaedia gave a fair summation of the godhead
doctrine of the early Catholic Priests. Under the heading of the formation of the
doctrine of the Trinity we read: In the nature of the case the formulated doctrine
was of slow attainment.. In the 2nd century the dominant neo-Stoic and neo-
Platonic ideas deflected Christian thought into subordinationist channels, and
produced what is known as the Logos-Christology, which looks upon the Son as a
prolation of Deity reduced to such dimensions as comported with relations with a
world of time and space; meanwhile, to a great extent, the Spirit was neglected
altogether. ¡48]
Dr. Harnack included the Catholic apologists` godhead doctrine in his list of the
pagan teachings of the Ante Nicene Fathers. He stated: It is not 1udaeo-Christianity
that lies behind the Christianity and doctrines of the ¡Catholic] apologist, but Greek
philosophy - Platonic metaphysics, Logos doctrine of the Stoics, Platonic and Stoic
ethics - the Alexandrine-1ewish apologetics, ...particularly in that of Philo. ¡49]
Wolfson boldly declared the above truths when he stated that Ignatius, and all the
other apostate Catholic fathers, who started Catholicism did not: believe in a
preexistent Trinity.... Before His ¡1esus`] birth there were only two preexistent
beings, God and the Holy Spirit, the latter identified with the preexistent Christ,
and, if the term Logos is used, it is identified with the Holy Spirit. He continued by
saying: like ~Philo, the ¡Catholic] Fathers attributed to the Logos... two stages of
existence prior to the creation of the world, which according to Philo was the
internal and external Logos that was also called by the title of the Holy Spirit. ¡50]
107 AD, Ignatius` Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Ignatius of Antioch was the father
of all Catholic Nicolaitans. If there was someone before him who taught him these
damnable doctrines we have no written record of it. According to history, He was
the first to write down his beliefs on the godhead and the Nicolaitan doctrine of the
ministry. Because of different opinions of scholars concerning which are the true
writings of Ignatius, i.e. the short version, the long version, or the Syriac version, I
will quote from all three versions for his godhead teachings can be found in all of
them. I personal believe the longer version is the one he wrote.
Ignatius in his epistles emphatically proclaimed, many times, that God the Father is
uncreated and the highest God or the only true God. He also declared that the Logos
or Christ was created by the Father before the universe was spoken into existence
and is a lower or lesser god. He definitely spoke of the Logos as a separate being or
person from the Father and called Him the begotten God. In his Epistle to the
Ephesians he says: Our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and
unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son.
He continued by saying that the Son of God was begotten: before time began, but
who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin.
Ignatius encourage the Ephesians to keep the faith of: God the Father, and of 1esus
Christ His only-begotten Son, and the first-born of every creature. ¡51] Here
Ignatius applied the Biblical term: ~the first-born¨ to the Logos` being begotten by
the Father before the beginning of time. Ignatius ended his letter to the Ephesians
with these words: Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the
inseparable Spirit, who is 1esus Christ. ¡52] Ignatius indisputably proclaimed that
the Holy Ghost was 1esus. He obviously did not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity.
In his Epistle to the Ma&nesians, Ignatius reaffirmed his belief in two-unequal gods
by saying: He ¡the Logos or Christ] being begotten by the Father before the
beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same
for ever. ¡53] In this passage Ignatius connects the Logos with the Son, and
proclaimed that the Son is not an eternal being. In the Syriac Version of Ignatius`
epistles, we find his so-called refutation of errors. In his Epistle to the Tarsians, he
writes against the godhead teachings of God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Church by
saying: 1esus Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son.. Wherefore
it is one ¡Person] who put all things under, and who is all in all, and another
¡Person] to whom they were subdued, who also Himself, along with all other things,
becomes subject ¡to the former].
Because Ignatius and other Catholic bishops demoted 1esus to a second rate position
in the godhead, he had to write to this church to admonish them to think of 1esus as
God. He says: How could such a one ¡1esus] be a mere man, receiving the beginning
of His existence from Mary, and not rather God the Word, and the only-begotten
Son? For in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.` And in another place, The Lord created Me, the beginning of His
ways, for His ways, for His works. Before the world did He found Me, and before all
the hills did He beget Me. ¡54] Let my beloved readers take note, Ignatius uses the
above passages of scriptures to verify His teaching that Christ was a begotten God,
and He was also the Holy Spirit. From this time on, all Catholic Priest will use
Ignatius teachings on the godhead in their writings, and some will even put their
own religious twist to it, but all will claim that the Father and Son are two separate
beings or gods.
150 AD, 1ustin Martyr`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: 1ustinus, who is better
known as 1ustin Martyr, was the first to defend in writing the two-god system of
Philo and Ignatius. 1ustin was without a doubt the real theologian of this two-god
system. 1ustin, like his masters before him, definitely taught that the Father was the
unbegotten and the highest God, while the Logos or Christ was a begotten and lower
or lesser god, and the Holy Spirit was another name for the Logos. Dr. Paine in his
$oo+ % Critical History of the Eolution of Trinitarianism revealed: 1ustin Martyr
refers to Platonic and stoic authorities for his Logos ideas. He was himself a
Platonist before he became a Christian, and he never laid aside his philosopher`s
cloak. ¡55]
1ustin and all the other early Catholic heretics could not understand the Logos
concept of the 1ohn 1:1 and Rev 19:13. The reason for their ignorance was they all
interpreted it by the works of Plato, especially his work entitled ~Timaeus,¨ Philo`s
two-god system, and the pagan concept of a lower separate god called the Son that
dwelt with the Father. As a result they were blinded to the truth that God changed a
portion of His eternal Holy Spirit Nature into a Human Soul and Glorified Spirit
Body Natures, and dwelt in it. Dr. Wolfson speaking of 1ustin`s godhead doctrine, as
He wrote against God`s Oneness people wrote: 1ustin Martyr already describes the
Logos as one whom God begot from Himself.... 1ustin Martyr maintained that the
Logos is distinct from the Father in number` and not in name only. ¡56]
1ustin in his ,irst %polo&y called the Logos: the first-begotten of all creation. He
then stated that the Holy Spirit is the Logos. He says: It is wrong, therefore, to
understand the Spirit and the power of God as anything else than the Word, who is
also the first-born of God. ¡57] 1ustin, like Ignatius, connected the term ~first-born¨
with the generation of the Son before time began. In 1ustin`s "econd %polo&y we
read: But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given.. But these
words, Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and master, are not names, but
appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His son, who along is
properly called Son, the Word, who also was with him and was begotten before the
works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ..
For next to God, we worship and love the Word who is from the unbegotten and
ineffable God. ¡58] No one can read the writing of the early Catholics and believe
they taught the eternal sonship of the Lord 1esus Christ, which is part of teachings
of the Trinitarian doctrine.
1ustin in his Dialo&ue with Trypho a .ew clearly defined his heresy of two-unequal-
gods. He says: I shall give you another testimony, my friends,` said I, from the
Scriptures, that God begat before all creatures a Beginning, ¡who was] a certain
rational power ¡proceeding] from Himself.. He was begotten of the Father by an
act of will.. The Word of Wisdom, who is Himself this God begotten of the
Father.. But this Offspring, which was truly brought forth from the Father, was
with the Father before all the creatures, and the Father communed with Him; even
as the Scripture by Solomon has made clear, that He whom Solomon calls Wisdom,
was begotten as a Beginning before all His creatures and as Offspring by God.
1ustin then quoted Proverbs, the eight chapter, to prove that the Logos was begotten
by the Father. He says: And it is written in the book of Wisdom. The Lord created
me the beginning of His ways for His works. From everlasting He established me in
the beginning, before He formed the earth.. He begets me before all the hills.`
When I repeated these words, I added: You perceive, my hearers, if you bestow
attention, that the Scripture has declared that this Offspring was begotten by the
Father before all things created; and that which is begotten is numerically distinct
from that which begets, any one will admit. I have discussed briefly in what has
gone before; when I asserted that this power was begotten from the Father, by His
power and will, but NOT by abscission, as if the ESSENCE of the Father were
DIVIDED; as all other things partitioned and divided are not the same after as
before they were divided. ¡59] It is a pity that this blind apologist understood these
scriptures through the eyes of Plato and Philo. For instead of seeing the Logos as the
embodiment of God or the Father`s visible Self with a human nature as Paul taught
(Col 2:8-9; 1:15), he saw Him as a person existing outside of or next to God.
160 AD, Tatian`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Tatian was a disciple of 1ustin
Martyr. He, like his master, also believed that the Logos had a beginning, and the
Holy Spirit was just another name for the Logos. He wrote: For the Lord of the
universe, who is Himself the necessary ground of all being, inasmuch as no creature
was yet in existence, was alone.. The Logos Himself also, who was IN Him,
subsists. And by His simple will, the Logos springs forth; and the Logos, not coming
forth in vain, becomes the first-begotten work of the Father. Him ¡the Logos] we
know to be the beginning of the world. But He came into being by participation, not
by abscission.. The Logos coming forth from the Logos-power of the Father, and
He has not divested the Logos-power of Him ¡the Father] who begot Him.... For the
heavenly Logos, a Spirit emanating from the Father and ¡is] a Logos from the
Logos-power ¡of the Father], in imitation of the Father who begot Him, made man
an image of immortality. ¡60] No eternal Trinity can be found here.
170 AD, Theophilus` Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Theophilus taught same
godhead doctrine as all the others. He wrote: God, then having His own Word
internal within His own bowels, begot Him,, emitting Him along with His own
Wisdom before all things. He had this Word as a helper in the things that were
created by Him, and by Him He made all things.... He ¡the Logos] then being the
Spirit of God, and governing principle, and Wisdom, and power of the Highest,
came down upon the prophets and through them spake. ¡61] Here Theophilus
clearly revealed that the Holy Spirit is the Logos, and Wisdom is another title of the
Logos. Many of the early Catholic Priests declared Wisdom was a title of the Logos,
who was the Holy Spirit.
Theophilus also declared: The God and ,ather, indeed, of all cannot $e contained,
and is not found in a place, for there is no place of His rest.. The Word, that always
exists, residin& within the heart of God. For before anything came into being He
¡God the Father] had Him as a counselor, being His own mind and thought. But
when God wished to make all that He determined on, He $e&ot this 0ord, uttered,
the first1$orn of all creation, not Himself being emptied of the Word ¡Reason], but
having $e&otten )eason, and always conversing with His Reason.. The Word, then,
being God, and being naturally produced from God, whenever the ,ather of the
universe wills, He sends Him to any place; and He, coming, is both heard and seen,
being sent by Him, and is found in a place. ¡62] According to this Catholic Priest,
God the Father is omnipresent and has no form, but Christ who was begotten by the
Father has form and a dwelling place.
Other Catholic Priest, such as Tertullian, will use Theophilus` godhead teaching,
and also claim God the Father emitted His Son from His own bowels, by speaking
Him into existence. No one can accuse Theophilus of being a Trinitarian, even
though he is the first Catholic to use the word Trinity. Theophilus, being an
allegorist like His Catholic predecessors in the ministry, in his teaching on the sun
and moon compares the godhead to them; he says: In like manner also the three
days which were before the luminaries, are types of the Trinity: of God, and His
Word, and His Wisdom. ¡63] Let my beloved readers take note, Theophilus used the
personal pronoun His to show that the Word of God and the Wisdom of God belong
to God the Father.
180 AD, Irenaeus` Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Irenaeus, like his fellow Catholic
bishops, taught that the Logos was a being, whom the Father begot before time
began. Irenaeus declared: If any one, therefore, says to us, How then was the Son
produced by the Father?` We reply to him, that no man understands that production
or &eneration. but the Father only who begat, and the Son who was begotten. ¡64]
He also declared: 1ohn relates His original, effectual, and glorious generation from
the Father, thus declaring, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with
God, and the Word was God.` ¡65]
From the ,ra&ments of the -ost 0ritin&s of !renaeus we read: Christ, who was called
the "on of God $efore the a&es, was manifested in the fullness of time, in order that
He might cleanse us through His blood.. He also ascended to the heavens, and was
glorified by the Father, and is the Eternal King; that He is the perfect Intelligence,
the 0ord of God who was $e&otten $efore the li&ht; that He was the Founder of the
universe. ¡66] Irenaeus applied the title the only begotten God to the Son of God, i.e.
the Logos, because He was begotten by the Fathter before time began. He stated:
His Word, as He Himself willed it, and for the benefit of those who beheld, did show
the ,ather/s $ri&htness, and e(plained His purposes (as also the Lord said: The
only1$e&otten God, which is in the $osom of the ,ather, He hath declared ¡Him].` ¡67]
Irenaeus called Christ the Holy Spirit of the Father. He wrote: For He ¡1esus] is
indeed Savior, as being the "on and 0ord of God, but salutary ¡i.e. producing a
beneficial effect] since (He is the) "pirit for he says: The "pirit of our countenance
Christ the Lord.` But (for) salvation as being flesh: for the 0ord was made flesh,
and dwelt among us. ¡68] He also declared: He ¡1esus], who is the perfect $read of
the Father, offered Himself to us.... He did this when He appeared as a man.. ¡We
who] become accustomed to eat and drink the 0ord of God, may be able also to
contain in ourselves the #read of immortality, which is the "pirit of the ,ather..
Those upon whom the apostles laid hands received the Holy "pirit, who is the food of
Life (Eternal). ¡69] It is very obvious from the above quotes that Irenaeus believed
the Son of God was not an eternal being but a created being; and the Holy Ghost is
another name for the Logos. Therefore, he was not a Trinitarian, even thou he
speaks in mysterious tones in certain passages.
200 AD, Tertullian`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: It is in Tertullian that
Trinitarians make their boast. They probably surmise, surely someone who writes
against Oneness Pentecostals, uses the word Trinity in his writings, and speaks of
the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit must be a Trinitarian. Not so! According to Dr.
Schaff: Tertullian cannot escape the charge of subordinationism. He bluntly calls
the Father the whole Divine Substance, and the Son a part of it. ¡70] Tertullian, like
his predecessors in the ministry, believed that God in His Spirit Essence was
omnipresent. He declared: We know, however, that God is in the bottomless depths,
and exists everywhere; but then it is by power and authority. We are also sure that
the Son, being indivisible from Him, is everywhere with Him. Nevertheless, in the
Economy or Dispensation itself, the Father willed that the Son should be regarded as
on earth, and Himself in heaven. ¡71]
Tertullian`s godhead teaching is definitely not the Trinitarian doctrine of
Catholicism or Protestantism. Tertullian declared: For before all things God was
alone - being in Himself and for Himself universe, and space, and all things.
Moreover, He was alone, because there was nothing external to Him but Himself. Yet
even not then was He alone; for He had with Him that which He possessed in
Himself, that is to say, His own Reason. For God is rational, and Reason was first in
Him; and so all things were from Himself. This Reason is His own Thought (or
Consciousness) which the Greeks call lo>gov, by which term we also designate Word
or Discourse.. For although God had not yet sent out His Word, He still had Him
within Himself, both in company with and included within His very Reason, as He
silently planned and arranged within Himself everything which He was afterwards
about to utter through His Word. Now, whilst He was thus planning and arranging
with His own Reason, He was actually causing that to become Word which He was
dealing with in the way of Word or Discourse..
I may therefore without rashness first lay this down (as a fixed principle) that even
then before the creation of the universe God was not alone, since He had within
Himself both Reason, and, inherent in Reason, His 0ord, which He made second to
Himself by agitating it within Himself. This power and disposition of the Divine
Intelligence is set forth also in the Scriptures under the name of Sofi>a, Wisdom; for
what can be better entitled to the name of Wisdom than the Reason or the Word of
God? Listen therefore to Wisdom herself, constituted in the CHARACTER of a
Second Person: At the first the -ord created me as the $e&innin& of His ways, with a
iew to His own wor+s, $efore He made the earth, before the mountains were settled;
moreover, before all the hills did He beget me;` that is to say, He created and
generated me in His own intelligence..
Now, as soon as it pleased God to put forth into their respective substances and
forms the things which He had planned and ordered within Himself, in conjunction
with His Wisdom`s Reason and Word, He first put forth the Word Himself, having
within Him His own inseparable Reason and Wisdom, in order that all things might
be made through Him.. through whom they had been planned and disposed, yea,
and already made, so far forth as (they were) in the mind and intelligence of God.
This, however, was still wanting to them, that they should also be openly known, and
kept permanently in their proper forms and substances..
Then, therefore, does the 0ord also Himself assume His own form and &lorious &ar$,
His own sound and ocal utterance, when God says, 2Let there be light3/ This is the
perfect natiity of the 0ord, when He proceeds forth from God. $e&otten to carry all
into effect.. Thus does He make Him equal to Him: for by proceeding from
Himself He became His first begotten Son, because begotten before all things; and
His only-begotten also, because alone begotten of God, made a way peculiar to
Himself, from the wom$ of His own heart - even as the Father Himself testifies:
My heart,` says He, hath emitted my most excellent Word.` ¡72] As my beloved
readers can perceived by now, Tertullian, like all the Catholic Priests before him,
did not teach the Eternal Son of God doctrine of Trinitarians, but a Begotten Son of
God. I might also add, if the Word was the conscious mind of God the Father as
Tertullian declared, then the Father must have lost His mind when He made the
Word a separate person from Himself!
Tertullian concluded by saying: Whatever therefore was the su$stance of the 0ord
that ! desi&nate a 'erson, I claim for it the name of "on; and while I recognize the
Son, ! assert His distinction as second to the Father.. For the FATHER is the
ENT!)E "*#"T%NCE, but the SON is a deriation and PORTION of the whole..
Besides, does not the very fact that they have the distinct names of ,ather and "on
amount to a declaration that they are distinct in personality? ¡73]
What Philo, Tertullian, and all the other Catholic Anti Nicene Priests did not
understand is that God did not bring forth a separate person or being from His own
Loins before time began, but as some Rabbis declared a Spiritual or Heavenly Man
or Humanity. Rabbis taught this truth this way: Should one ask: Is it not written,
Ye saw no manner of similitude?` The answer would be: Truly we did $ehold Him
under a certain similitude, for is it not written, and the similitude of the LORD
should he ¡Moses] behold` ¡Num 12:18].... Even that similitude/ was a li+eness of the
HOLY ONE, blessed be He.... For in the $e&innin&... when He created the FORM of
"*'E)N%- M%N. to be known according to the style YHWH` in order that He
might be known by His attributes and perceived in each attributes separately. ¡74]
This humanity being God the Father had in its essence a Soul and Glorified
Spiritual Body, which was God`s the Father`s Visible Self, Form (Phi 2:6), or Image
(Heb 1:3; Col 1:15). In other word, the Father being an Invisible Spirit Being, and
Omniscient, knew before the creation began that men whom He loved and created
would fall into sin and need redemption, therefore He CLOTHED Himself with a
Spiritual Humanity (His Visible, Tangible Self that sat on the One Throne in
Heaven), which at Bethlehem took on flesh, blood, and bones and became known as
the Son of God, who was ~the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world¨ (Rev
13:8; also 1Pe 1:18-20).
According to 1ustin Martyr, the orthodo( 1EWS of his day, that is 150 AD, believed
and taught that God the Father had a Divine Human Nature in the Old Testament.
In the Dialogue of 1ustin with Trypho the 1ew, 1ustin mocks Trypho by saying:
~1ust as YOUR TEACHERS suppose, fancying that the FATHER of all, the
UNBEGOTTEN GOD, has HANDS and FEET, and FINGERS, and a SOUL, like a
composite being; and they for this reason teach that it was the ,ather Himself who
appeared to Abraham and to 1acob.¨ ¡75] There are over thirty scriptures in the OT
that speak of God the Father`s Soul in the present er$ tense. (See my book The
Mysteries of the Godhead )eealed, which is given away on my website:
DoctrinesOfChrist.com).
1ustin mocks the 1ews, just as all Ante Nicene Priests have done, because they all
believed that the Son appeared to Abraham, a separate being, person, or God from
the Father. There is NOT one scripture in the OT that uses the term or title ~Son¨ or
~Son of God¨ in reference to the existence of Christ or Logos or God`s Spiritual
Humanity, but there are at lease three scriptures that speak of God`s Son in
prophecy, as one who will $e born one day in time (Psa 2:6-12; Isa 7:14; 9:6). Why
can we not find one scripture that reveals the term Son of God was used by Christ in
the OT? Because according to God`s prophetic Word, God reserved this title to refer
to the Physical Humanity that God the Father would take on through the Virgin
Mary at Bethlehem one day.
Tertullian after declaring that God the Father is the Entire Essence of God then
contradicts himself by saying: Thus the connection of the Father in the Son, and of
the Son in the Paraclete, produces three coherent ¡i.e. united] Persons, who are yet
distinct One from Another. These THREE are, ONE ESSENCE, not one 'erson, as it
is said, I and my Father are One,` in respect of unity of Substance not singularity of
number. ¡76] In the above two declarations, Tertullian becomes trapped by his own
deceitful tongue. Since he declared that God the Father is the Entire Substance of
God, the only way the Son or the Paraclete can be God is by being part of the
Father, i.e. they must be the Father! Therefore, Tertullian`s three persons or Trinity
is not real persons. In fact, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, which gives
a history of a word declared the word person` in the second and third centuries
meant an: ~actor`s mask, character in a play`, later ¡i.e. 4
th
century] human being.¨
Tertullian taught the Spirit was Christ: The 0ord was formed $y the "pirit, and (if I
may so express myself) the "pirit is the $ody of the 0ord.. The "pirit is the su$stance
of the 0ord, and the 0ord is the operation of the "pirit, and the Two are One (and the
same).. We declare, however, that the Son. is God and the Word and "pirit of
God. ¡77] Now, where can anyone find the eternal Sonship doctrine, or that the Holy
Spirit is a separate person from the Logos in any of these passages? Tertullian did
not teach the Trinitarian doctrine. Now, where can anyone find the eternal sonship
doctrine or that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Logos in any of these
passages? Tertullian did not teach the Trinitarian doctrine.
215 AD, Origen`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Dr. Schaff speaking of Origen
wrote: he distinguishes the essence of the Son from that of the Father; speaks of a
DIFFERENCE of SUBSTANCE; and makes the Son decidedly INFERIOR to the
Father. ¡78] Dr. Harnack says one of the names Origen gave to the Son was: the
second God. ¡79] Origen speaking of the origin of the Son of God wrote: We have to
first ascertain what the only begotten Son of God is, seeing He is called by many
different names, according to the circumstances and views of individuals. He is
termed Wisdom, according to the expression of Solomon: The Lord created me -
the beginning of His ways and among His works, before He made any other thing;
He founded me before the ages.
In another place Origen revealed that Wisdom or the Holy Spirit was not a separate
being from Christ but was Christ. He wrote, ~Let no one, however, imagine that we
mean anything impersonal when we call Him the wisdom of God; or suppose, for
example, that we understand Him to be, not a living being endowed with wisdom,
but something which makes men wise.. It is once rightly understood that the only-
begotten Son of God is His wisdom hypostatically existing.... The first-born,
however, is not by nature a different person from the Wisdom, but one and the
same.¨
Origen speaking of the Father being superior to the Son declared, ~But it is
monstrous and unlawful to compare God the Father, in the generation of His only-
begotten Son, and in the substance of the same, to any man.¨ ¡80] Origen definitely
did not believe that the Father and Son were equal in power or authority or in their
godhood. He taught that the Son was inferior to the Father in these and other areas.
250 AD, Dionysius` Doctrine of Two-unequal- gods: Dionysius of Rome also believed
that the Logos had a beginning. He says, ~There certainly was not a time when God
was not the Father. Neither, indeed, as though He had not brought forth these
things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence not
from Himself, but from the Father.... For as I do not think that the Word was a thing
made, so I do not say that God was its maker, but its Father.. The ungenerated
God is the hypostasis the life and foundation of all things in the universe.¨ ¡81]
Dionysius refused to say that the Son or the Logos was created or made by the
Father, but was begotten only. What he called begotten, all of his forefathers called
created, made or generated. What ever term fit your fancy, it all meant the same
thing according to these Catholics: the Son of God had a beginning before time
began.
300 AD, Lactanius Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: A Catholic Nicolaitan-Balaamite
by the name of Lactanius, who was a disciple of Arnobius, definitely cannot be
classified as a Trinitarian, for to him the Father was the only true God and the Son
was the Holy Spirit whom the Father created. He wrote that the Father
~commenced this excellent work of the world, ¡when He first] begat a pure and
incorruptible Spirit, who He called His Son. And although He had afterward created
by Himself innumerable other beings, whom we call angels, this first-begotten,
however, was the only one whom He ¡the Father] considered worthy of being called
by the divine name....¨ ¡82]
312 AD, Alexander`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Alexander of Alexandria
followed the Alexandrian school and taught the Logos was created a being. He
wrote, ~We ought to preserve His ¡God the Father`s] proper dignity, in confessing
that no one is the cause of His being, but to the Son must be allotted His fitting
honour, in assigning to Him, as we have said, a generation from the Father.. But
we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten.¨ ¡83]
He then went on to say that the Father is greater than the Son.
From all the above quotes, my readers should be able to see that all these Nicolaitan
Catholics priests believed in two not three persons in the godhead; they all taught
that the Father was uncreated, and that the Son of God was a separate being from
the Father and was created before time began.
The Origin of the Catholic Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Because most Christians are not aware of the pagan origin of the
Trinity doctrine, let`s briefly look at the affinity these men had for the Greek philosophers and Mystery religion; so we can
comprehend how they came up with their Trinitarian godhead and baptismal beliefs.
3000 BC, Zoroaster`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: The two-god doctrine was not
all that new in the Greek, Roman, and all other pagan societies of their day.
Professor Levi Paine in his book entitled, The Ethnic Trinities, gave us some insights
to the origin of this godhead doctrine. Paine speaking of the ~earliest stages of
Zoroastrian Trinitarian evolution,¨ wrote, ~Mithra, or Mitra¨ is a ~creature of
Ormuzd, the created light,` that is, a sun god. As such he is a servant and organ` of
Ormuzd, mediating between Him and man.¨ ¡84]
Hermes` Teaching on Two-Unequal-gods: Around 300 AD Lactanius, who believed
in the doctrine of two-unequal-gods, wrote some of its history in his writings. He
said this godhead teaching could be found in ~Trismegistus and the predictions of
the Sibyls.¨ He went on to describe Hermes as an ancient pagan god who served as a
herald and messenger of the other gods, who was called Mercury by the Romans;
Hermes was also the god of science, eloquence, cunning, the protector of boundaries
and commerce, and the guide of departed souls to Hades.
Let`s hear what Lactanius says Hermes taught. He says, ~Hermes, in the book which
is entitled The 'erfect 0ord, made use of these words: The lord and creator of all
things, whom we have thought to call god, since He made the second god visible and
sensible.... He hallowed him, and altogether loved him as his own Son.¨ Hermes
could be a name for Nimrod, who started Zoroastrianism.
The Ancient Sibyls` Teaching on Two-Unequal-gods: Lactanius also quotes from the
Sibylline Books that were composed by women who were considered by the
Babylonians, and Egyptians, Romans, and Greeks as prophetesses. There were
about ten Sibyls that are known in history. Lactanius says, ~The Erythraean Sibyl,
in the beginning of her poem, which she commenced with the supreme god,
proclaims the son of god as the leader and commander of all, in these verses: The
nourisher and creator of all things ¡God the Father], who placed the sweet breath in
all, and made god the leader of all.` Speaking of the Son of God at the end of this
poem she says: But whom god gave for faithful men to honour.` And another Sibyl
enjoins that He ought to be known: Know him as your god, who is the son of god.¨
¡85]
387 BC, Plato`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Paine declared that Plato`s World
Soul was ~not an eternal divine being, but a created mediating being whom God
made to be the connecting link between things, or, in more philosophical language
idea and phenomena.¨ ¡86] 1ustin Martyr in his First Apology speaking of Plato`s
~discussion concerning the Son of God in the Timoeus,¨ quotes Plato as saying, ~the
power ¡or second god] next to the first god was placed crosswise in the universe..`
For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was
placed crosswise in the universe.¨ ¡87]
57 AD, Philo`s Doctrine of Two-Unequal-gods: Philo was a 1ew who was born in
Alexander, Egypt in 27 BC, and died somewhere around 57 AD. He was an apostate
1ewish Rabbi and commentator, who interpreted the Old Testament Scriptures by
the use of the Greek philosophical allegorical method. He took Plato teaching of a
dual god or two-unequal-gods, and tried to bring it into 1udaism.
Elgin Moyer, in his book entitled 0ho 0as 0ho !n Church History, revealed Philo`s
role in the development of the Catholic doctrine of a greater and lesser god. He says
that Philo was a, ~1ewish Hellenistic philosopher.... As a philosopher sought to
reconcile Greek philosophy and the Old Testament by means of allegorical
interpretation.... Philo`s method of allegorical interpretation had much influence on
the allegorical method of interpretation followed by the ¡Catholic] Alexandrian
Church Fathers, especially Clement and Origen.¨ ¡88] The Logos of Philo was not
the Father, but was a separate being or person from the Father; the Father being the
supreme god, and the Logos a lower or inferior god.
In his godhead teachings, he taught that the Father was so holy that He could not
come into contact with the world personally, so He created a second god called the
Logos who could. Philo taught that the Logos was not the Father, but was a separate
being or person from the Father; the Father being the highest or greatest god, and
the Logos an inferior or lesser god, which mediated between God and man.
According to The !nternational "tandard #i$le Encyclopedia, Philo explained his
doctrine of two-unequal-personal-gods this way, ~The internal Logos is the
firstborn, the second god, the mediator, the ransom, the image of god.... The external
Logos abides in man, is the prophet, shepherd, ambassador, artist, elder, interpreter,
the shadow of god.... The Logos mediates between god and the world, but partakes
of the divine nature only.¨ ¡89]
Philo`s external Logos or Holy Spirit was the impersonal Spirit of the internal
Logos. Because of this teaching, the early Catholic Fathers taught that the Holy
Spirit was another name for Christ. Philo, as well as these Catholics, did not teach a
trinity. The internal Logos was a real being or person, who existed outside of God`s
being; therefore He was no abstract figure.
Dr Wolfson confirmed the above truths by stating, ~We have shown that Philo`s
view, like that of 1ustin Martyr, maintained that the antemundane ¡or before
creation the] Logos had two stages of existence and that, while during its first stage
¡the external Logos] it existed only as a power in God, during the second stage
¡internal Logos] it existed as a real being outside of God.¨ ¡90]
Paine gave us some insights to the origin of Philo`s godhead doctrine. He says, ~On
the whole, it may be said that Philo is the historical founder of the Logos theology.
He placed the Logos as the great principle of divine mediation in the forefront of his
philosophical system.¨ He went on to say that Philo received his Logos idea from
Plato. He said Plato did not call his mediator Logos but the World Soul. ¡91]
It is obvious from the above historical references that Plato, Philo and many of the
earlier Greek Philosophers took the ancient doctrines of Mystery Babylonian and
put their own religious twist to them. From the time the priests of Babylon left their
religious temple called the Tower of Babel, and were scattered throughout the earth,
they and their descendants have been placing their own religious twist to the
teachings of Babylon, in all the pagan religions they started. The Word of God
clearly revealed that Mystery Babylon is the mother of all false religious systems.
Rev 17:1-6. Between the Zoroastrians, Hermes, the Sibyls, Plato, and Philo, it is not
hard to perceive were all of the early Catholics Fathers received their inspiration
and revelation of the godhead.
310 AD, The Arian Doctrine of the Godhead: A Catholic Presbyter by the name of Arius started teaching that the Son of God
was not only a created being, but that He was not God in any sense, or in other words, he totally rejected the deity of the Lord
1esus Christ. According to Arius and his followers 1esus was nothing more than the first and highest ranking created angel in
heaven. These Catholics were the so-called 1ehovah`s Witnesses of their day. From 310 through 325 AD, Arius had won many
Catholic Bishops over to his godhead belief. Since the majority of the Catholic Bishops did not believe that 1esus was equal to
God the Father in the godhead, all Arius had to do is quote to them the scriptures declaring that their was only one God and
that is the Father. By means of this argument, he was able to persuade many of them to deny the deity of the Lord 1esus
Christ.
325 AD, The Catholic Binitarian Doctrine of Two-Equal-gods or the Nicene-Creed: Before we examine the Nicene-Creed and
the part Emperor Constantine played in formulating it, let`s briefly inspect Constantine motive for choosing Catholicism to be
the his bride. Constantine, like all other Emperors before him, desired a united empire. The empire Constantine inherited was
a divided empire with many different political and religious fractions. Mithraism, even though it was the religion of the
empire, never shows signs of having the power to become a universal religion. Constantine greatly desired a religion whose
doctrines could appeal to the masses and unite them into one religion, and thereby unite the empire.
Guignebert speaking of Catholicism absorption of pagan doctrines, ceremonies and
rituals says, ~In the third century it ¡the Nicolaitan-Babylonian Church] could meet
and overcome the entire pagan syncretism, because it had itself become a syncretism
in which all the fertile ideas and the essential rites of pagan religiousness were
blended. It combined and harmonized them in a way that enabled it to stand alone,
facing all the inchoate beliefs and practices of its adversaries without appearing
their inferior on any vital point. This extensive work of absorption, which helps us
to understand, that a moment came when ¡Catholic] Christianity was able to arouse
favorable attention to itself on the part of the manifold sympathies active in the
Greco-Roman world.¨ ¡92]
The religion Constantine chose would have to be flexible enough to bend to his will
whenever he so desired; one that would allow him to maintain his position as the
High Priest or the Supreme Head. The entire world had witness the noble suffering
of God`s people and through it became attracted to Church. The Roman Emperors
discovered that no amount of threats could get the majority of God`s people to
compromise their convictions. Even though Constantine knew that the one God,
1esus` Name Churches were in the vast majority, he also knew that he would never
be able to control them. In chapter three I will prove from history that God`s
Apostolic Pentecostal Churches were in the majority for the first 400 years.
When Constantine looked at Catholicism, he saw a religion that he knew he could
control. He knew that its entire history was one of compromise; one that had
already adopted most of the teachings of paganism; one who compromised with the
state during the Roman persecutions; yes one who had the potential of becoming a
universal religion. It already went under the name of Christianity, and with a little
persuasion from him he could get the masses of pagans to join it. Constantine could
see in this Church of Satan, everything his heart desire; he could see all of his
dreams being fulfilled.
!n The Cam$rid&e Medieal History, we can read of Constantine dream for
Catholicism. It says, ~The ¡Catholic] Church was not quite what Constantine
wanted it to be. He was not more attracted to it by its ¡so-called] lofty monotheism
than by the imposing unity, which promised new life to the weary State. For six
hundred years the world had been in quest of a universal religion.... If the Church
was divided against itself, it could not help the Empire. Worse than this; it could
hardly be divided against itself without being also divided against the Empire.¨ ¡93]
Guignebert speaking of Catholicism`s political compromise with the state during
Roman persecutions says, Nicolaitan ~Christians no longer expected the end of the
world form one day to the next; they conformed to current customs and even to
current prejudice. Christians joined the army and served in the administration and
the ecclesiastical authorities made no objection. ¡Catholic] Christian ethics and
Christian resignation to the world`s continuance had reaffirmed allegiance to all
social regulations. Above all a community of believers, united, disciplined and
directed by leaders whom they obeyed ¡as gods], presented to the State a cheering
spectacle of order, the product of a well administered government, which already
shows signs of developing a political consciousness.... It was time for both State and
¡Nicolaitan] Christianity to think of a compromise.¨ ¡94]
By now my readers should be able to understand why Constantine chose
Catholicism to be his bride. Now, why did the Catholic Church want this marriage?
According to The Cam$rid&e Medieal History Constantine choose Catholicism to be
his bride in 313 AD when he gave the Edict of Milan. It revealed that, ~he exempted
the clergy of the Catholic Church - not those of the sects ¡meaning God`s Apostolic
Church] - from the decurionate and other burdens, he gave them only the privileges
already enjoyed by some of the heathen priests and teachers. But the relief was great
enough to cause an ungodly rush for holy Orders¨ into Balaamite Christianity. ¡95]
Money and power has always been the prime motivating factor behind all that
Catholicism has done throughout the centuries.
325 AD, The Nicene Creed: At the Nicene Council Constantine, and the Ante Nicene
Catholic Priests, declared that 1esus was begotten by the Father before time began,
and He was ~homoousios¨ or was begotten out ~of the same substance¨ as the
Father, thus making Him an equal God with the Father, since He now shared in the
Father`s own substance. Therefore these Catholic Priests change the godhead
doctrine of their forefathers, who believed in two-unequal-gods, for a belief in two-
equal-gods.
Catholic Bishop and church historian Socrates, who attended this council, recorded
the Creed as stating, ~We believe in one God the Father Almighty, Maker of all
things visible and invisible, and in one Lord 1esus Christ the Son of God, the only-
begotten of the Father, that is of the ¡same] substance of the Father; God of God,
Light of light, true God of true God; begotten not made, consubstantial ¡of the same
substance] with the Father; by whom all things were made.. (We believe) also in
the Holy Spirit.¨
Socrates mentions Eusebius of Caesarea, who was also a Catholic Bishop and
church historian, as attending this Council; he says Eusebius wrote a letter to his
church and explained the creed. Eusebius speaking of the Son being begotten by the
Father before time began wrote, ~On the same grounds we admitted also the
expression begotten, not made`: for. he is no creature like those which were made
by him, but is of a substance far excelling any creature; which substance the Divine
Oracles teach was begotten of the Father by such a mode of generation as cannot be
explained nor even conceived by any creature..` That he is consubstantial ¡of the
same substance] with the Father. who begat him; and that he is of no other
substance or essence but of the Father.¨ ¡96]
Let my beloved readers take note, Constantine and these Catholic priests confessed
that Christ was not eternal but was begotten by the Father before time began.
Therefore all Trinitarians who claim that the Nicene Creed teaches that the Son of
God is eternal and had no beginning are liars! Also all Trinitarians who profess that
this creed teaches that the Holy Spirit is a separate person from the Father and Son
are also liars, for this creed does not say what they believe about the Holy Ghost!
Emperor Constantine Invented the Consubstantial or Homoousios Doctrine: At the
Nicene Council, the heretical Roman Catholics were divided into two camps: The
Athanasian Catholic group, which defended the doctrine of two-equal-gods; and the
Arian Catholic group, which denied the deity of Christ. Now, one should ask himself
or herself, how did these so-called Bible scholars, who attended the Council of
Nicaea, come up with their doctrine of the godhead? Was it by fervent prayer and
fasting, or by diligent study of God's Holy Word? No! They did not need to do any
of that, because they had an apostle there to declare to them what they should
believe and teach. Who was this apostle? Was it the Apostle Paul or Peter
reincarnated? No! It was the pagan Roman Emperor Constantine.
Socrates in his history revealed that Constantine is the one who declared that the
Father and Son were consubstantial or have the same substance, which is called
God. In a sense, Constantine was acting as their first Pope. Let`s look at the history
of this meeting. Socrates stated, Constantine, ~convoked a General Council,
summoning all the ¡Catholic] bishops by letter to meet him at Nicaea.. The
emperor arrived... and on his entrance stood in their midst, and would not take his
place, until the bishops by bowing intimated their desire that he should be seated.¨
¡97]
From the very beginning of Constantine`s Council, He was letting these Bishops
know that he was their High Priest. He was the one who called them together, and
he was going to be the one who was going to settle their religious dispute over the
godhead. Edward Gibbon, in his classic work entitled The Decline %nd ,all Of The
)oman Empire, spoke about this office. He wrote, ~The Supreme Pontiff was
constantly exercised by the emperors themselves. They knew and valued the
advantages of religion, as it is connected with civil government.... Constantine and
his successors... continued to exercise a supreme jurisdiction over the ecclesiastical
order; and the sixteenth book of the Theodosian code represents, under a variety of
titles, the authority which they assumed in the government of the Catholic Church.¨
¡98]
Socrates revealed that the Emperor Constantine in his final speech to these Catholic
priests incited ~all to unanimity. At length he succeeded in bringing them into
similarity of judgment and conformity of opinion on all controversial points....
Exhorting, ¡with the influence and power of an Emperor Pope], all present to give
their assent and subscribe to these very articles; thus agreeing in a unanimous
profession of them, with the insertion, however, of that single word homoousios`
consubstantial, an expression which the Emperor himself explained.¨ Let my
readers take note that Constantine, who was acting as their apostle and theologian,
inserted the word ~consubstantial¨ or the Greek word ~homoousios¨ into the
Catholic Nicene Creed.
How did Pope Constantine define this word? Socrates says the Emperor defined it
~as not indicating corporeal affections or properties; and consequently that the Son
did not subsist from the Father either by division or abscission.. For said he ¡the
Emperor], a nature which is immaterial and incorporeal cannot possible be subject
to any corporeal affection; hence our conception of such things can only be in divine
and mysterious terms. Such were the philosophical views of the subject taken by our
most wise and pious sovereign; and the bishops on account of the word homoousios
drew up this formula of faith.¨
Anyone with any common sense would ask himself or herself, why after many years
of bickering among these Catholic Bishops, would the Arian Catholics now agree
with the two god Catholics? Also, why would the two god Catholics agree to
Constantine`s homoousios or consubstantial doctrine that they or their forefathers
never believed? One might say, well Constantine was a great theologian. But the
truth was, as the Emperor he was their Pagan High Priestly Pope, who interpreted
and make all doctrines pertaining to religion!
Socrates went on ~the meaning of these terms was clearly defined; when it was
generally admitted that ousias of the essence or substance simple implied that the
Son is of the ¡same substance, which is called God, as the] Father indeed, but does
not subsist as part of the Father. To this interpretation of the sacred doctrine which
declares that the Son is of the Father, but is not a part of His ¡personal] substance.¨
Socrates continued, ~Consequently he is no creature like those which were made by
Him, but is of a substance the Divine oracles teach was begotten of the Father by
such a mode of generation as cannot be explained nor even conceived by any
creature.` Thus also the declaration that the Son is consubstantial with the Father`
having been discussed, it was agreed that this must not be understood in a corporeal
sense, or in any way analogous to mortal creatures; inasmuch as it is neither by
division of substance, not by abscission, not by any change of the Father`s substance
and power, since the underived nature ¡or substance] of the Father is inconsistent
with all these things.¨ ¡99]
According to Constantine`s Creed, the Father, at some point in eternity past, begot
or generated the Son from a substance that must be called God. The Father begot
the Son not from His portion of God`s substance but from a different portion of
God`s substance, or in other words, they both had a different portion of the
substance called God. This implies God divided Himself into two separate beings or
persons, which can only mean neither one is wholly God, but only a part or half of
God.
Since Constantine and these Catholic priests declared that the Father begot or
generated the Son from a different portion of God`s substance than His own, where
did the Father get this other portion? One would have to conclude that before the
Son was begotten, there were two beings, one called God and the other called the
Father, and the Father had half of a substance called God.
Now, if the Son received God`s portion of the divine substance, than you have two
beings that share a portion of a substance that is called God. This can only mean
that each one is a half of God, since they both had equal portions of God`s
substance. For example, if you cut an apple into two equal portions, each portion is
considered as a half of an apple. No one with any intelligence would call a half of an
apple the whole apple, even though it has all the characteristics, properties, and
nature of the whole apple. Unless they, like Constantine, profess the godhead is a
mystery.
How can two different and separate divine beings or persons be one God? Also if
there are two beings called God, then why did they declare that the ~one God ¡was]
the Father Almighty?¨ Therefore, when Catholic and Protestant theologians declare
their allegiance to Pope Constantine`s Nicene Creed and profess that it teaches
three, not two, persons in the godhead, who are equal in knowledge and power, they
are not telling the truth.
According to Hastings, ~Constantine and his successors, and above all, the Emperor
1ustinian (527-565 AD) saw themselves in their Roman capacity as the legitimate
heirs of the ancient pagan Caesars, but at the same time in their Christian capacity
as equals to the apostles.... Contemporary historians tell us that it was the Emperor
Constantine, who came up with the formula one in being (homoousios) with the
Father, which resolved at the Council of Nicene in 325 ¡AD], the dispute over the
metaphysical relation between Christ and God.¨ ¡100]
Now the Emperor Constantine, who was acting as their first Pope, knew that neither
party believed that the Holy Ghost was a person, so he favored the theology of the
~two-equal-gods,¨ probably because it was closer to his and all the other pagans
belief in ~three-equal-gods¨ or the Babylonian Trinity. Therefore he decided that
Athanasius and his group were correct in their theology and the Arians were
heretics. I am sure Constantine must have thought to himself, surely pagan
worshippers will never believe in one person in godhead, so for the time being I
settle for a belief in two-equal-gods, and bring them into a belief in three-equal-gods
later.
Is it not strange that Constantine, and no one else in any other age, has ever tried to
explain or even try to describe what is this essence` called God? If one thinks the
Trinitarian doctrine is a mystery, let them try to find any writing, by anyone,
explaining the essence of God. All they will ever find is this indescribable something
that fills the universe. Where did Constantine get his teaching that the Son was
~homoousios or consubstantial¨ with the Father? Let`s not forget that Constantine
and all the emperors before him were the High Priests, who were over all pagan
religions with their two or three persons in the godhead doctrine.
As a pagan High Priest, Constantine was well aquatinted with Satan`s Babylonian
Trinity doctrine, which came into existence after Nimrod`s death shortly after the
flood of Noah. This demonic doctrine stated that, god the Father, god the Son, and
the Mother of the gods made up one united god. For these three separate and
distinct persons or beings all shared in the one substance called god. Under this and
the Catholic Trinity doctrine, if there were a million persons in the godhead, they
could all be god if they all shared in this mysterious substance called god.
Now according to the Nicene Creed, ~(We believe) also in the Holy Spirit.¨ Well
what did they believe about the Holy Ghost? Whatever they believed about the Holy
Spirit, they did not believe he was a third person in a Babylonian Trinity. History
reveals that the vast majority of Catholic Bishops at this time did not believe that
the Holy Ghost was a separate person in the godhead. In fact most of them did not
know what to believe about the Holy Ghost.
The New Catholic Encyclopedia definitely informs us what the Catholic Bishops at
Nicaea believed about the Holy Ghost. Under the heading of the Trinity, the Catholic
Church made a good and honest confession about the development of their
Trinitarian doctrine. It stated, ~In the last analysis, the 2nd century theological
achievement was limited.. A Trinitarian solution was still in the future. The
Apologists spoke too haltingly of the Spirit; with a measure of anticipation, one
might say too impersonally.... On the eve of Nicene 1, the Trinitarian problem raised
more than a century earlier was still far from settled. It was the problem of plurality
within the single, undivided godhead.¨ ¡101]
Schaff speaking about the Holy Spirit said, ~Even among the adherents of the
Nicene orthodoxy, an uncertainty still for a time prevailed, respecting the doctrine of
the third person of the Holy Trinity. Some held the ¡Holy] Spirit to be an impersonal
power or attributes of God; others, at farthest, would not go beyond the expressions
of the Scriptures.¨ Even as late as 375 AD, in the time of Gregory of Nazianzus, most
Catholics Bishops did not believe the Holy Spirit to be a personal being. Gregory
wrote, ~Of the wise among us, some consider the Holy Ghost an influence, other s a
creature ¡meaning an angel or a created spirit being], others God himself, and
others know not which way to decide.¨ ¡102]
381 AD, The Catholic Trinitarian Doctrine of Three-Equal-gods, or the Nicene-
Constantinople Creed: It was not until the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople, in
381 AD, that the Catholic Church as a whole might have adapted the doctrine of the
Trinity; it is hard to tell, for their doctrine of the Holy Spirit is not very explicit.
Therefore no one can say with any certainty that they did! The only thing this creed
says, which is different from the Nicene Creed is this, ~We believe in the Holy Spirit,
the Lord, the giver of life; he proceeds from the Father, is adored and honored
together with the Father and the Son; he spoke through the prophets.¨
In 382 AD, Pope Damascus called a Council in Rome in which the Catholic Church
drew up a clear Babylonian Trinitarian godhead creed; there cannot be any doubt
that this creed definitely declared that the godhead is composed of three-equal-gods
or persons. It also connected the formula of baptism with the godhead for salvation.
It stated, ~Therefore this is the salvation of Christians: that believing in the Trinity,
that is the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and being baptized in the Trinity.¨
This is the first Church Council in which the Catholic Church clearly defined the
Holy Spirit as a person instead of an impersonal Spirit. These pagan Babylonian
Nicolaitan Bishops declared, ~(1) We pronounce anathema against those who do not
proclaim with complete freedom that He the Holy Spirit is of one power and
substance with the Father and the Son.... (10) If anyone denies that the Father is
eternal, that the Son is eternal, and that the Holy Spirit is eternal: he is a heretic....
(16) If anyone denies that the Holy Spirit is truly and properly from the Father, and,
like the Son, is of the divine substance and is true God: he is heretic.¨
The Council of Rome continued by saying, ~(17) If anyone denies that the Holy
Spirit has all power and knows all things, and is everywhere, just as the Father and
the Son: he is a heretic.... (18) If anyone says that the Holy Spirit is a creature, or
was created by the Son: he is a heretic.... (20) If anyone denies that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit have one divinity, authority, majesty, power, one glory, dominion,
one kingdom, and one will and truth: he is a heretic.... (21) If anyone denies that the
three persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are true persons, equal,
eternal, containing all things visible and invisible, that they are omnipotent, judge
all things, give life to all things, make all things, and conserve all things: he is a
heretic. ¨ ¡103]
Lucifer`s Babylonian Catholic Trinity now became a reality. As my readers can see
by now, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, for the most part, were solidly behind
their new Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of three separate persons, instead of two-
equal-gods or persons in the godhead. Catholic Bishop 1erome (390 AD) confirmed
this Council`s decision when he said, ~it is the custom at baptism to ask, after the
confession of faith in the Trinity, do you believe in the Holy Church.¨ ¡104]
CHAPTER 3
THE PAGAN ORIGIN OF THE CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
OF THE TRINITY
The origin of the Catholic Babylonian Trinity has been known by many readers of
history for centuries. In a book entitled The 0or+s Of .ohn %dams, Adams mentions
a letter he wrote on 1une 28, 1813 to Thomas 1efferson. In it he wrote, Professors
~Priestley and Lindsey have both denounced as idolaters and blasphemers all the
Trinitarians and even the Arians.... Priestly barely mentions Timaeus; but it does
not appear that he had read him. Why has he not given us an account of him and his
book? He was before Plato, and gave him the idea of his Timaeus, and much of his
philosophy.... I wonder that Priestly has overlooked this, because it is the same
philosophy with Plato`s, and would have shown that the Pythagorean, as well as the
Platonic philosophers, probably concurred in the fabrication of the Christian
Trinity.¨
On 1uly 16, 1814, Adams wrote another letter to 1efferson in which he said, ~If the
Christian religion, as I understand it, or as you understand it, should maintain its
ground, as I believe it will, yet Platonic, Pythagoric, Hindoo, and Cabalistical
Christianity, which is Catholic Christianity, and which has prevailed for fifteen
hundred years, has received a mortal wound, of which the monster must finally die,
yet so strong is his constitution, that he may endure for centuries before he expires.¨
¡105]
A Summary of the History and Development of the Trinity of the Babylonian Religion
The Word of God speaking about some of the people that lived after the flood of
Noah declared, ~Although they knew God ¡referring to His godhead], they did not
glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their
foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed
the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man and
birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.. Who exchanged the truth of
God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature ¡ktisis] rather than the
Creator¨ (Rom 1:21-23, 25). Dr. 1ames Strong in his work entitled "tron&4s
E(haustie Concordance Of The #i$le defines the Greek word ~ktisis¨ to mean
~creation.¨ ¡106]
It is obvious from these scriptures that the godhead was not a mystery to these
people, but as many religious people of today they did not like this truth. Since the
Bible plainly stated that these people knew the truth about the godhead and
changed it to nature worship or Pantheism, what was the truth they knew? Who
were these people that perverted this truth?
The truth concerning the godhead, the soul of man and the soul`s future destiny, was
totally perverted at the Tower of Babel. It was at this Tower where the first false
religion began, which was created by Nimrod. This Nimrod was the son of Cush,
who was a son of Ham, who was a son of Noah (Gen 10:1-8). This Nimrod became so
perverted that he married his own mother.
In his rebellion against God, Nimrod started through Satan's tutoring a priesthood
that practiced witchcraft, magic, astrology, the worship of Lucifer as Baal the sun
god and Lucifer's demons as various planets, stars and constellations, or in other
words nature worship, which consisted of Pantheism, Animism and Polytheism. He
also taught the Zoroastrian doctrine of god. The good god to them was Lucifer,
whom they claimed created all the good things in life; and the evil god to them was
the LORD, whom they declare created all the evil things.
It was under Lucifer or the Serpent's instructions that the doctrines of
Reincarnation and the Perfection of the Soul in this life began to be taught as the
way to enter back into paradise and godhood. Of course, the soul had to be purified
in the fires of Hades after each reincarnation, so it can enter into life perfect or
without sin. These are just a few of Nimrod's crimes against God and man.
Semiramis after Nimrod's death had him defied. Nimrod then became Baal the sun
god or god the father (1Ki 18:21-40). Nimrod became the first defied man in history.
She also had herself deified as Ashtoreth (Hebrew) or Astarte (Greek), the Queen of
Heaven or the mother of god and the gods (1er 44:17-25). Semiramis thus became
the first deified woman in history. She also had Tammuz, her illegitimate son defied,
whom she claimed was Nimrod`s soul reincarnated or god the son (Eze 8:14).
It is at this point, the Babylonian Trinity of three separate persons or beings in the
godhead came into existence, and Lucifer's doctrines of Transmigration and
Perfection of the Soul that was taught by Nimrod was confirmed. These doctrines
became know as the Babylonian Mysteries, and thus Secrete Societies were born.
Thus Satan knowing the true doctrines of Christ, which should come into the world,
imitated and perverted them with his Mystery Religion. In time Semiramis`
Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead became more important than
Nimrod`s Zoroastrian doctrine of the godhead in the Babylonian Mysteries, because
this father, son and mother were suppose to be the first humans to become deified,
which gave their followers hope of returning back to paradise and also becoming
deified. In other words, the Babylonian Trinity was connected to the doctrine of
man`s deification. Now that I have given a brief synopsis of how the Babylonian
Mysteries began, let's see if I can authenticate the truthfulness of these statements
by sound historical documentation.
What Does the Bible Mean by the Term Mystery Babylon
1ohn speaking about this false religious system says, "Upon her forehead was a
name written, Mystery Babylon, the great mother of harlots and abominations of
the earth" (1n 17:5). Since the Bible called this religious system Mystery Babylon, or
the Babylonian Mysteries, what does the word ~mystery¨ mean? The word mystery
is the Greek word ~musterion¨ which means ~a secret i.e. through the idea of silence
impose by initiation into a religious rite.¨ ¡107]
Since this is an occult mystery, lets see what the occult authorities have to say about
it. The Encyclopedia Of Occultism %nd 'arapsycholo&y, under the heading of
~Mysteries,¨ says it was ~A term for what is secret or concealed in a religious
context.... The mysteries were secret cults, to which only certain initiated people
were admitted after a period of preliminary preparation.... But the mysteries appear
to have circled around the semi-dramatic representation or mystery-play of the life
of a deity." ¡108] Let my readers take note, the religious doctrines of the Mysteries
centered around Semiramis` Babylonian Trinitarian doctrine of the godhead.
In the book entitled "ecret "ocieties %nd "u$ersie Moements by Nesta Webster,
under the sub-title "The Mysteries" we read, "Now from the earliest times groups of
initiates or wise men have existed, claiming to be in possession of esoteric doctrines
known as the Mysteries, incapable of apprehension by the vulgar, and relating to the
origin and end of man, the life of the soul after death, and the nature of god or the
gods.. The Initiates believe that the sacred mysteries should not be revealed to the
profane but should remain exclusively in their own keeping." ¡109]
Professor W. L. Bryan, in his work entitled The )epu$lic Of 'lato, made these
statements about mystery religions before and after Plato time, "Passages in the
Greek poets seem to indicate that the mysteries were intended to encourage belief in
a future life, and in reward or punishment there, as merited by the life on earth.
Certain of the rites were supposed to be a means of purification from sin, and
reconciliation with the gods."
Bryan went on to quote Plato as saying, "And they ¡the gods] produce a host of
books written by Musaeus and Orpheus, who are children of the Moon ¡symbolism
for Semiramis as Ashtoreth].. They perform their ritual, and persuade not only
individuals, but whole cities, that expiations and atonements for sin may be made by
sacrifices.. ¡These religious doctrines] they call mysteries. redeem us from the
pains of hell." ¡110]
When and Where Did the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion Begin
All the major doctrines of the mysteries of all the heathen nations had their
beginnings at the Towel of Babel. The Encyclopedia Of Occultism %nd
'arapsycholo&y commenting on the Rev. G. Oliver's book entitled, The History Of
!nitiation (1829 AD), has this to say about the subject. The Reverend Oliver affirmed
that the rites of the science, which is now received under the name of Freemasonry,
were ~practiced by man at the building of Babel.. At the dispersion ¡it] spread with
every settlement.¨ ¡111]
Hislop gave a very clear, accurate and extremely well documented historical account
of the secret mysteries of the Babylonian Religion. He made a very striking
comparison between the doctrines of the ancient Babylonian Religion and the
Roman Catholic Religion of today. Speaking of the origin of the mysteries, Hislop
stated, ~All who paid the least attention to the literature of Greece, Egypt,
Phoenicia, or Rome are aware of the place which the Mysteries occupied in these
countries, and that, whatever circumstantial diversities there might be, in all
essential respects these Mysteries in the different countries were the same. Now, as
the language of 1eremiah, already quoted, would indicate that Babylon was the
primal source from which all these systems of idolatry flowed, so the deductions of
the most learned historians, on mere historical grounds, have led to the same
conclusion.¨ ¡112]
Who Started the Mysteries of the Babylonian Religion
Now that it has been established when and where the mysteries began, who exactly
can be credited with starting this religious system? According to history, it all
started with Nimrod. Many historians seem to believe Nimrod was a black man,
because all statues of him picture him as such. The Bible reveals that Nimrod was a
son of Cush, who was a son of Ham, who was a son of Noah, (Gen 10:1-8). Nimrod
was the first: king, tyrant, warmonger, idolater, and the first to set up Nature
Worship or the Babylonian Religion after the flood of Noah. Nimrod hated God
because He struck down his father with a lighting bolt for his apostasy.
Nimrod`s history can be found in a work entitled the ~)eco&nition of Clement,¨
which some believe was written by Clement of Rome in 100 AD. It revealed that it
was ~Ham, ¡who] unhappily discovered the magical act, and handed down the
instruction of it to one of his sons ¡i.e. Cush], who was called Mesraim, from whom
the race of the Egyptians and Babylonians and Persians are descended. Him the
nations who then existed called Zoroaster, admiring him as the first author of the
magic art, ¡or in other words, Cush or Zoroaster wrote many books on magic]..¨
~He therefore, being much and frequently intent upon the stars, and wishing to be
esteemed a god among them, began to draw forth, as it were, certain sparks from
the stars ¡or lighting from the sky], and to show them to men, in order that the rude
and ignorant might be astonished, as with a miracle; and desiring to increase this
estimation of him, he attempted these things again and again, until he was set on
fire, and consumed by the demon himself, whom he accosted ¡or approached] with
too great an importunity¨ or with too many request and demands. He therefore was
struck by lighting.
~But the foolish men, who were then, ¡erected]. a sepulcher to his ¡Cush`s] honor,
they went so far as to adore him as a friend of God, and one who had been removed
to heaven in a chariot of lightning, and to worship him as if he were a living star.
Hence also, his name was called Zoroaster after his death, that is, a living star..¨
Nimrod, no doubt, capitalized on their worship of his father, and therefore started
his own religion called Nature Worship.
~The magic art having been handed down to him ¡Nimrod, the son of Cush] as by a
flash, whom the Greeks also called Ninus, and from whom the city of Nineveh took
its name. Thus, therefore, diverse and erratic superstitions took their beginning
from the magic art. For, because it was difficult to draw away the human race from
the love of God, and attach them to deaf and lifeless images, the magicians made use
of higher efforts, that men might be turned to erratic worship, by signs among the
stars, and motions brought down as it were from heaven, and by the will of God.
And those who had been first deceived, collecting the ashes of Zoroaster ¡Cush],
who, as we have said, was burned up by the indignation of the demon, to whom he
had been too troublesome, brought them to the Persians, that they might be
preserved by them with perpetual watching, as divine fire fallen from heaven, and
might be worshipped as a heavenly god.¨ ¡113]
1ohn MacCulloch, in his book entitled The Mytholo&y Of %ll )aces said, "Nimrod,
the mighty hunter before Yaw, and son of Cush, is clearly Gilgamesh of Babylonian
mythology; and Nimrod, founder of cities in Sumer, and latterly builder of Nineveh
and Calah in Assyria, is surely Nimurta, the god of the spring Sun." ¡114]
The prophet Micah called Assyria "the land of Nimrod" (Mica 5:6). Hislop speaking
about Nimrod as king Ninus, who built Nineveh, (Gen 10:10-11), said that the
ancient history of 1ustin claimed Ninus subdued ~his neighbors, when, by an
accession of forces, being still further strengthened, he went forth against other
tribes, and every new victory paved the way for another, he subdued all the peoples
of the east." ¡115] Nimrod thus became known in history not only as the first
idolater, king, tyrant, and warmonger but also the first type of the Antichrist.
What Kind of Religion Was Mystery Babylon
1osephus, the ancient 1ewish historian, who wrote his history of the 1ewish race
about 93 AD, said it was "Nimrod who excited them ¡the people] to such an affront
and contempt of God.... He also gradually changed the government into tyranny,
seeing no other way of turning men from the fear of God but to bring them into a
constant dependence upon his power.... Now the multitude was ready to follow the
determination of Nimrod and esteem it apiece of cowardice to submit to God; and
they built a tower.... The place wherein they built the tower is now called Babylon.¨
¡116] This tower was the first religious temple built to worship Nature as god.
In The .ewish Encyclopedia we read, "Nimrod is the prototype of a rebellious
people, his name being interpreted as `he who made all the people rebellious against
God....' The tower is called by the rabbis `the house of Nimrod,' and is considered as
a house of idolatry.... The punishment visited on the builders of the tower, did not
cause Nimrod to change his conduct, he remained an idolater....¡117]
The religion that Nimrod first set up was a Luciferian Religion. It was an open
worship of Lucifer under the name of Baal the sun god. To Nimrod the sun probably
represented his father Cush. Hislop revealed, "Serpent-worship was a part of the
primeval apostasy of Nimrod. The fiery nature of the serpent...who when deified,
was worshipped as the grand regenerator of the souls of men.... Thus was the sun,
the great fire-god, identified with the serpent." ¡118] Stephen 1ones, in his book
entitled The #a$ylonian Connection, said, "Those who have studied the occult know
that witchcraft traces its origin to Mystery Babylon and its founder Nimrod." ¡119]
Ed Mitchell and 1ody Scharf, in their book entitled The Mystery Of #a$ylon
)eealed, says it was Nimrod who "built the great city of Babylon where all the
occult practices originated: astrology, tarot cards, witchcraft, divination and many
others.... Satan creates his masterpiece of false religion. Idolatry, devil worship and
sexual immorality were practiced openly. And as happens in pagan societies, sexual
immorality led to the sacrifice of babies to Satan,¨ probably under the name of Baal.
¡120] The sacrificing of babies to Lucifer is still taking place today, even here in
America. The only difference is our immoral government calls it abortion.
As my reader can now clearly see, Nimrod in his rebellion against God, joined forces
with the devil. He established Pantheism and Animism as his religion. He became
the first idolater in history after the flood. He led the people into apostasy against
God, and set up pure Baal worship, with Baal the Sun God or Lucifer as the main
deity, and all the planets and stars or Lucifer's Demons as lesser deities. Hastings
speaking about the ancient Babylonian Religion said, "The earliest religion of
Babylonia was what may be termed a polytheistic Nature-worship, a natural step
forward from a still more primitive shamanism, or the belief that the government of
the world was in the hands of a great number of benevolent and malevolent gods or
spirits, whom it was necessary to placate by magic rites and spells." ¡121]
In other words, Nimrod set up nature worship with its first trinity, Anu representing
the heavens or air, Ea representing water, and Bel representing the earth. 1ones
revealed, "Nimrod combined Semitic monotheism with Accadian animism to
produce pantheism. He taught that god is nature itself, and each nature-spirit ¡even
man] is part of god." ¡122] Thus creation itself was worshipped as god or the
universal soul. This is exactly what the Bible says happen in Roman 1:18-32. Nimrod
and the people, who knew the truth about God's Godhead, changed it to nature
worship, thereby worshipping Lucifer and his demons as nature. Nimrod also
taught the doctrine of immortality and reincarnation of the soul. It was only
through a cycle of rebirths, the spirit and soul of man could reach a state of union
with god or nature, and even godhood itself.
Nimrod even taught that there were two gods in the beginning who created all
things; a good god who created all the good things in world and an evil god who
created all the evil things. Later on in history, the good god was called Ahura Mazda
or Ormazd, and the evil god was called Anro Mainyus or Ahriman. The reader can
guess who Nimrod taught was the good god. You guessed it, Lucifer. Satan through
Nimrod took many of God's truths and perverted them.
The !nternational "tandard #i$le Encyclopedia, speaking about the ancient Indian
Aryans or Persians, stated that "Ahura Mazda and his assistants promote life,
fertility in man, beast and plant, agriculture, increase; while Anro Mainyus and his
creatures cause destruction and death.. The contest between Ormazd ¡Ahura
Mazda] and Ahriman ¡Anro Mainyus], after continuing for 9,000 years, is to be
decided in favor of the former only through his possessing foreknowledge and
Ahriman's lacking it (Bund., I). Both came into existence independently in limitless
time." ¡123]
How Did the Godhead Set Up by Lucifer Through Nimrod
Change into A Trinity of Three Separate Persons in One God
Because of all the atrocities, especially the sacrifice of babies that Nimrod had
committed, Mitchell and Scharf says "Nimrod's great uncle, Shem, one of Noah's
sons, became so outraged at this evil that he killed Nimrod and cut him in pieces and
sent these throughout Babylon as a warning to those in cult worship. Nimrod's
followers were shattered, and they were afraid to sin in public for fear the same
thing would happen to them.¨
They continued, ~Satan changed his plan from open devil worship to a subtle,
hidden way of getting people to worship him. With Nimrod gone, Satan worked
through Semiramis, ¡who was Nimrod's wife and mother, as well as the High
Priestess in his religion], to unleash the most insidious, diabolical scheme ever. After
Nimrod's death, Semiramis announced that Nimrod was a god - the sun god, Baal....
Semiramis declared herself a goddess and called herself queen of heaven, whose
symbol was the moon. She set up an underground religion.... This was the beginning
of secret societies." ¡124] This was the beginning of not only Secret Societies, but of
all mystery religions.
How did Semiramis manage to deceive the people concerning Nimrod`s deification?
Hislop gives us the answer, he says, "In life her husband had been honored as a
hero; in death she will have him worshipped as a god, yea as the woman's promise
seed, Zero-Ashta, who was destined to bruise the serpent's head, and in doing so,
was to have his own heel bruised. The patriarchs, and the ancient world in general,
were perfectly acquainted with the grand primeval promise of Eden, and they knew
right well that the bruising of the heal of the promise seed implied his death, and
that the curse could be removed from the world only by the death of the grand
deliverer.. Hence Zero-Ashta, the seed of the woman became Zoroaster, the
well-known name of the head of the Fire-Worshippers.¨
Hislop continued, ~The scheme, thus skillfully formed, took effect. Semiramis
gained glory from her dead and deified husband.. The licentious and dissolute life
of Semiramis gave her many children, for whom no ostensible father on earth would
be alleged.. All that was needful was just to teach that Ninus ¡Nimrod] had
reappeared in the person of a posthumous son, of a fair complexion, supernaturally
borne by his widowed wife after the father had gone to glory.... It was from her son
that she derived all her glory and claims to deification.. ¡Semiramis] was
worshipped by the Babylonians and other eastern nations under the name of Rhea,
the great goddess mother." ¡125]
Since Nimrod already taught them the doctrines of the good and evil creator gods,
man becoming god, the immortality and reincarnation of the soul, all Semiramis
had to do was to claim that Nimrod was the first man to reach godhood. She claimed
his Spirit was now united with Lucifer the sun god, thus making Nimrod Baal. She
also claimed that Nimrod in the spirit impregnated her and produced Tammuz her
illegitimate son. This made Tammuz the first living god man to live among men. She
had herself deified as the mother of the gods, referring to Nimrod and Tammuz,
thus forming the first human godhead in history of three separate and distinct
human persons, Nimrod the Father, Tammuz the Son, and Semiramis the Mother.
In Scripture, Nimrod as a god is known as Baal the sun god, as in 1ud 6:25-32, 1Ki
16:31-32, 2Ki 10:18-28 and 1er 11:13-17. Tammuz is known as Tammuz as in Eze
8:14. Semiramis is known as Ashtaroth as in 1ud 2:13 and 1Sa 7:3-4. The Bible also
refers to her as the Queen of Heaven in 1er 7:18 and 44:17-25. These five doctrines
not only became a major part of the Babylonian Mystery Religion, but also all of her
daughters, which includes all Mystery Religions. In the Bible she is known Mystery
Babylon, and her daughters as harlots.
The Babylonian Mystery Religion Spreads throughout the World
When God destroyed this religious temple or the Tower Of Babel and divided the
people's language, into seventy different languages, the people scattered throughout
the earth starting their own religion, base on the Babylonian Mysteries, with a few
changes such as the names of their gods and ritualistic rites. All these heathen
religions keep and practice the basic doctrines of Mystery Babylon. Webster claimed
that, ~in the occult and Masonic circles, certain ideas were common to all the more
important Mysteries, thus forming a continuous tradition handed down through
succeeding groups of initiates of different ages and countries." ¡126]
Peter L. Renouf, in his book The Ori&in %nd Growth Of )eli&ion %s !llustrated #y
The )eli&ion Of %ncient E&ypt, gives the Egyptian version of the Babylonian Trinity
that Semiramis started. He stated, "What follows is textually applied to Horus, but
it is to Horus considered as Osiris born again, and as the son of the widowed ¡virgin]
Isis. The gods recognize the universal Lord.. He judges the world." ¡127] There
can be no doubt, that Osiris is the defied name that the Egyptians gave to Nimrod,
and Isis to Semiramis, and Horus to Tammuz. Ralph Woodrow reveals in his book
entitled, #a$ylon Mystery )eli&ion, that the Romans worshipped 1anus the sun-god
in the religion of Mithraism. 1anus "was represented with two faces - one young, the
other old, a later version of Nimrod incarnated in Tammuz." ¡128]
Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz were called by many different names in the
religions of the world. Here are just a few of the names they were called in different
countries: in the Bible and in ancient Assyria and Phoenicia they were known as
Baal, Ashtoreth and Tammuz. In Rome they were known as 1upiter, Fortuna and
1upiter the Boy; in Greece as Zeus or Bacchus, Ceres or Irene and Plutus; in Asia
and Asia Minor as Kronos or Saturn, Cybele or Diana and Deoius; in Egypt as
Osiris, Serapis or Isis and Horus.
In India they were known as Eko, Deva or Isi and Iswara or Trimurtti; in 1apan as
San, Pao and Fuh; in China as Buddha, Shing Moo and Tomos; the Hindus worship
them as Brahma, Devaki and Krishna; and the list go on. By now my readers should
have a clear picture of what the Babylonian Trinity of three separate persons or
being in one god is, and how it got started. As you can see, the Babylonian
Mysteries, such as the good and evil god, the trinity, the godhood of man, the
immortality and transmigration of the soul became the teachings of Mystery
Religions of every country.
My readers by now, should be able to see that Lucifer must have know some of the
doctrines God would bring into 1udaism and later into Christianity, for he started
his own counterfeit religion. He changed YHWH'S plan to reveal His Godhead, as
God the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and the Holy Ghost in
regeneration, to a perverted belief in one god in a trinity of three separate persons,
which is verbal theological garbage, to disguise his doctrine of three gods. Lucifer
imitated the virgin birth of Christ by having his harlot High Priestess claim
Nimrod's soul entered into her, and produced a son, who was Nimrod reincarnated.
Lucifer perverted God's promise to His faithful children of future immortality or
Eternal Life, to an immortal pre-existing soul that all humanity is born in this life
with. If the doctrine of immortality of soul, was not taught and believed by the
Babylonians before Nimrod's death, Semiramis would not have been able to
convince them of Nimrod's suppose deification and later reincarnation.
The Babylonian Doctrines that Catholicism Christianized
Before the End of the Fourth Century
Because God had turned the Nicolaitan-Balaamite Bishops over to a reprobate
mind, many of them, if not all, believed that the Babylonian Mysteries were God's
true doctrines in disguise. As a result, they began to incorporate them into their
religious beliefs. They hoped by doing this, they could win pagans over to their
religion. So, somewhere in the second century, they started Christianizing pagan
beliefs. The following paragraphs name a few of these beliefs.
According to Guignebert, ~Toward the end of Constantine`s reign ¡337 AD], the
union of Church and the State, the absorption of paganism by Christianity, and its
total destruction with the connivance and, if necessary, the help of the State, could
have been foreseen. This achievement...was accomplished in the course of the four
century.¨ ¡129]
Arkon Daraul in his book entitled "ecret "ocieties compared the old pagan religions
such as Mithraism with that of Roman Catholicism, and has this to say, ~It is
claimed by those who still believe in its Mysteries and celebrate them, that ¡Roman
Catholic] Christianity did not so much supplant Mithraism as absorb it.¨ ¡130]
Guignebert informs us that ~Mithra is a solar deity, and his birth occurs upon the
25th of December, i.e. the winter solstice.¨ ¡131] 1ones boldly told the truth and did
not try to water it down. He stated that Roman Catholicism ~began to be paganized
or, as some prefer, paganism was Christianized.¨ ¡132]
Ronald Holmes in his book 0itchcraft !n History revealed some of the pagan
doctrines Roman Catholicism adopted when she joined hands with Religious or
Mystery Babylon and her harlot daughters in marriage. He stated, "The early
¡Catholic] Christians had tried to be as flexible as possible in their spreading of the
gospel in order to provide further links for potential converts between Christian and
non-Christian beliefs.¨ ~But what was perhaps the master-stroke in this approach,¨
Holmes says, was ~when the ¡Catholic] Church Fathers declared the birth day of
Christ to be December 25.... By this stratagem Christ was made identifiable in the
minds of many pagans with the particular sun-god ¡Baal] they worshipped, and a
connection was supplied which serve as a strong bridge to ¡pagan Catholic]
Christianity." ¡133]
Let my readers make a deep mental note of the doctrine of hell which became the
master link that united pagans of all countries with Pagan Roman Catholicism, it
was by transforming the birthday of Baal the sun-god into the birthday of Christ.
The Winter Solstice falls on the 21st day of December, which is the shortest day of
the year. On the 25th of December the days begin to lengthen again, therefore what
you have is a type of the sun dying on the twenty first day and resurrecting or
becoming Born Again New Birth on the 25
th
.
In a sense, it was Nimrod the Father, as the sun god Baal, dying on the twenty first
day of December and his soul becoming reborn or reincarnated in Tammuz the Son
on the 25th. The Catholics took Lucifer`s holy day, the 25 of December, which
witches and pagans of all religious societies in every age cherished, and desecrated
Christ by claiming He was born on that day. It is obvious to me that the pagans
thought 1esus Christ was just another name for Baal, because this sun god was
called by many different names in every country.
In Charles Heckethorn`s book The "ecret "ocieties, we can find some of the other
pagan doctrines the Catholic Church adopted from Mystery Babylon and all of her
harlot pagan daughters. Heckethorn says, ~The festival of the 25th of December was
celebrated...to announce the birth-day of the god Sol.... This festival indeed was kept
not only by the Druids, but throughout the ancient world.. The early ¡Nicolaitan]
Christians judiciously adopted not only the festival days of the pagans, but the mode
of keeping them.¨
Heckethorn, commenting about the pagan origin of the Trinity and other doctrines
of Roman Catholicism, compared them to the teaching of the Druids, which is an
ancient Babylonian Witchcraft Priesthood that originated at the Tower of Babel. He
wrote, "The doctrine of the unity and trinity was inculcated in all the mysteries. In
the most ancient religious creeds we meet with the prototype of the ¡Roman Catholic
and Protestant] Christian dogma.... The Druids taught the doctrine of one supreme
being, a future state of rewards and punishments, the immortality of the soul, and
metempsychosis ¡reincarnation].¨ ¡134]
Heckethorn went on to revealed that the main two deities that the Druids
worshipped were, "the great father and mother, Hu and Ceridwen, distinguished by
the same characteristics as belonged to Osiris and Isis ¡Egyptian deities], Bacchus
and Ceres ¡Grecian deities], or any other supreme god or goddess." ¡135] Remember
all the so-called deities of the nations that spoke of a Trinity of a father, mother and
a son represented Nimrod, Semiramis and Tammuz. The Word of God gives their
deified names as Baal, Ashtaroth and Tammuz (1ud 2:13 and Eze 8:14).
Lucifer`s Babylonian Catholic Trinity now became a reality. As my readers can see
by now, the Bishops of the Catholic Church, for the most part, were solidly behind
their new Trinity doctrine of three separate persons instead of two persons in the
godhead. Catholic Bishop 1erome (c. 390) confirmed this Council`s decision when he
said, ~it is the custom at baptism to ask, after the confession of faith in the Trinity,
do you believe in the Holy Church.¨ ¡136]
CHAPTER 4
HI(TOR" REEEA!( THAT GOD>( APO(TO!IC PENTECO(TA! CHURCE( ;ERE
IN THE EA(T -A6ORIT" RO- 33C3DD AD
Catholic Cardinal Newman`s Confession
Catholic Cardinal Newman confessed that God`s Modalist Monarchian Churches
were in the vast majority for the first 400 years. The well known Catholic professor
1ohn Henry Cardinal Newman, in his work entitled Essays %nd "+etches, presented
Catholicism as the original Church. But even he had to admit that the doctrines of
the Trinity, apostolic succession, the Eucharist, and the Mass are not found in the
Bible. Even though he understood these facts, he still believed they were true. He
defends them not from a Biblical point of view, but from the traditions of the early
Catholic Fathers. He most definitely believed that the Bible must be interpreted by
their writings, and only by their writings. He admonished all Protestants to accept
by faith these Catholic doctrines, since they have accepted the Catholic doctrine of
the Trinity by faith without any real scriptural proof. In volume one, he made the
following statements:
Newman asked Protestants, "Where was your Church before Luther?¨ The obvious
and historical answer is they were in the Roman Catholic Church. He then
proceeded by saying, ~Take a large view of the faith of Christians during the
centuries before Constantine established their ¡meaning the Roman Catholic]
religion. Is there any family likeness in it to Protestantism?" ¡137] The obvious
answer is no. He then went on to prove that historically, by comparing the teachings
of the Reformers with that of the Catholic Ante Nicene Fathers.
After that, Father Newman made a very shocking confession. Let's hear this Priest's
confession and see if He makes a good and true confession before we grant him
absolution. He said, ~all parties must confess, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is
not brought out in form upon the surface of Scriptures.¨
~As I have said more than once, to allege, that all points that are beyond clear
Scripture proof are mere peculiarities of each sect ¡meaning different religious
systems]; so that if all Protestants were to agree to put out of sight their respective
peculiarities ¡meaning unscriptural doctrines], they would then have a Creed set
forth distinctly, clearly, and adequately, in Scripture; for take that single instance,
which I referred to in a former Lecture, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Is this to be
considered as a mere peculiarity or no? Apparently a peculiarity ¡for] it is not
brought out in form in Scripture. First, the word Trinity is not in Scripture. Next I
ask how many of the verses of the Athanasian Creed are distinctly set down in
Scripture?" ¡138] The answer to Newman`s question is very few.
Newman continued his confession and reproach of Protestants by saying, "He who
admits the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, in spite of felling its difficulties, whether in
itself or in its proof - who submits to the indirectness ¡meaning lack] of the Scripture
evidence as regards that particular doctrine - has a right to be told those other
doctrines, such as the apostolic succession." ¡139]
Newman proceeded with his confession and reproach to the fallen away daughters
of Catholicism by saying, "not Scripture, but history ¡meaning the tradition of the
Ante Nicene Priests] is our informant in Christian doctrine..¨ All Protestants ~who
consider the Bible as the one standard of faith,¨ meaning those who say they base
their beliefs on the Bible and not tradition, ~let no one take refuge and comfort in
the idea that he will be what is commonly called an orthodox Protestant., ¡if] he
will admit the doctrine of the Trinity, but not that of the Apostolic Succession.;
¡for] this is an impossible position: it is shutting one eye, and looking with the other,
shut both or open both." ¡140]
What confessor Newman is saying is this, since Protestants have accepted and
believed the Catholic version of the Babylonian Trinity by faith without any real
scriptural proof, they then have earn for themselves the right to accept and believe
by faith all other Catholic doctrines which are also not directly taught in the Bible,
as he openly admitted on pages 122, 206, 207 and 211. No matter what people may
or may not say about Cardinal Newman, I do believe he made a good and true
confession, for which God's people everywhere do thank him, and grant unto him
absolution. Now, with the above truths in mind, let`s proceed with the history of
God`s True Church.
Newman made his greatest and boldest confession when he was scolding the
Protestants about Luther's protest. He referred them to the protest that was made
by the one God 1esus` Name Apostolic Christians, who believed all the godhead, i.e.
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, dwelt totally in one person, the Lord 1esus Christ.
Newman said, "Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third century protested
against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity.... Noetus was in Asia
Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we read...their doctrine
prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great
extent, and the true faith ¡Catholicism] was hardly preached in the churches.¨ ¡141]
This is the greatest confession of truth, I have ever read from any Protestant or
Catholic minister. Newman clearly stated that the Catholic Churches, in the Roman
Empire, were in the vast minority for over three hundred years, and the Modalist
Monarchian Pentecostal Churches were in the majority. The truth is they were in
the majority for almost four hundred years. Now, were did Newman read this about
the true believers? He did not say. I will shortly show that he read this in the
writings of Tertullian and Hippolytus.
Protestant Doctor 1ames Hastings` Confession
Doctor 1ames Hastings declared that the One God, 1esus` Name Churches were in
every part of the Roman Empire. According to Hastings, Tertullian sums up his case
against the Latin and Greek Modalist Monarchians by saying, ~the Latins take
pains to pronounce monarchia, the Greeks refuse to understand aeconomia... For
extolling the monarchia at the expense of the aeconomia, they contend for the
identity of Father, Son, and Spirit.¨ ¡142]
107 AD, Catholic Priest Ignatius` Confession
Nicolaitan Catholic Bishop Ignatius wrote against God`s Apostolic Church: In his
Epistle to the Trallians, he tried to defame God`s people by saying, the Oneness
Pentecostals teach ~that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person.¨
¡143] Satan used this apostate to start the Catholic Church.
Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philippians stated: There are not then either three
Fathers, or three Sons, or three Paracletes, but one Father, and one Son, and one
Paraclete. Wherefore also the Lord, when He sent forth the apostles to make
disciples of all nations, commanded them to baptize in the name of the Father, and
of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,` not unto one ¡person] having three names, nor
into three who became incarnate, but into three possessed of equal honor.. For
there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the
Paraclete, but the Son only, ¡who became so] not in appearance or imagination, but
in reality. ¡144]
In the Syriac Version of Ignatius` epistles, we find his so-called refutation of errors.
In his Epistle to the Tarsians, he writes, 1esus ~Himself is not God over all, and the
Father, but His Son.. Wherefore it is one ¡Person] who put all things under, and
who is all in all, and another ¡Person] to whom they were subdued, who also
Himself, along with all other things, becomes subject ¡to the former]. ¡145]
In his Epistle to the %ntiochians, he again writes against God`s Monotheistic, 1esus`
Name Church. He told them to ~reject every 1ewish and Gentile error, and neither
introduce a multiplicity of gods, nor yet deny Christ under the pretense of
¡maintaining] the unity of God.¨ ¡146]
150 AD, Catholic Priest 1ustin Martyr`s Confession
1ustin Martyr wrote against God`s Pentecostal Church. In his ,irst %polo&y he says,
~For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become
acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a
Son.¨¡147]
180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus` Confession
Irenaeus speaking against God`s Apostolic Church and Gnostics wrote, ~But there
are some who say. that 1esus was the Son, but that Christ was the Father and the
Father of Christ.¨ ¡148]
200 AD, Catholic Priest Tertullian`s Confession
Tertullian confessed that Praxeas and the One God, 1esus` Name Modalist
Monarchians Churches were in the vast majority in the third and earlier centuries.
He wrote, ~The older ¡so-called] heretics much more before Praxeas, a pretender of
yesterday...¡who preaches] this heresy, which supposes itself to possess the pure
truth, in thinking that one cannot believe in the one only God in any other way than
by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame
person.... The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and unlearned, who always
constitute the majority of believers, are startled at the dispensation of the three in
one, on the ground that their very rule of faith withdraws them from the world's
plurality of gods to the one only God.¨ ¡149]
Tertullian continued, ~The numerical order and distribution of the Trinity, they ¡the
Apostolic believers] assume to be a division of the unity.... They are constantly
throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they
take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the one God.¨
¡150] Let my readers make a mental note of this truth, Tertullian clearly stated
beyond all argumentation that the One God, 1esus Name people were in existence
long before Praxeas began to preach against him and the heretics of that day.
Tertullian also openly admitted that God`s people constituted the majority of
Christians in his day.
225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus` Confession
This Catholic Priest confessed that God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Churches vastly
outnumbered the Catholic Churches in his day. He also confessed that some, if not
many, of the Catholic Churches were converted to the One God, 1esus Name
message; he even confessed that several Bishops or Popes of Rome believed and
taught that Christ was the God the Father manifested in flesh.
Hippolytus declared that Catholic Bishop Callistus of Rome taught that ~there is
one Father and God, namely, the Creator.. In substance He is one Spirit. For
Spirit, as the Deity,` he says, is not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos
from the Deity;` therefore this one person, according to Callistus, is divided
nominally, but substantially not so. He supposes this one Logos to be God, and
affirms that there was in the case of the Word an incarnation. And he is disposed to
maintain, that He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is the Son, but that
the Father it is who dwells in Him.. All ¡Catholic] consented to his hypocrisy, we
¡two-god Catholics] however did not do so and ¡they] called us worshippers of two
gods.... This Callistus became a martyr at the period when Fuscianus was Prefect of
Rome.¨ ¡151]
Let my readers notice, that the true believers greatly out numbered Hippolytus and
his small band of Catholic followers. Not only this, but this proves that their were in
the Roman Empire two opposing churches, God`s Modalistic Monarchian Church
and Satan`s two god Catholic Church. God`s People did not accuse Catholic
Hippolytus of believing in three gods but two gods.
According to Harnack, ~Tertullian and Hippolytus did not, to all appearance,
succeed in getting their form of doctrine approved in the Churches. The God of
mystery of whom they taught was viewed as an unknown God.¨ Their ~Logos¨
doctrine implied that the Logos was ~an inferior divine being, or rather at once
inferior and not inferior. This conception, however, conflicted with tradition as
embodied in worship, which taught men to see God Himself in Christ.¨
He went on to say, ~It was only from the second half of the fourth century ¡350 AD]
that the West was invaded by the Platonic theology which Hippolytus, Tertullian,
and Novatian had cultivated, to all appearance without any thorough success. Some
of its results were accepted, but the theology itself was not.... Yet there is no mistake,
on the other hand, as we are taught by Institutiones of Lactantius as well as the
Tractates of Cyprian, that the rejection of Modalism and the recognition of Christ as
the Logos forced upon the West the necessity of rising from faith to a philosophical
and, in fact, a distinctively Neoplatonic dogmatic. It was simply a question of time
when the departure should take place.¨ ¡152]
Protestant Doctors M'Clintock and Strong`s Confession
Doctors M'Clintock and Strong declared there were Oneness Preachers in the first
and second century. They said, Modalist ~Monarchianism is generally supposed to
have originated about the end of the second century. It seems to us, however, that
this ¡so-called] heresy may be traced to the very earliest times of Christianity. 1ustin
Martyr ¡c. 150] expressly denounces it, and his notice guides us to its source, for he
finds the heresy to exist both among the ¡Christian] 1ews and ¡gentile] Christians.
He condemns the ¡Christian] 1ews for thinking that, when God was said to have
appeared to the patriarchs, it was God the Father who appeared.¨
~!n the Dialo&ue with Trypho, he handles the same topic, and extends the charge to
the ¡gentile] Christians. I am aware that there are some ¡God`s Preachers] who
wish to meet this by saying that the power which appeared from the Father of the
universe to Moses, or Abraham or 1acob... is unseparated and undivided from the
Father...' (Cc. 1227, 128).¨ ¡153]
Drs. Roberts and Donaldson translated this passage this way, ~I know that some
wish to anticipate these remarks, and to say that the power sent from the Father of
all which appeared to Moses, or to Abraham, or to 1acob. is indivisible and
inseparable from the Father, just as they say that the light of the sun on earth is
indivisible and inseparable from the sun in the heavens.¨¡154] This is positive proof
that 1ustin is writing against God`s People who taught the almighty dwells in Christ.
Drs M'Clintock and Strong also declared that ~A resemblance has been noticed
between the tenets of Valentinus and those of Sabellius (Peturius, Dogma Theology,
2, i, 6; Wormius, History Of Sabellius, ii, 3), and Neander is inclined to think that
Marcion may have adopted some of the Patripassian doctrines in Asia Minor
(Church History, i, 796; Burton, Bampton`s Lectures, note 103).¨ ¡155]
Valentinus and Marcion, like the Catholic apologists, were heretics. Many of earlier
heretics adopted some of the teachings of the God`s true Bride, for example, most of
the early heretics, if not all, baptized in 1esus` Name until c. 325. The two main
opponents against the truth in the third century were Tertullian and Hippolytus. It
is mainly through the writing of these two Catholic apologists that we know as much
as we do about the true Bride of Christ.
Protestant Professor Adolf Harnack`s Confession
Protestant Professor Harnack also confessed that God`s Pentecostal Churches were
in the vast majority before the Nicene Council. Harnack says, ~The real dangerous
opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between AD 180 and 300 was not
Adoptianism, but the doctrine which saw the Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and
conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father becoming flesh....
Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian
controversy agitated the whole ¡Catholic] Church, and Tertullian and Origen
testified, that in their day the economic` trinity, and the technical application of the
conception of the Logos to Christ, were regarded by the mass of Christians with
suspicion. Modalism, as we now know from the Philosophumena, was. the official
theory in Rome... The Modalistic doctrine which sought to exclude every other... was
embraced by the great majority of all Christians¨ before and after the Nicene
Council. ¡156]
The International Standard Bible Encylopaedia`s Confession
The !nternational "tandard #i$le Encylopaedia also declared that God`s Apostolic
Church was in the majority in the 3rd And 4th centuries. It stated,
~Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son, and Spirit so completely that they were
thought of only as different aspects or different moments in the life of the one Divine
Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, as His several activities came
successively into view, almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as
the doctrine of the church at large.. In the early years of the 4th century, the
Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in
what is known as Arianism..¨¡157]
CHAPTER 5
HISTORIAL PROOF OF THE EXISTENANCE
OF GOD`S APOSTOLIC PENTECOSTAL CHURCH IN EACH CENTURY
33-96 AD: This history is designed to give my readers a basic understanding of the
great history of the One God, 1esus Name, Apostolic Pentecostal Church and the
preachers who proclaimed it. The apostles of the Lamb started this Church on the
day of Pentecost. The last apostle to live was 1ohn, who wrote the book of Revelation
somewhere around c. 96. In the second and third chapter of this great prophetic
book, our holy Savior reveals that His Church never ceased to exist in any Church
Age. This history is a sketch or an outline of this subject, and it is no way intended
to be a complete history.
According to the Bible, the apostles and disciples of the Lamb taught and believed
that the Lord 1esus Christ is and was the only person in the godhead, and they all
baptized their converts in 1esus` name and only in His name in a single immersion,
and they also taught that one will speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives them the
words to speak when they are born of the Spirit. God`s people were always in every
century identified by these three teachings.
1ohn Sherrill, in his book entitled They "pea+ !n Other Ton&ues wrote, "tongues
continued to play a part in Christian experience down through the centuries.¨ ¡158]
Not only tongues played a key part in God`s Church in every century, but also
baptism in 1esus` Name and entire godhead dwelling in one person that is Christ
1esus. I challenge any preacher to show me just one place in the Bible, where the
apostles or any of the disciples, baptized anyone using the words Father, Son and
Holy Ghost. This preacher will give $10,000 to anyone who can. Let`s remember that
no one was baptized in Matthew 28:19.
The 1erusalem Bible, A Catholic Bible, Declared that the Early Church Baptized in
1esus` Name: In a footnote on Matthew 28:19 it stated, ~It may be that this
formula...is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive
community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing in the name of
1esus.¨
Professor Neander Declared that the Primitive Church Baptized in 1esus` Name: In
his work The 'rimitie Church, which appeared in The #i$lical )epository in April of
1834, Neander said, ~Baptism, therefore, in accordance with its characteristic
feature, was to be a baptism into Christ, into the name of Christ: and it can well be,
that originally in the formula of baptism this alone was made prominent.¨ ¡159]
Doctor Hastings Declared that the Early Church Baptized in 1esus` Name: Hastings`
Dictionary of the #i$le revealed that "The primitive church baptized in or into the
name of 1esus or 1esus Christ.... Thus the spoken formula in the name of 1esus
effected the presence of the risen Lord and gave the baptized into His possession and
protection." ¡160]
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary speaking of baptism in 1esus` Name stated, ~It is
clear then that from the first, baptism in the name of 1esus functioned as the rite of
entry or initiation into the new sect ¡called Christians].... Most ¡historians and
theologians] would hold that the phrase baptized into Christ` refers directly to
baptism (Rom. 6:3; 1Co. 10:2; 12:13; Gal. 3:27). A strongly held view here is that
into Christ` is an abbreviation of in/into the name of Christ.¨ ¡161]
The New Catholic Encyclopedia speaking of the formula for baptism also confirmed
this truth when it declared, "Although Matthew 28:19 speaks of the Trinitarian
formula, which is now used, the Acts of the Apostles 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5 and Paul
1Cor 1:13; 6:11; Gal 3:27; Rom 6:3 speaks only of Baptism in the name of 1esus....
After all, the validity of Baptism in the name of 1esus` was still accepted in the age
of scholasticism.... An explicit reference to the Trinitarian formula of Baptism
cannot be found in the first centuries. The Didache, for instance merely repeats Mt
28:19.¨ ¡162]
100 AD, Catholic History Revealed That The One God, 1esus Name, Tongue Talking
Churches Existed Before And During The Time Of The Catholic Apostolic Fathers
And Apologist: Professor Wolfson of Harvard speaking of this wrote, ~at the
beginning of the age of the apologist there appeared in Christianity a conception of
the Trinity ¡meaning the godhead] which later crystallized into the ¡so-called]
heresies of Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius.¨ ¡163]
Catholic Cardinal Newman revealed that the one God doctrine existed from the
earliest times of Christianity. He wrote, "Praxeas, Noetus, and Sabellius, in the third
century protested against the Catholic or Athanasian doctrine of the Holy Trinity....
Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. Nay we
read...their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier
date, to a very great extent, and the true faith ¡Catholicism] was hardly preached in
the churches.¨ ¡164]
Tertullian confessed that One God doctrine of the godhead existed much more
before Praxeas. He said, ~The older ¡so-called] heretics much more before Praxeas,
a pretender of yesterday...¡who preaches] that the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Ghost are the very selfsame person.. Who always constitute the majority of
believers..¨ ¡165]
A 1esus` Name Baptismal Ceremony in Rome: In an article entitled ~The Old Time
Religion,¨ Time Ma&a5ine referred to a baptismal ceremony that took place in c. 100
in the city of Rome. It stated, "The deacon raised his hand, and Publius Decius
stepped through the baptistery door. Standing waist-deep in the pool was Marcus
Vasca the wood-seller. He was smiling as Publius waded into the pool beside him.
Credis...?` he asked. Credo,` responded Publius. I believe that my salvation comes
from 1esus the Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate. With Him I die that
with Him I may have Eternal Life.` Then he felt strong arms supporting him as he
let himself fall backward into the pool, and heard Marcus' voice in his ear I baptize
you in the name of the Lord 1esus,` as the cold water closed over him.¨ (Dec.1955, pg
66).
107 AD, Ignatius Wrote Against God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Church: In his Epistle
to the Trallians he confessed that their were people in his day that believe and taught
~that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are but the same person.¨ ¡166]
110 AD, The Early Catholic Writing ~Hermas¨ Preached Baptism in 1esus` Name:
In % History Of Christianity !n The %postolic %&e, Professor Arthur McGiffert
declared that the early church baptized in 1esus` Name. He also mentioned that
Matthew 28:19 was never the formula of baptism used by the primitive church. He
wrote, ~The Trinitarian formula...which later became universal in the ¡Catholic]
church, we have no trace in the New Testament, except in the single passage, Matt
28:19....¨
~When and how such a formula arose, we do not know.... It is difficult to suppose
that it was employed in the early days...for it involves a conception of the nature of
the rite, which was entirely foreign to the thought of these primitive Christians..
The early disciples, and Paul as well, baptized into the name of Christ alone..
Hermas (Vis. iii. 7, 3) speaks only of baptism into the name of the Lord.¨ ¡167]
Hermas in his book entitled The "hepherd wrote of baptism ~in the name of the
Lord¨ and in the ~name of the Son of God,¨ and ~If you bear His name but possess
not His power, it will be in vain that you bear His name.¨ ¡168]
Catholic and Secular Encyclopedias Declared that the Catholic Church Changed the
Formula for Baptism: The Encyclopaedia #ritannica boldly declared that "The
baptism formula was changed from the name of 1esus Christ to the words of Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost by the Catholic Church." ¡169] The Catholic Encyclopedia also
revealed this same truth. ¡170] The %cts of 'aul and Thecla, written in the second
century, speaks of baptism ~in the name of 1esus Christ.¨ ¡171]
150 AD, 1ustin Martyr Wrote Against God`s Oneness 1esus Name People: 1ustin,
who started the first Catholic school of theology at Rome, in his ,irst %polo&y wrote,
~For they who affirm that the Son is the Father, are proved neither to have become
acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.¨
¡172]
1ustin Martyr Invented the Trinitarian Formula for Baptism, and He Used the
Name of 1esus in It: The New !nternational "tandard #i$le Encyclopedia declared,
~Baptism was always in the name of the Lord 1esus ¡alone] until the time of 1ustin
Martyr, when the triune formula was used.¨ ¡173] The early church always baptized
in 1esus` Name, and never used these titles in their formula for baptism. Scribner's
Dictionary Of The Bible confirmed this truth by saying, "The original form of
words was into the name of 1esus Christ or Lord 1esus. Baptism into the Trinity was
a later development." ¡174]
Hastings in his Dictionary Of The #i$le openly admitted that ~The original form of
words was 'into the name of 1esus Christ' or 'the Lord 1esus.' Baptism into the
name of the Trinity was a later development. After the one mention of it, Mt. 28:19,
we do not find it again until 1ustin Martyr, and his formula is not identical with that
in the Gospel.¨ ¡175] 1ustin was not only the first heretic to change the formula for
baptism, but also was the first to change the mode of baptism. Instead of using the
Biblical mode of one immersion in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ, he changed it
to three separate immersions.
1ustin, who wrote around c. 150, did not use the three titles of the godhead mention
in Matthew 28:19, but one name and two titles. 1ustin gives his baptismal formula
right after he finished his discourse on Plato's teachings of "the cross of the second
god," who was the "power next to first god." 1ustin declared that a convert should
be baptized or immersed one time "in the name of God the Father and Lord of the
universe, and ¡a second time in the name] of our savior 1esus Christ, and ¡a third
time in the name] of the Holy Ghost." ¡176]
This is the first Trinitarian formula for baptism that can be found in history.
1ustin`s trine mode and formula for baptism was adopted and used by the Roman
Catholic Churches from that time on until 325 AD. At the Council of Nicaea, the
Catholic Church changed their formula for baptism to one that used all three titles
of the godhead. The first immersion was done in the title of Father, the second in the
title of Son, and the third in the title of the Holy Ghost. In chapter 6 of this book, the
history of the Catholic Trinitarian formula for baptism is given.
165-? AD, Praxeas` A One God Preacher: According to Tertullian, Praxeas taught
that ~the Father and the Son are the same... ¡They] understand the Son to be the
flesh that is man that is 1esus, and the Father to be Spirit that is God that is
Christ.... The Word of God or the Spirit of God is also called the power of the
Highest, whom they make the Father....¨ ¡177]
175-189 AD, Eleutherus A Catholic of Rome Was Converted to Oneness Probably by
Praxeas: According to Prof. Harnack, Eusebius claimed Praxeas was in Rome when
Eleutherus was Bishop (AD 175-189). Catholics call Bishops of Rome Popes.
Harnack says, ~If this Bishop was Eleutherus, and that is probable from Euseb.
H.E. V. 4, then we have four Roman Bishops in succession who declared themselves
in favor of the Modalistic Christology, viz., Eleutherus, Victor, Zephyrinus, and
Callistus.¨ ¡178]
180 AD, Catholic Priest Irenaeus Wrote Against God`s Apostolic Church: He wrote,
~But there are some who say. that 1esus was the Son, but that Christ was the
Father..¨ ¡179]
185-? AD, Noetus A One God Preacher in Smyrna: Hippolytus declared that
~Noetus affirms that the Son and Father are the same ¡person], no one is ignorant.
For he makes his statement thus: `When indeed then, the Father had not been born,
He yet was justly styled Father: and when it pleased Him to undergo generation,
having been begotten, He Himself became His own Son, not another's.. He is styled
by the name of Father and Son, according to the vicissitude of times, ¡or at different
time periods]. He confessed Himself to those beholding Him a Son no doubt; yet He
made no secret to those who could comprehend Him of being the Father.¨ ¡180]
189-199 AD, Victor A Catholic Bishop of Rome Was Converted to Oneness Probably
by Eleutherus: According to professor Harnack bishop Victor believed in the
Modalist Monarchian one God doctrine. ¡181]
190-? AD, Epigonus A Disciple of Noetus: Harnack say ~Epigonus came to Rome in
the time of Zephyrinus, or shortly before c. 200.¨ ¡182]
192-? AD, Cleomenes A Disciple of Epigonus: Hippolytus stated that Cleomenes
started a Theology school in Rome. He wrote, ~the school of these heretics during
the succession of such Bishops, continued to acquire strength and augmentation
from the fact that Zephyrinus and Callistus helped them to prevail.¨ ¡183] Harnack
declared that Cleomenes remained the head of this school until c. 215, when
Sabellius succeeded him.
192-197 AD, The Start of the One God, 1esus` Name Montanists` Churches: Around
this time many of the people who were called Montanists became one God, 1esus`
Name believers. Hastings says ~By the end of the 2nd century there were two parties
of Montanists who took different sides in the ¡Modalist] Monarchian controversy.¨
¡184] The two god Montanists, who did not believe in oneness, split from the main
body. This small group was led by Tertullian. Blunt speaking of this says, ~The
author of Praedestinatus infers that the Tertullianists had...separated themselves
from the main body.... Augustine relates that in his time the remnant of the
Tertullianists in Cartage returned to the Catholic Church.¨ ¡185]
Some Catholics Fought Against God`s Pentecostal Churches: The Catholic
Encyclopedia also speaking of this split revealed that the most of the main body of
Montanist went with Aeschines and some with Alogi and others with different ones.
It says, ~A number of Montanists led by Aeschines became Modalists.... The Alogi
¡Montanist] have sometimes been classed with the ¡Modalists] Monarchians.¨ It also
revealed that there were a number of Catholics who wrote against them, such as,
~an anonymous bishop of Asia Minor who composed an influential three-volume
work on the subject c. 192-193, ...Apollonius c. 197 and others.¨¡186]
Hastings says the Montanists ~first attracted attention ¡to themselves] by speaking
in tongues." ¡187] According to 1esse Hurlbut in his history entitled The "tory of the
Christian Church, the Montanists "were Puritans...¡whom] believed in the
priesthood of all believers.. ¡They] held to prophetic gifts as the privilege of
disciples." ¡188]
All 1esus` Name people strongly denounced the Catholic Nicolaitan concept of the
ministry and other Catholic doctrines. In fact, Hastings says they ~used scathing
words about the ¡Catholic] ecclesiastical rulers, and stigmatized them as slayers of
the prophets.¨ Hastings went on to say that Montanists ~put forth treatises in which
the arguments of their opponents were answered.... The early Montanists were
prolific writers.¨ The Apostolic Montanists and all the other Apostolic Pentecostals
Movements were found in many parts of the Roman Empire. Hastings said
Montanists ~were found in every part of Asia Minor, in Egypt...and even in
Constantinople, though they were always most numerous in Phrygia.¨ ¡189]
199-210 AD, Zephyrinus A Catholic Bishop of Rome also Believed in Oneness:
Zephyrinus publicly declared that the ~Father and Son are called one God, and that
henceforth it is impossible that this single person can be divided into two.¨ ¡190]
200 AD, The One God Montanists also Had A Theology School in Rome: According
to Harnack, Aeschines was the head teacher of this school. Harnack says, ~Among
the Montanists at Rome there were, about AD 200, a Modalistic party and one that
taught like Hippolytus; at the head of the former stood Aeschines, Hippolytus says
(Philo. X. 26) that their doctrine was that of Noetus.¨ ¡191]
Tertullian Wrote Against Praxeas and other One God Believers: He wrote they
taught that ~the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost are the very selfsame
person....¨ ¡192] Tertullian, like 1ustin and all others of that ilk, definitely connected
his belief in the godhead to trine immersion in water baptism. He taught against the
singular immersion of Praxeas in Name of 1esus. Tertullian says, ~Not once, but
thrice, for the several names, into several persons, are we dipped.¨ ¡193]
These Catholic heretics hated God`s people and complained that Praxeas and other
1esus` Name Pentecostal Movements, who vastly out numbered them, called them
heretics. Tertullian wrote, ~The simple, indeed, I will not call them unwise and
unlearned, who always constitute the majority of believers, .are constantly
throwing out against us that we are preachers of two gods and three gods, while they
take to themselves pre-eminently the credit of being worshippers of the one God.¨
¡194]
210-222 AD, Callistus A Catholic Bishop of Rome also Believed in Oneness: Callistus
proclaimed that ~the Logos Himself is the Son, and Himself is the Father; and
though denominated by different titles, yet that in reality he is one indivisible
Spirit.¨ ¡195]
210-?, Sabellius A One God Preacher: According to Blunt ~The only Divine Sonship
allowed by Sabellian doctrine being then that which took place in time at the
Incarnation.¨ ¡196] The Catholic Encyclopedia stated, ~Saint Athanasius tells us that
he said the Father is the Son and the Son is the Father, one in hypostasis, but two in
name.¨ ¡197]
The writers of the above encyclopedia also declared, ~in the west they ¡the Modalist
Monarchians] were called Patripassians, whereas in the East they are called
Sabellians.¨ It went on to say, ~Sabellius or at least his followers may have
considerably amplified the original Noetianism.¨ ¡198]
215 AD, Catholic Priest Origen Wrote against God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Churches
in His Day: Origen, who was a teacher in the Alexandrian school, became very upset
with those who believed the godhead dwelt in Christ. According to Harnack, Origen
ridiculed God`s Modalist Preachers and poured out his vile by saying, there are
~always people who deny that the Father and Son are two Hypostases..` They
fuse together the Father and Son,` and admit distinctions in God only in
conception` and name,` and not in number.¨ ¡199] Origen was not writing against
an imaginary opponent who did not exist, or one who merely existed in the past, but
against the 1esus` Name people of his day, who had the fire of evangelism burning in
their souls. I presume he did not appreciate them rebuking him for his two-god
belief.
225 AD, Catholic Priest Hippolytus Wrote against the One God 1esus Name Tongue
Talking Churches: He declared that the one God people of his day taught that
~there is one Father and God, namely, the Creator.. In substance He is one Spirit.
For Spirit, as the Deity. is not any being different from the Logos, or the Logos
from the Deity.. He who was seen in the flesh and was crucified is the Son, but that
the Father it is who dwells in Him..¨ ¡200]
History clearly reveals that the majority of all Christians in the Roman Empire, for
the first four centuries, belonged to the Tongue Talking 1esus` Name Pentecostal
Churches. Professor Harnack says, ~The real dangerous opponent of the Logos
Christology,¨ meaning the Catholic two god doctrine, ~was not Adoptianism, but the
doctrine which saw the Deity Himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to
be God in a human body, the Father becoming flesh.... Hippolytus tells us in the
Philosophumena, that...the Modalistic doctrine which sought to exclude every
other...was embraced by the great majority of all Christians¨ before and during his
day. ¡201]
250-?, Commodian A One God Pentecostal Bishop in Africa: According to Wolfson,
Commodian taught in verse 91 of his Carmen %polo&eticum that, ~the Father went
into the Son ¡at Bethlehem] representing the views of Praxeas and Noetus.¨ ¡202]
Schaff says, ~Commodian was a Patripassian in Christology and a Chiliast in
eschatology.¨ ¡203]
250 AD, Catholic Priests Origen and Clement of Alexandria Wrote Against God`s
Apostolic Pentecostal Churches: The New Catholic Encyclopedia names several
Catholic Bishops who condemned God`s Pentecostal people and the gifts of the
Spirit that were working in them. Two of these Bishops were ~Clement of
Alexandria¨ and ~Origen.¨ ¡204]
Origen wrote against Celsus; he revealed that the heathen Celsus described the
powerful and anointed preaching of the one God 1esus` Name prophets of his day, as
if God was speaking through them, and closing their words with "strange, fanatical
and quite unintelligible words, of which no rational person can fine the meaning."
¡205] Obviously Celsus knew of these people even though Origen did not name
them.
Origen, Clement of Alexandria and others of his ilk were terrified of the gifts of the
Spirit, because they were afraid that God would publicly reprove them for their
false doctrines. Therefore, they claimed only heretics speak in tongues. As a result of
this kind of teaching, the Spirit of God departed from the Catholic Churches. So,
natural they branded all 1esus` Name Pentecostal People as heretics. According to
Blunt, Clement said that the Catholic ~Fathers gave it ¡speaking in tongues] as the
mark of the false prophets that they spoke in an ecstasy.¨ ¡206]
Origen declared that the gifts of the Spirit in the Catholic Churches had just about
disappeared. According to Blunt, Origen ~notes that the prophetic power had all but
ceased..¨ The gifts of the Spirit were still very much alive in God`s 1esus` Name
Churches in Origen`s day. Blunt says, the Pentecostal ~movement could hardly fail
to take place at a time when the miraculous powers and gifts which marked the
introduction of the Gospel were ceasing¨ in Catholicism. ¡207]
254 AD, God`s 1esus` Name Preachers Converted Many Catholic Bishops to the
Truth: Harnack also confessed that the 1esus` Name Modalist Monarchians in the
Pentapolis, Upper Libya, had ~won a great following even among the ¡Catholic]
Bishops, so that the Son of God was no longer preached,¨ in these Catholic
Churches. ¡208]
If my readers wonder what is meant by the phrase the Son of God was no longer
preached in the churches, permit me to explain. It simply means that these Catholic
Bishops no longer believed the Catholic doctrine that the Father created a separate
person or being from Himself called the Son before time began, but now believed
that the sonship program of God began at Bethlehem, or in other words, they did
not believe in the eternal sonship of Christ.
255-257 AD, Catholic Pope Stephen Defended Water Baptism in the Name of the
Lord 1esus Christ Even though He Believed in Ignatius` Doctrine of Two-Unequal-
gods: The Encyclopedia #ritannica declared, "In the third century, baptism in the
name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian
of Carthage, declared it to be valid." ¡209]
Baptism in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ was so popular during the first four
centuries that not only God`s Oneness Churches baptized that way, but the majority
of the Catholic and other heretical denominations. Historians have done their best to
totally ignore the real issue in this conflict, which is the name of 1esus in the formula
for baptism. The only thing they mention is that it was over the baptism of heretics,
whether or not they should be re-baptized. The following is only a brief synopsis of
this conflict.
Stephen, who was the Catholic Bishop of Rome from c. 255-257, bitterly opposed the
African churches headed by Cyprian, who was the Catholic Bishop of Carthage,
because they changed 1ustin`s Trinitarian formula of baptism. Cyprian and his
African group of rebels are the first to baptize anyone by invoking all the titles of
the godhead, which are Father, Son and Holy Ghost. Even though they kept trine
immersion, Stephen was angry because they took the name of 1esus out of their
Trinitarian formula and replaced it with the title Son. Stephen realized that
remission of sins was in the invoke name of 1esus in water baptism, therefore to take
it out of the formula for baptism is to make the New Birth unattainable.
In the %nte Nicene ,athers, there is a writing entitled ~A Treatise On Re-baptism,¨
written somewhere around c. 255, by an ~anonymous writer.¨ There is no doubt in
this author's mind that it was one of Bishop Stephen's Epistles, which he sent to the
Catholic Churches that were scattered throughout the Roman Empire. Let`s hear
what this Roman Bishop has to say against some of his fellow Catholic bishops: ~I
observe that it has been asked among the ¡Catholic] brethren what course ought
specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who, although baptized in
heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord 1esus Christ.¨
Pope Stephen continued, ~The point is whether, according to the most ancient
custom and ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after baptism which they have
received outside the ¡Catholic] Church indeed, but still in the name of 1esus Christ
our Lord, that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for the reception
of the Holy Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and
perfected seal of faith; or whether, a repetition of baptism afresh, just as if they were
never baptized in the name of 1esus Christ.¨ ¡210]
Pope Stephen went on to say, ~The power of the name of 1esus invoked upon any
man by baptism, might afford to him who should be baptized, no slight advantage
for the attainment of salvation as Peter related in the Acts of the Apostles, saying: `
for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be
saved.' As also the apostle Paul unfolds, showing that...invocation should be made in
the name of 1esus.... Therefore ought this invocation of the name of 1esus to be
received as a certain beginning of the mystery of the Lord common to us and to all
others ¡meaning other denominations].¨ ¡211]
Catholic Priest Cyprian Denounced His Pope For Defending 1esus` Name Baptism:
Cyprian said, ~Why has the bitter obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to
such an extent, as to contend that sons are born to God from the baptism of
Marcion; moreover of Valentinus and Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against
God the Father; and to say that remission of sins is granted in the name of 1esus
Christ.¨ ¡212]
Roman Catholicism Excommunicated African Catholicism for Taking the Name of
1esus Out of their Trinitarian Baptism Formula: In c. 255, Cyprian called a Council
at Carthage in which 31 bishops denounced baptism in the name of 1esus. This is the
first council in history, where baptism in the name of 1esus was formally denounced.
After this Council, Pope Stephen's called a Roman Council, in which he and other
Catholic Bishops excommunicate Cyprian and all those in the African Synod for
their stand on baptism. Schaff says it this way, ~He ¡Stephen] broke off all
intercourse with the African Church, as he had already done with the Asiatic¨
Churches ¡213]
256 AD, God`s Apostolic Churches, Catholic Churches and All Denominations
Baptized in 1esus` Name: Cyprian wrote to 1ubaian in c. 256, defending the African
Catholic Churches` stand on the formula for baptism. In it he revealed that Stephen
and all the other Catholic Bishops claimed that those who join their churches from
other denominations "ought not to be baptized because they seem already to have
been baptized in the Name of 1esus Christ....¨
~If the Patripassians, the Anthropians, the Valentinians, the Apelletians, the
Ophites, the Marcionites, and others, pests of heretics, and swords and poisons for
overthrowing the truth, confess the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy
Ghost, the same church, it can be that their baptism is one.... How, therefore do
some say that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, nay rather, and
against the ¡Catholic] Church, provided it be in the Name of 1esus Christ, wherever
it be and whatever it be, can obtain the remission of sins." ¡214]
This is also absolute proof that not only the one God, 1esus Name Modalist
Monarchians, or in this case, the Patripassians baptized in the name of 1esus, but
many, if not all, of the heretics did also. Some of the heretics that Cyprian
mentioned were Pope Stephen and other Catholics Bishops, the Anthropians, the
Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites, the Marcionites. This can only mean that
name of the Lord 1esus Christ was the baptismal formula, or used in the formula of
most of the religious denominations of the first, second and third centuries.
Catholic Bishop Firmilian also Denounced His Pope for Defending Baptism in 1esus`
Name: Firmilian, Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, wrote to Cyprian in c. 256
saying, ~If the baptism of heretics can have the regeneration of the second birth,
they who are baptized among them must not be considered heretics but sons of God,
because the second birth which is baptism generates sons of God.... He ¡Stephen]
says, the Name of Christ accomplishes very much for the faith and sanctification of
baptism, that whoever anywhere has been baptized in the name of Christ,
immediately gains the grace of Christ." ¡215]
Cyprian`s basic argument against Pope Stephen and the traditional Catholic
formula for baptism in 1esus` name was basically this: If the second immersion in
the Catholic formula had to be done in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ, and this
is true baptism, then heretics could also receive the Holy Ghost outside of the
Catholic Church simply by denominational Bishops laying their hands on them and
invoking the name of 1esus over them. This would mean that these people are not
heretics but true born-again Christians. Therefore, Cyprian argued that baptism in
1esus` name cannot be true baptism.
Cyprian argument went like this: ~If they ¡meaning Pope Stephen and the majority
of other Catholic Bishops in the Roman Empire] attribute the effect of baptism to
the majesty of the name, so that they who are baptized anywhere and anyhow, in the
name of 1esus Christ are judged to be renewed and sanctified; wherefore, in the
name of the same Christ, are not hands laid upon the baptized persons among them,
for the reception of the Holy Spirit?¨ ¡216]
Stephen`s argument against Cyprian was basically this: Even though heretics
baptize in the name of 1esus, which is true baptism, they cannot receive or be born
of the Holy Spirit unless a Catholic Bishop lays his hands on them. An extensive
history of this Catholic dispute is given in chapter six of this book, under the title of,
The History Of The Catholic Trinitarian ,ormula ,or #aptism.
260 AD, Many Catholic Churches in the East Were Converted to One God 1esus`
Name Modalism: In a history book entitled The Early Christian Church, Professor
1ohn Davies gave in interesting account of Dionysius fight to win these bishops and
their people back to the two god doctrine of Catholicism. Davies says, ~Modalism
continued to be a powerful force, and c. 260 Dionysius of Alexandria sought to
refute it in a number of letters in which he emphasized the distinction of Father, Son
and Spirit to such extent that his opponents considered him to be purveying
tritheism.¨ ¡217]
299 AD, Schaff-Herzog`s Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge Declared that 1esus`
Name Baptism Prevailed through the Centuries: It says, "The New Testament
knows only baptism in the name of 1esus...which still occurred even in the second
and third centuries." ¡218]
250-300 AD, Professor Harnack Declared that Catholic Churches Violently Opposed
God`s Apostolic Churches: He says, ~The fight against Monarchianism in the second
half of the third century was a violent one, and even the development of the Logos
Christology - of Origen - was directly and lastingly influenced by this opposition.¨
¡219]
Pagans Opposed Baptism in 1esus` Name: Not only was Catholicism against God`s
People, but even the heathens were against them. Porphyry, who was a Neo-Platonic
philosopher, wrote fifteen books. Around c. 300, in his book Macarius Ma&nes (iv.
19), he wrote against the One God people of his day. He detested the idea that they
believed and preached water baptism in 1esus` Name was for the remission of sins.
He proclaimed that this doctrine would give men excuse to live wickedly, and at the
end of their life they would get baptized so they could have their sins remitted.
Harnack quoted Porphyry as saying, ~We must feel amazed and concerned about
our souls, if a man thus shamed and polluted is to stand out clean after a single
immersion, if a man whose life is stained by so much debauchery, by adultery,
fornication, drunkenness, theft, sodomy, murder by poisoning, and many other
shameful and detestable vice - if such a creature, I say, is lightly set free from it all,
throwing off the whole guilt as a snake sheds its old scales, merely because he has
been baptized and has invoked the name of Christ.¨ ¡220] Obviously this pagan
believed in a doctrine of works for salvation.
300-399 AD, The writers of The Catholic Encyclopedia stated, ~There was still
Sabellianism to be found in the fourth century.¨ ¡221]
315-325 AD, Many Catholic Priest Wrote against Oneness Pentecostal Montanists:
Blunt reveals that many Catholic writers branded the Montanists as one God 1esus`
Name people. He says, Socrates (I, 23 - 315 AD), Sozomenus (ii, 18 - 325 AD)...
attribute Sabellianism to them.¨¡222]
324 AD, Catholic Councils Denounced Modalist Monarchian Churches: Blunt
revealed that the ~Alexandrian Councils held against Arianism involved
determinations against the conflicting ¡so-called] heresy of Sabellianism;
particularly that of AD 324.¨ ¡223]
325 AD, The Catholic Church Denounced Baptism in 1esus` Name and Adopted
Matthew 28:19 as their Baptismal Formula: Canney/s Encyclopedia Of )eli&ion says,
~The early church always baptized in the name of 1esus until the development of the
Trinity.¨ ¡224] Professor Williston Walker boldly confirmed this truth when he
declared in his book History Of The Christian Church that, ~Trinitarianism was
replacing one-God-ism, this appears in the Trinitarian baptismal formula, which
was displacing the older Baptism in the name of Christ.¨ ¡225]
Thomas Weisser, a One God 1esus` Name theologian and historian, produced a great
work entitled .esus/ Name #aptism Throu&h The Centuries. In it he quoted Robert
Robinson`s book entitled Ecclesiastical )esearches as saying the following about the
Council of Nice, "All the classes, who did not hold the doctrine of a Trinity of
persons in God, whether called Aretemonites, Paulianists, Arians, Monarchians,
Patripassians, Sabellians, or by any other name, ¡whom] administered baptism in
the name of Christ,¨ with a single immersion, ~these were the people whom the
council of Nice required to be rebaptized." ¡226]
My readers can see from this quote that many of the Catholic Churches had by this
time accepted the new Trinitarian formula of baptism that the African Catholic
Churches started. Many of the Catholic Popes from this time on condemned
baptism in 1esus, and demanded all those who came to the Catholic Church to be
baptized in the titles of the Trinity. There were a few Popes after this time that
defended baptism in 1esus` name. Is it not strange, what one Pope condemned,
another defended? The true believers were Modalist Monarchians, who were the
Patripassians and the Sabellians.
326-? AD, Marcellus the Catholic Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia Was Converted to
Sabellianism: Before Marcellus was converted to Oneness, he with Athanasius
defended the Catholic two-god doctrine at the Council Of Nice. Gibbon declared
Athanasius ~defended above twenty years the Sabellianism of Marcellus of Ancyra;
and when at last he was compelled to withdraw himself from his communion, he
continued to mention with an ambiguous smile the venial errors of his respectable
friend.¨ ¡227]
327-? AD, Photinus, Who Was A Disciple of Marcellus, Was A One God Preacher:
Blunt speaking of Photinus and those who followed him said, ~Theodoret says that
Photinus differs from Sabellius only in phraseology.... Photinus held the tenet of an
Antitrinitarian Monarchia, and that 1esus Christ was born of the Holy Ghost and
the Virgin Mary; that a certain portion of the Divine Substance, which he called the
Word, descended upon and acted through the man 1esus Christ; that on account of
this association of the Word with the human nature 1esus was called the Son of God,
and even God Himself; that the Holy Ghost was not a distinct Person, but a celestial
virtue proceeding from the Deity..¨ ¡228]
336-368 AD, Catholic Councils again Denounced God`s Modalist Monarchian
Churches: Blunt speaking of the fourth century Sebellianism says, ~Marcellus,
Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, and his followers held a third and advance stage of
Sabellianism. For this ¡so-called] heresy Marcellus was condemned by several Arian
Councils, particularly by that of Constantinople in AD 336.¨ Photinians were also
condemned at this council (Sulpic. Sever. ii. 36). ¡229]
Catholic heretics condemn Sabellianism many times in the fourth century in their
Councils and Creeds. Socrates revealed that in c. 340, ~the Eastern bishops again
assembled a Synod.. ¡They stated] the holy and Catholic Church likewise
anathematizes... those who say that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are the same
person.... Such are those denominated Patripassians among the Romans, and by us
Sabellians.¨ ¡230] One thing can be said of the Catholic Church throughout the
centuries, it freely and abundantly gave away it demonic curses to God`s Churches.
The Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia were held around c. 341. Both of these
councils condemned Modalist Monarchian preachers. In it we read, ~But those who
say that the Father and Son and Holy Ghost are the same, and irreligiously take the
three names of one and the same reality and person, we justly proscribe from the
Church because they suppose the illimitable and impassible Father to be limitable
withal and passible ¡meaning capable of feeling or suffering] through His becoming
man: for such are they whom Roman call Patripassians, and we Sabellians.¨
These councils continued with their Satanic blessings, ~We abhor besides, and
anathematize those who make a pretense of saying that he is but the mere word of
God and unexisting, having His being in another, - now as if pronounced, as some
speak, now as mental, - holding that he was not Christ or Son of God or
mediator...before ages; but that He first became Christ and Son of God, when He
took our flesh from the Virgin.... Such are the disciples of Marcellus and Scotinus
¡Photinus] of Galatian Ancyra.¨ ¡231]
Photinus and his followers were condemned at the ~Semi-Arian Council, the second
of Antioch - AD 344 (Socr. ii. 19),¨ ~the Council of Sardica - AD 347... (Sulpic. Sever.
ii. 36, Epiph. Haer. lxxi.),¨ ~a Council at Milan in in the same year,¨ ~a Council at
Rome - AD 349... (Hilar. Frag. Hist. ii. 21)¨ and ~the second Synod of Sirmium - AD
351... (Socr. ii. 29, Sozoin. iv. 6).¨ ¡232]
According to Socrates` church history, the Catholic Church ~assembled a Synod¨
about ~three years¨ after the last one. Schaff say the last one was the Council of
Sardica. So about c. 350, a creed was published, which Schaff entitled the ~Lengthy
Creed.¨ Socrates revealed that in this creed the Catholic Church anathematizes all
Oneness preachers but especially named Marcellus, Photinus and all the Galatians
of Ancyra. The Creed stated, ~The holy and Catholic Church likewise anathematizes
those who say...the same person is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, or that the Son was
not begotten, or that the Father begot not the Son by his own will or desire¨ in
eternity past. ¡233]
Socrates also mentioned a Creed published at Sirmium in c. 351. In it we find many
Satanic curses hurled against God`s Apostolic People of that day. It say, ~If any one
should affirm that the Father said not to the Son, Let us make man,` but that God
spoke to Himself, let him be anathema. If any one say that it was not the Son that
was seen by Abraham, but the unbegotten God, or a part of Him, let him be
anathema. If any one say that it was not the Son that as man wrestled with 1acob,
but the unbegotten God or a part of Him, let him be anathema.... For if any one
should say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one person, let him be
anathema.¨
~If nay one, speaking of the Holy Spirit the Comforter, shall call him the unbegotten
God, let him be anathema.... If any one affirm that the Spirit is part of the Father
and of the Son, let him be anathema.... For we ¡the Catholic Church] do not co-
ordinate the Son with the Father, but conceive Him to be subordinate to the Father.¨
¡234] By the term ~subordinate,¨ these heretics mean that the Son is an inferior
deity or less than the Father in power, glory and godhood.
The Encyclopedia #i$lica speaking of baptism in the name of 1esus Christ says,
~This was the formula of the followers of Eunomius,¨ It then went on to quote the
Catholic historian Socrates (5.24) as saying, ~for they baptize not into the Trinity,
but into the death of Christ.` They accordingly used single immersion only.¨
Blunt revealed that ~the seventh Canon of Laodicea¨ of 366 AD, condemned God`s
1esus` name people especially the ~Photinians.¨ ¡235] There was a Oneness Church
in Rome before and after c. 367. Harnack say, ~Epiphanius (H. 62. I) tells us that
there were Sabellians in Rome in his time.¨ ¡236] Around c. 368, there were Synods
held in Lampsacus, Smyrna and in other places, which Socrates did not name. In
them the Catholic hierarchy again condemned God`s holy Pentecostal people. ~We
condemn¨ says these Catholic Bishops, the doctrines of ~Sabellius, the
Patripassians, the Marcionites, the Photinians, the Marcellians, that of Paul of
Samosata, ¡and] those who countenance such tenets; in short all the heresies which
are opposed to the aforesaid sacred ¡Nicene] Creed.¨ ¡237]
According to Wolfson, Paul of Samosata and His followers were Modalist
Monarchians, even though they have been reported to hold strange beliefs about the
humanity of Christ. Wolfson writes concerning him, ~it is said that he believed that
God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God,` that is to say, one
person.¨ He went on to say, ~God`s Logos and his Holy Spirit are eternally in God
the Father, just as man`s own reason - Logos - is in his heart; the Son of God has no
subsistence of His own; it subsists in God the Father.¨ ¡238]
Blunt revealed that ~the seventh Canon of Laodicea¨ of 366 AD, condemned God`s
1esus` Name People especially the ~Photinians.¨ ¡239] There was a Oneness Church
in Rome before and after c. 367. Harnack say, ~Epiphanius (H. 62. I) tells us that
there were Sabellians in Rome in his time.¨ ¡240] Around c. 368, there were Synods
held in Lampsacus, Smyrna and in other places, which Socrates did not name. In it
they again condemned God`s Churches. ~We condemn¨ says these Catholic Bishops,
the doctrines of ~Sabellius, the Patripassians, the Marcionites, the Photinians, the
Marcellians, that of Paul of Samosata, those who countenance such tenets; in short
all the heresies which are opposed to the aforesaid sacred ¡Nicene] Creed.¨ ¡241]
According to Wolfson, Paul of Samosata and His followers were Modalist
Monarchians, even though they have been reported to hold strange beliefs about the
humanity of Christ. Wolfson writes concerning him, ~it is said that he believed that
God the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God,` that is to say, one
person.¨ He went on to say, ~God`s Logos and his Holy Spirit are eternally in God
the Father, just as man`s own reason - Logos - is in his heart; the Son of God has no
subsistence of His own; it subsists in God the Father.¨ ¡242]
370 AD, Catholic Bishop Ambrose Defended Baptism in 1esus` Name: Ambrose, who
was the Catholic Bishop of Milan, wrote against the Catholic Trinitarian formula
and mode of baptism in his day. Even though he held the Catholic view of the
godhead, he definitely believed in baptism in 1esus` Name with a single immersion.
In his work entitled The Holy Spirit he wrote, ~The Father and the Son and the
Holy Spirit have one name.... In the name, He ¡1esus] said, not `in the names.' So
there is not one name for the Father, another name for the Son, another name for
the Holy Spirit, because there is one God.... When it is said, in the name of our Lord
1esus Christ,` ¡referring to water baptism in Act 19:1-6], the mystery is completed
by the unity of the name.. The sacrament of baptism is full in the name of Christ."
¡243]
Ambrose claimed that the title LORD represented YHWH, which is the name of the
Father in the Old Testament. He said 1esus is the name of the Son, and Christ
represented the name of the Holy Spirit, because Christ means the Anointing. Thus
you have the one name of God in water baptism, the Lord 1esus Christ. Ambrose
believed in one immersion and in one name only. Since this was the One God, 1esus`
Name belief, Ambrose could not have been very popular with some his fellow
Catholic Bishops. According to a letter Ambrose wrote to Musonius, he was not
exempt from the fearless preaching of Modalist Monarchians in his day.
370 AD, Catholic Bishops Gregory and Basil Hated the One God, 1esus` Name
Churches of their Day: Harnack says, ~Gregory of Nyssa ¡c. 370] was always in a
fighting attitude toward Sabellianism.` The doctrine of the one God is to him
1ewish.¨ Harnack also mentions Basil, the bishop of Caesarea in c. 370, and his
indignation of some of his fellow Catholic Bishops, who, according to Basil, were too
friendly with Sabellians. ¡244]
Basil was elected to the See of Caesarea after the death of Eusebius. Basil writing to
Catholic Churches under his dominion reproved the notables of Neocaeesarea by
saying, ~There is going on among you a movement ruinous to the faith, disloyal to
the apostolical and evangelical dogmas.. For those men, who, from fear of
confutation, are forging figments against me, are endeavoring to renew the old
mischief of Sabellius, started long ago..¨
~Sabellianism is 1udaism. ¡calling the] Father Son and Holy Ghost one thing of
many faces, and makes the hypostasis of the three one.. Those of the foolish
Sabellius are now ventured on among you.. And because it is said, Go ye and
teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost,` it is obvious, they urge, that the name is one, for it is not in the
names,` but in the name..¨ ¡245]
375 AD, God`s 1esus` Name Preachers Converted Many Catholic Bishops to the
Truth: Basil wrote a letter to certain men, whom were called the Western Bishops,
warning them about great threat of Sabellianism in the eastern Catholic Churches.
He names Paulinus, who was the Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia, as one of the many
Bishops who left Catholicism and became a Sabellian in his teaching on the
godhead. ~Paulinus,¨ says Basil, ~has been devoted to the teachings of Marcellus
and has admitted his followers without investigation into his own communion. You
know, most honorable brethren, that the teaching of Marcellus contains a rejection
of all our hope, since it neither admits the Son in His own Person, but as brought
forth and having again return to Him whence He came forth, nor concedes that the
Paraclete subsists in His own Person.¨
Basil continued, ~if you should consent to write to all the churches in the East, that,
if those ¡Bishops] who are falsifying these things would correct themselves, they are
in communion, but, if they should wish contentiously to maintain the innovations,
you are to separated from them.¨ ¡246] Basil considered the preaching of
Sabellianism by those Catholic Bishops to be lies or falsification, and he commanded
these western bishops to break all communion with these eastern bishops if they did
not repent. It sure seems to me that the Catholic Church had a hard time keeping
their bishops from believing and preaching the true doctrines of Christ.
So, what was the result of these letters written by the western bishops to the eastern
bishops? Did these eastern bishops repent of their Sabellianism? Did they come
back to the two-god doctrine of Catholicism? ~The old heresy of Sabellius, the
enemy of the ¡Catholic] Church,¨ Basil writes, has infiltrated our churches, ~for the
brothers have announced to us that the ¡godhead] statements made are of the same
nature ¡as that of Sabellius].. The churches of God which are now grieved
unbearably and harshly at what has been done and what has been reported.¨ ¡247]
373-382 AD, Catholic Councils again Condemned God`s Oneness Churches: Blunt
says, ~Of the Post-Nicene councils, one at Rome - AD 373 - held under Damascus,
condemned this heresy, describing it in the simple terms that the Father and the Son
are one and the same (Theod. Hist. Eccl. v. 11). In the one held at Constantinople -
AD 381-2 - the heresy is condemned as well as that of the Marcellians and
Photinians; and Sabellian baptism is disallowed (canons i, vii).... Sabellians are
ordered to be baptized, and all other heresies, especially such as come from the
country of the Galatians.¨ ¡248] Blunt also wrote, ~The Marcellians are condemned
in the first Canon of Constantinople AD 381. They are named after the Sabellians,
and are followed by the Photinians.¨ ¡249]
Schaff speaking of the above council said they recognized ~the baptism of the
Arians, the Sabbatians...the Quartodecimanians, the Apollinarians, but rejected the
baptism of the Eunomians, who baptize with only one immersion,` the Sabellians,
who teach the Son-Father` ¡and] the Montanists.¨ ¡250] The Montanists mention
here are the descendants and converts of the large group of Montanist who were
converted to One God Modalism in c. 190. Blunt revealed that many Catholic
writers branded the Montanists as one God 1esus` Name people. He says, Socrates
(I, 23 - AD 315 AD), Sozomenus (ii, 18 - AD 325)... attribute Sabellianism to
them.¨¡251] Montanists were not only used in the gifts of the Spirit, but also
baptized in 1esus` Name.
The 1esuit Fathers of Saint Mary's College revealed that Pope Damascus at another
Council of Rome in c. 382 said, we ~anathematize those who follow the error of
Sabellius, saying that the Father is the same person as the Son.¨ ¡252]
390 AD, Audentinus A Powerful Catholic Bishop in Spain Wrote against the Various
One God, 1esus` Name Groups in that Country: In his book, entitled On ,aith
%&ainst Heretics, he wrote against the ~Sabellians¨ and especially ~against the
Photinians who are now called Bonosiacians.¨ ¡253]
Catholic Bishop 1erome Condemned God`s Apostolic Churches In His Day:
According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, ~1erome ¡c. 390] in describing
Montanism, lists the errors already mentioned and says that members of the sect
were infected with Sabellianism.¨ ¡254] Blunt revealed that 1erome said
~Montanists following the opinion of Sabellius bring the Trinity to the narrow
restraints of one Person.¨ ¡255]
395 AD, Catholic Bishop Augustine Hated the One God Modalist Monarchian
Churches of His Day: In a letter written after c. 395, Augustine, the Bishop of
Hippo, mention some of the 1esus` Name people in North Africa, who were
preaching the Almighty God in Christ. They were probably some of Commodian
And Sabellius` followers. Augustine writes, ~Let us not heed those who say there is
only the Father, who has no Son and with whom there is no Holy Spirit; but that the
same Father is sometimes called the Son, and sometimes called the Holy Spirit.¨
¡256]
400 AD, God`s 1esus` Name Triscilidae: Blunt mentions an unusual group of
Sabellians that existed around c. 400. He stated, the ~Triscilidae: A sect of Sabellian
heretics mentioned by Philaster (Haer. xciii), Augustine (Haer. lxxiv.), and
Praedestinatus (Har. lxxiv.), as maintaining the opinion that the Divine Nature is
compose of three parts, one of which is named the Father, the second part the Son,
and the third the Holy Ghost.¨ ¡257] It appears to me they taught that God`s
substance or essence is composed of three natures, one called the Spirit, another
called the Soul and the third called the Body.
401-417 AD, Catholic Pope Innocent I and Emperor Honorius Violently Opposed
the One God Tongue Talking Churches of their Day: God`s Pentecostal Churches
are no strangers to Catholic persecution. According to the New Catholic
Encyclopedia, ~The importance of the sect ¡Montanism] during the early centuries
may be judge by the attention it received from ancient ¡Catholic] Christian
writers.... The energetic opposition of Pope Innocent 1 (401-417) and the laws of the
Emperor Honorius 1 against ¡the so-called] heresy (Feb. 22, 407).¨ ¡258]
404 AD, Even though Pope Innocent I Hated God`s Oneness Churches, He Accepted
Baptism in 1esus` Name as True Baptism: Weisser in his great work .esus/ Name
#aptism Throu&h The Centuries, quoting from Denzinger`s book entitled The
"ources Of Catholic Do&ma, revealed that this Pope wrote an Epistle to Vitricus,
Bishop of Rouen on February 15, 404. According to Denzinger, this Pope wrote,
"those who come from the Novatians or the Montanists should be received by the
imposition of the hand only, because they baptized in the name of Christ." ¡259] Let
my readers take note, this Pope defended baptism in 1esus` name. He also informs
us that the Novatians and the one God Tongue Talking Montanists of his day
baptized in the name of 1esus.
409-? AD, The Catholic Church Wrote Many Books against the Different Groups of
Modalist Monarchians that Were in Spain: Robert Robinson`s in his book entitled
Ecclesiastical )esearches, speaking of the fifth through the eight centuries wrote,
~their were in Spain Christians of all descriptions, as well as 1ews and pagans. This
appears by the books published by the Catholic faction against Manicheans,
Priscillianist, Acephali, Sabellians, Photinians, Arians, and others, whom they
insolently named heretics.¨
451 AD, The Council of Chalcedon and Catholic Pope Leo I Condemned God`s
Modalist Monarchian Churches of their Day: Blunt declared that ~The Allocution of
the Council of Chalcedon AD 451 to the Emperor Marcian (Harduin, Council, ii. col.
645) describes the Monarchianism of Photinus and Marcellus.¨ ¡260] Pope Leo 1 in
the very same year took his turn at persecuting God`s Pentecostal People. They were
the one God 1esus` Name Priscillians. These were the people who broke away from
some of the doctrines of Priscillian and became Modalist Monarchians. According to
Harnack, the ~Priscillians and Sabellians are classed together... ¡by] Leo 1.¨ ¡261]
Schaff says, ~In the fourth and fifth centuries, the ¡Catholic] Fathers used the term
Sabellianism in a general sense for various forms of Monarchianism, all of which,
however, tended in the one direction, viz., toward the denial of any personal
distinction in the godhead, and hence the identification of Father and Son.¨ ¡262]
507 AD, King Clovis and His Entire Army Was Baptized in 1esus` Name: Reverend
Marvin Arnold is also a One God 1esus` Name theologian and historian. In his great
work entitled the History Of The Christian Church, he revealed that King Clovis of
the Franks, "promised God if He help him defeat them ¡the Visigoths], he and his
army would be immersed in 1esus` name. The Visigoths were defeated at Vouille in
AD 507, and Clovis was baptized in Christ's Name." ¡263] It is obvious from this
passage, Clovis` personal minister, whether he was a Catholic or Pentecostal, must
have preached to him the New Birth message which included baptism in the name of
1esus. Arnold went on to reveal that Oneness Christianity was wide spread in the six
century.
529-557 AD, Catholic Emperor 1ustinian I Brutally Persecuted God`s Tongue
Talking Montanist Churches: This Catholic Emperor did his best to stop all
preaching of oneness, rebaptism movements that baptized in 1esus` Name, speaking
in tongues and the prophesying of God`s people. This demonic Emperor in 529 AD
created the 1ustinian Code, which demanded the death penalty for all who believed
and taught these doctrines. According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1ustinian
wrote ~severe anti-Montanist legislation.¨ He murdered many thousands of God`s
holy, innocent, harmless Children. But, as he found out, there was no way he could
stop the move of God`s Spirit. This history continued by saying, Montanism ~spread
rapidly and widely through the East and West..¨ ¡264]
Hastings speaking of the persecution of the One God, 1esus` Name, Tongue Talking
Churches in the Roman Empire declared that they ~survived the stringent edicts of
various emperors..¨ ¡265] There is no way the gates of Catholic hell will ever
prevail against God`s Church. God will never leave Himself without a witness. For
history declared, ~Montanism was a manifestation of a recurring phenomenon,¨
referring to speaking in tongues through the Holy Ghost.
553 AD, The Council of Constantinople: In this year, another council was convened
in which these heretical Catholic priests again condemned baptism in 1esus` Name
of the Sabellians.
556-561 AD, Catholic Pope Pelagius Condemned the One God, 1esus` Name
Churches of His Day: According to Weisser, Denzinger also quoted Catholic Pope
Pelagius (556-561 AD) as saying, "there are many who assert that they are baptized
in the name of Christ alone with only one immersion.¨ Pope Pelagius continued by
giving his imperial edict. He commanded, ~give each one holy baptism in the name
of the Trinity and with a triple immersion." ¡266]
Pope Pelagius openly confessed that there were many true Christians who baptized
in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ with only one immersion in the six century. He
also acknowledged that the Roman Catholic Church in his time, not only baptized in
the name of the Trinity, but also continued to use trine immersion. Let my readers
remember, what this Catholic Pope condemned, others Popes before him defended.
Hasting wrote, ~By the time of the provincial Council of Braga 561 we see how these
Monarchia principles have verged into Priscillianism....¨ ¡267] 1. F. Bethune-Baker,
in his book entitled %n !ntroduction To The Early History Of Christian Doctrine,
mentioned that Martin Damiun, the Bishop of Braga, condemned the baptism of the
Sabellians for ~retaining single immersion under a single name¨ ¡268]
600-699 AD, Popes of the Seventh Century Excommunicated the Entire Catholic
Celtic Churches that Baptized in 1esus` Name: Dr. F. C. Conybeare, in his Hi$$ert
.ournal, speaking of the Celtic Catholic Churches baptizing in the name of the Lord
1esus Christ and not the Trinity wrote, ~In the middle of that century ¡the third
century] Cyprian could insist on the use of the triple formula as essential in the
baptism even of the ¡so-called] orthodox. The pope Stephen answered him that the
baptism, even of heretics was valid, if the name of 1esus alone was invoked.¨
~However, this decision did not prevent the popes of the seventh century from
excommunicating the entire ¡Catholic] Celtic Church for it adhesion to the old use
of invoking the one name.¨ The Celtic Churches consisted of Indo-Europeans from
France, Great Britain, Ireland, and Scotland. It is evident that the One God, 1esus
Name, Pentecostals, who were in those countries, converted many of the Celtic
Catholics to the truth.
601 AD, Catholic Pope Gregory I Condemned the Modalist Monarchian Churches
of His Day: This Pope wrote a letter to Bishop Quiricus on 1une 22, 601, in which he
instructed Quiricus to baptize all those "who are not baptized in the name of the
Trinity, such as the Bonosiacians ¡Photinians] and... many others." ¡269] Obviously
their were many One God 1esus` Name groups, such as the Bonosiacians, who were
also known as the Photinians, in Pope Gregory`s day that did not baptize in the
name of the Trinity, but did baptized in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ. Here is
another Catholic Pope that condemned baptism in 1esus` Name.
649-692 AD, Catholic Councils again Curse God`s Holy Apostolic Churches:
Hastings revealed that the One God 1esus` Name Modalist Monarchians doctrines
continued to exist throughout the centuries. He declared that Catholic Popes and
Catholic Councils were always condemning them. He says this "can be seen by the
frequent condemnations of them in the shape of Sabellianism.... The same
comprehensive condemnation was repeated in the Lateran Council of 649, (canon
18)." ¡270]
The Catholic bishops at Eleventh Council of Toledo in c. 675 took their turn at
condemning God`s holy, living and anointed Church. According to The Church
Teaches this council cursed all of God`s People who deny the Trinity doctrine which
teaches, "The Son is not the same person as Father, nor the Father the same person
as the Son, nor is either the Father or Son the same person as the Holy Spirit."¡271]
Blunt declared that the ~Council of Trulo - A. D. 683, canon 95¨ condemned 1esus`
Name Baptism and the Modalistic Monarchian.¨ ¡272] According to Schaff the
~Trullan Council of 692, in its 95th canon¨ also joined the long list of Catholic
Councils that condemned Modalist Monarchians. It especially named the ~one
immersion¨ of ~Sabellian baptism.¨ ¡273]
As my readers can now see, God`s 1esus` Name Churches were still preaching Acts
2:38 and Almighty God in Christ in the seventh century, and as usual Catholicism
hated it. Is it not strange that Catholic Councils in the seventh century are
condemning and cursing God`s Churches, who were suppose to have died in the
third or at the latest the fourth century. There is no way the devil and his people will
ever be able to destroy God`s Church, ~For the gates of hell will never prevail
against her.¨
700-713 AD, The Catholic Church Wrote Many Books against the Different Groups
of Modalist Monarchians that Were in Spain: Weisser, referring to Robert
Robinson`s book entitled Ecclesiastical )esearches, said Robinson`s ~third period
runs from 409-713 AD. Under this period he says; their were in Spain Christians of
all descriptions, as well as 1ews and pagans. This appears by the books published by
the Catholic faction against Manicheans, Priscillianist, Acephali, Sabellians,
Photinians, Arians, and others, whom they insolently named heretics.¨ God`s
children had many great revivals in Spain during this time.
700-899 AD, God`s Great 1esus` Name Modalist Monarchian Revivals Broke out All
Over Europe: Arnold revealed that Bede the Venerable,` an Anglo-Saxon historian,
in the eight century, ~found Celtic and Saxony cultures abounding in manifestations
of tongues and gifts." ¡274] God`s Oneness Celtic Pentecostal Churches, as I said
before, consisted of those in the countries of France, Great Britain, Ireland, and
Scotland; the Saxony Churches were those that were located in East Germany!!!
Arnold, referring to F. H. Little work entitled )eformation "tudies, Essays in Honor
of )3 H3 #ainton, said, ~Bernhard Rothmann ¡1525 AD], researched Apostolic
doctrine and history of the 9th century, which was everywhere in Europe.... It had
Spirit infilling, the tongues, and miracles.. He refuted both Catholicism and
Lutheranism, and tirelessly researched until he found ninth century Oneness
Pentecostalism and continued in it.¨ ¡275]
According to The Encyclopaedia #ritannica, baptism in the name of 1esus Christ
was still so wide spread throughout the Roman Empire in 9th century that Catholic
Pope Nicholas I in November of 866, in a response to the decrees of the Bulgars, was
forced to declared "baptism to be valid tantum in nomine Christi, ¡or in the name of
Christ], as in the Acts of the Apostles."¡276] Nicholas quoted Ambrose as his
authority. This same encyclopedia also declared that, "Baptism into the death of
Christ is often specified by the Armenian Fathers as that which alone was essential."
900-1198 AD, God`s Apostolic Churches Multiply Throughout Spain and Many of
Them Were Called Anabaptist: Weisser spoke of ~Robinson`s fourth period¨ that
covered ~eight hundred years¨ or from 714-1514 AD. Weisser mentions Oneness
Movements that were ~deemed heretical by the Catholics.¨ Robinson speaking of
these Oneness Churches wrote, they ~were called in general Anabaptists. In a
council held at Lerida, in the archbishopric of Tarragon, it was decreed...that such
as came from Antitrinitarians, who had been baptized in the name of Christ, should
be rebaptized.¨ ¡277]
1198-1698 AD, Catholic Pope Innocent III Formed the Demonic Inquisition for the
Extermination of God`s Apostolic Churches: This heartless, cruel, inhuman Catholic
institution, which was sardonically called the Holy Office, brutally tortured and
burned alive millions of innocent, God fearing and Christ loving men, women and
children. It did this contemptuously in the name of Christ for 500 years. Of all the
Catholic Inquisitions, the Spanish Inquisition was the worst. Satan`s Son Pope
Innocent III and every Catholic Pope after him gladly encourage and gave their
divine blessings to the Inquisitors who were doing their Satanic god`s will. In fact,
the Inquisition that gave the Pope power over the kings of Europe. This is the main
reason why these demonic popes, during this time, promoted and supported it.
1215 AD, The Fourth Catholic Lateran Council Condemned God`s Apostolic
Churches: Blunt wrote, ~Antitrinitarianism then appears to be, not the genuine
product of the Reformation, but the offspring of a school ¡of belief] which had
existed in the Church for centuries before the Reformation was dreamt of.... The
Antitrinitarian principle in early times expended itself in producing the Sabellian
and Arian heresies.... But the former class, such as the heresies of Gilbert de la
Porree, and 1oachim, abbot of Flora, which were met in the fourth Lateran Council
AD 1215.¨ ¡278] Obviously these Catholics priests were converted to the apostolic
1esus` Name message, and as usual, the Catholic Councils of their day cursed them
for it.
1284 AD, Catholic Monk Ursinus Defended Baptism in 1esus` Name: According to
the Encyclopedia #ritannica, Ursinus at the Synod of Nemours in c. 1284, boldly
declared that "baptism into the name of Christ alone was valid."¡279] Schaff quoted
a letter that stated, "Ursinus the monk wrote against those who say that heretics
should be rebaptized, teaching that it is not legitimate nor honoring God, that those
should be rebaptized who have been baptized... in the name of Christ alone." ¡280]
According to Arnold, Ursinus was a very learned scholar and clergyman, and he
entered into true Christianity in 1284 AD, "his doctrine was monotheism, Christ's
baptism, infilling of the Spirit, and speaking in tongues." ¡281]
1341 AD, Some Or Many of the Armenian Churches Were Converted to the One
God, 1esus` Name Modalist Monarchian Doctrine: Blunt declared that the Catholic
Councils were still condemning ~Sabellianism¨ in the fourteenth century. He said a
~charge of the heresy¨ was brought ~against a portion of the Armenian Church by
¡Pope] Benedict XII, see Raynald (Contin. of Baron.) AD 1341.¨ ¡282]
1357-1419 AD, Arnold declared that as Vincent Ferrer, "passed through Greek,
German, Sardinian, Hungarian, and other people, he found effusions of Pentecostal
phenomena - tongues, miracles, healing." ¡283]
1441-1442 AD, Catholic Pope Eugenius IV and the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council
Condemned the 1esus` Name Churches of their Day: Hastings informs us that Pope
"Eugenius IV found it necessary to remind the 1acobites, in his decree dated 4th
Feb. 1441 that the Church condemns Sabellius for confusing the Persons and for
thus altogether doing away with the real distinction between them." ¡284]
The Council of Florence or the Seventeenth Ecumenical Council held in 1442 AD,
also condemned the 1acobites. According to The Church Teaches, this council
declared, "the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit; the Son is not the Father or
the Holy Spirit; the Holy Spirit is not the Father or the Son.... Therefore, the holy
Roman Church condemns, disapproves, anathematizes, and declares to be separated
from the body of Christ, which is the Church, all who hold any contrary opinions.
Consequently, she condemns Sabellius." ¡285]
Even in the fifteenth century the Catholic Church is still pronouncing their Satanic
blessing on God`s indestructible Church. Catholic Popes and Church Councils
condemned and persecuted God`s holy Church. Surely by now my readers must
realize that that the One God, 1esus` Name, Apostolic, Modalist Monarchian Church
never ceased to exist. It would be stupid, as I said before, for the Roman Catholic
Church to continually condemn a Church Movement century after century that was
suppose to have died in the fourth century.
1529 AD, The Persecution of God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Church by Martin Luther
and the Monarchs Who Married Lutheranism: Arnold mentioned that Andreas
Karlstadt (1529 AD), a professor of theology at the university of Wittenberg, and the
well know Greek scholar Erasmus (1529 AD), had a lengthy scriptural discussion
with Luther on restoring God`s true New Birth and monotheistic godhead message.
They tried to persuade ~Luther to inject monotheistic Christian Pentecostalism into
his Lutheranism! They pleaded, Restore the pattern and even the constitution of
the Primitive Church....¨
~Luther accused Carlstadt of misunderstanding the expression speaking with
tongues....` Almost at that moment the Christ of our New Testament let a Holy Ghost
reviving spectacular break out at Zollikon, with speaking with tongues, miracles,
and the whole Pentecostal allotment, right under his nose! He was also
knowledgeable of the Zwickau Prophets.¨ ¡286]
Luther Knew about Baptism in 1esus` Name But Denied It: Vinson Synan, in his
book %spects Of 'entecostal1Charismatic Ori&ins, quotes David Reed as saying, "The
practice of baptism in the name of 1esus Christ is no new phenomenon in the history
of the Church. Martin Luther encountered a dispute over the formula in his day."
¡287]
Luther rejected the truth and became God`s enemy. As a result, he persecuted God`s
Apostolic Pentecostal Anabaptist Churches. The Encyclopedia %mericana speaking
of the Luther`s Inquisition says, ~The Reformation provided the ¡Catholic]
Inquisition with new opportunity for the extirpation of heresy, and the Protestants
paid it tribute by adopting many of its attitudes and procedures. Luther was much
concerned with the suppression of witchcraft and was as severe as any Inquisitor in
his attitude toward religious radicals, such as the Anabaptist. ¡288]
Luther and his followers set up a Lutheran Inquisition to exterminate God`s holy
and innocent Children. Professor Roland H. Bainton in his great work Hunted
Heretic stated, ~The dissemination of Anabaptism was so broad that both Catholics
and Lutherans feared the established churches would be displaced.... At the Diet of
Speyer in 1529 both Catholics and Lutherans agreed to subject them to the death
penalty throughout the Holy Roman Empire.... They did not burn Catholics, but
they drowned ¡Trinitarian] Anabaptist and they beheaded and burned Anti-
Trinitarians ¡Anabaptist] whose beliefs were repugnant to most Protestants as well
as to Catholics.¨ ¡289]
Why would Catholics and Lutherans, who hated each other as heretics, join
together and form a union to burn God`s Children? It is evident they were not only
be scared of God`s people evangelistic revival spirit, but they must have hated them
more then they hated each other. I challenge anyone to show me anywhere in
history, in any age, where God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Church ever persecuted or
killed anyone for their religious beliefs.
1525- 1532 AD, The Persecution of Bernhard Rothmann, A One God 1esus` Name
Preacher, by Luther`s Inquisition: According to professor Earle Cairns, in his
Christianity Throu&h The Centuries, ~The Anabaptist in Germany faced extinction.
from the state. Bernhard Rothmann, one of the canons of the cathedral of Munster,
began an effort to win Munster to the evangelical faith. In 1532... the Emperor
ordered the bishop of Munster to drive out Rothmann and his followers, who
were...proposing to sell property to aid the poor.¨ Cairns continued by saying that
the Anabaptist denied ~the ideas of Luther and Zwingli.¨ ¡290]
Arnold, referring to F. H. Little work entitled )eformation "tudies, Essays in Honor
of )3 H3 #ainton, spoke of Rothmann as a 1esus` Name Anabaptist. He says, "the
great preachers, writers, scholars - Bernhard Rothmann and 1an van Leyden ¡in c.
1525] - burst into the medieval theistic scene.. They were monotheistic and pious
partakers of the Holy Ghost, and knew Pentecostal glossolalia....¨
~Rothmann preached, True baptism is the entrance to the Church and there is no
other gate to Eternal Life.... Let yourself be baptized in Christ`s Name.. ¡He] was
one of the greatest medieval Protestant preachers, and learned writer: Bekentnisse,
and Restitution. He definitely used Peter`s Acts 2:1-4; 2:38 in baptismal services....
He refuted both Catholicism and Lutheranism, and tirelessly researched until he
found ninth century Oneness Pentecostalism and continued in it.¨ ¡291]
1541AD, The Persecution of God`s Apostolic Pentecostal Church by 1ohn Calvin
and the Monarchs Who Married Calvinism: The Encyclopedia %mericana speaking
of the Calvin`s Inquisition says, ~Calvin introduced inquisitorial procedures into
Geneva. ¡in] 1541. There were many victims, the most notable being Michael
Servetus, who was burned at the stake in 1553.¨ ¡292] Let`s briefly look at Servetus`
accomplishments, beliefs and martyrdom.
AD 1531-1553 AD, The Persecution of Miguel Servetus, A One God 1esus` Name
Preacher, by Calvin`s Inquisition: The greatest Antitrinitarian, Anabaptist, One
God, 1esus` Name Preacher in the sixteenth century was without a doubt Miguel
Servetus. This man was a Reformer, Theologian, Author, and an outstanding
Medical Doctor. He was in his theology a Modalist Monarchian who held a slightly
different view then most on the Logos before Bethlehem.
Moyer speaking about him as a Medical Scientist says that he was ~the real
discoverer of the pulmonary circulation of the blood.¨ ¡293] Professor Roland
Bainton, in his book entitled Hunted Heretic, which gave the life of Servetus, spoke
of him as a man who was wanted by both the Catholic and Protestant Inquisition
dead or alive. Because he was branded as a heretics he did not received the credit he
deserved for his discovery at that time. In fact, it was not until this century, that
medical science given him the credit he so justly deserved.
Blunt speaking of him as an Author and Reformer stated, ~In 1531 his book De
Errori$us Trinitatis was printed, and in the next year also, at Hagenau, Dialo&orum
De Trinitate -i$ri Duo. These books raised a great tumult among the German
divines, and, circulating in Italy, were much approved by many who had thoughts of
leaving the Church of Rome. In 1553, the year of his execution, he published at
Vienna another book entitled Christianismi )estitutio.¨ ¡294] The titles of Servetus`
books are On The Errors Of The Trinity, Dialo&ues On The Trinity !n Two Treatises,
and The )estitution Of Christianity.
In the %ntitrinitarian #io&raphy, Robert Wallace, speaking about Servetus` last book
and his role as a Reformer said, ~His avowed object in the composition of this book
was to bring back the Christian world to what he conceived to be the primitive
standard of faith; and it was for this reason that he entitled it The )estoration Of
Christianity.¨ Wallace went on to say ~Walchius regarded him as a favourer of
Sabellianism.¨ Servetus ~infers that neither the Logos nor the Holy Spirit is a
person really distinct from the Father, but only a kind of revelation of the divine
nature.¨ ¡295]
Professor Roland Bainton, in his Early %nd Medieal Christianity, spoke of Servetus`
role as a Theologian. He said, ~Servetus examined the New Testament and was
perfectly amazed to discover that this tenet ¡the Trinity], so rigorously required and
so obstinately refused, was actually not formulated in the Sacred Scriptures.... The
word Trinity does not occur. The key word, homoousios, that is to say that the Son is
consubstantial with the Father, is likewise absent.... Servetus was convinced that
nothing should be deemed essential to the Christian faith, which is not in the
Scriptures.¨ ¡296] Servetus was a fine Greek and Hebrew Scholar, who using the
literal method of interpreting scriptures.
Bainton quoted Servetus as saying, ~I do not separate Christ from God any more
than a voice from the speaker.... Christ is in the Father as a voice from the speaker.
He and the Father are one.... An amazing mystery it is that God can thus be
conjoined with man and man with God. A great wonder that God has taken to
Himself the body of Christ.... Because His ¡1esus`] Spirit was wholly God He is
called God, just as from His flesh he is called man. Do not marvel that what you call
humanity I adore as God.¨ ¡297]
M`Clintock and Strong gave an accurate view of his godhead belief. There is no way
anyone can read the following description of the godhead and say that Servetus was
not a Modalist Monarchian Preacher. They wrote, ~The attitude of the author
towards the dogma of God, the Father, Son, and Spirit, as held by the ¡Catholic and
Protestant] Church, is that of uncompromising hostility. He regards it as of necessity
involving tritheism and polytheism, and even atheism.... But, while rejecting a
trinity of essence in the Godhead, he insists on a trinity of manifestation.¨
They continued Servetus` description of the godhead by saying, for it pleased God,
~consequently, to dispose Himself to a twofold manifestation, the one a mode of
revelation by the Word ¡Logos], the other a mode of impartation by the Spirit. The
Word, however, was not merely an empty articulate sound, but, in harmony with ¡or
part of] the nature of God, an uncreated light. The Logos is the Eternal Thought, the
Eternal Reason, the Ideal World, the Archetype of the world in which the original
types of all things are contained. In this Divine Light was already manifested the
form of the future Christ, not ideally alone, but actually and visibly; and from this
original type and mode of divine revelation proceed all the modifications of the
Deity.¨
They went on to say, ~God Himself, attained to a full manifestation and revelation
for the first time in the man 1esus, in whom the Eternal Word became incarnate in
time.... He was such ¡God] while in the embryo, and continues to bear the
substantial form of the godhead when in the grave. The Word, accordingly, did not
assume flesh, but became flesh. By virtue of this nature ¡of man], Christ is the Son
of God - the only Son....¨
~Who first became the actual Son of God, however, when he appeared in time and in
the nature of man.... His human spirit was wholly absorbed into the Spirit of God,
and the resultant combination forms the true Holy Spirit, the principle of all
regeneration, which proceeds from the mouth of Christ. In this way the real Trinity
is constituted - a Trinity not of things or so-called persons in the divine essence, but
a threefold manifestation of Himself by the one and indivisible God.¨ ¡298]
Servetus in his book On The Errors Of The Trinity wrote, Christ 1esus ~is really the
Father.. He Himself is the face of the Father, nor is there any other person of God
but Christ; there is no other hypostasis of God but Him.. They ¡the Trinitarians]
say that one portion ¡of God], I say that the whole nature of God is in Him. In Him
is the whole deity of the Father.. He is God and the Lord of the world.. The
Father is in the Son.¨ ¡299]
Servetus commenting on Colossians 1:19 and 2:9 in his Dialo&ues On The Trinity !n
Two Treatises wrote, ~the whole fullness of God, the whole of God the Father
together with all the fullness of his properties, whatever God has, this dwells fully in
this man.¨ ¡300]
Servetus died as a true martyr for the Lord 1esus Christ. As Servetus was fleeing
from those who were seeking to kill him, he stopped in Geneva where he was
recognized and arrested. Calvin not only had him arrested, but he personally had
him brought to trial and acted as the prosecuting attorney against him. Because of
his hatred against the truth, Calvin had him convicted and sentence to be burnt
alive as an Antitrinitarian.
According to Wallace, while he was in prison, a minister by the name of Farel visited
him. Farel ~strenuously urged him to recant: but Servetus, in reply to Farel`s
repeated solicitations, implored him to produce one solitary passage of Scripture, in
which it is stated, Christ was called the Son of God,` before His birth of the Virgin
Mary; and though he was fully alive to the awful situation in which he stood, and
knew that he would be shortly summoned into the presence of his final 1udge,
neither threats not enticements could prevail upon him to retract.¨
Wallace went on to say, ~When he ¡Servetus] was led to the place of execution, he
repeatedly cried out, O God! Save my soul.... As soon as he came in sight of the Lieu
de Champel, he prostrated himself on the earth, and continued for some time in
fervent prayer to God.... Servetus now rose from the earth, and Farel urged him to
address the assembled multitude, probably in the delusive hope that he might be
induced at the last moment to retract. But Servetus still continued to invoke the
name of the Almighty; and when Farel persisted in urging him to speak, he asked
him, what he could say different from what he had already said?¨
Wallace describing his death wrote, ~Servetus was fastened to the trunk of a tree
fixed in the earth, his feet reaching to the ground; and a crown of straw and leaves,
sprinkled over with brimstone, was placed upon his head. His body was bound to
the stake with an iron chain, and a coarse twisted rope was loosely thrown round his
neck. His books were then fastened to his thigh; and he requested the executioner to
put him out of his misery as speedily as possible. The pile was then lighted, and he
cried out in so piteous a tone, as to excite the deep and earnest sympathy of the
spectators. When he had suffered for some time, a few of them, from feelings of
compassion, and with a view to put an end to his misery, supplied the fire with a
quantity of fresh fuel.¨
Wallace also said, ~Minus Celsus related that the constancy of Servetus in the midst
of the fire, induced many to go over to his opinion; and Calvin makes it an express
subject of complaint, that there were many persons in Italy, who cherished, and
revered his memory.¨ ¡301] One of Servetus` biographers stated that many copies of
his books were piled around his feet and used as fuel to burn him. Servetus died a
victorious martyr`s death on October 27, 1553. Truly, this was a great man of God.
1547-1564 AD, Renowned Catholic and Later Protestant Professor Bernardino
Ochino 1oined God`s Persecuted One God, 1esus` Name Church: Blunt speaking of
the persecution of the one God 1esus` Name Churches in Europe wrote, ~The
followers of Servetus were principally to be found in Lombardy, the best known of
them being Bernardino Ochino. They were driven from Lombardy by the
Inquisition, and also from Switzerland, eventually finding a home in Poland.¨ ¡302]
Ochino, before he became saved, was the vice-general of a Catholic order of monks.
He was a man of great piety and sanctity. The Catholic people of Italy loved his fiery
powerful preaching. God`s grace reached out to this man and he came out of
Catholicism and became a Protestant Reformer. In 1547 he became an Oxford
professor, and was appointed canon of Canterbury in England.
In 1553 he became a devoted follower of Servetus, and from that time on he was
hated by both the Catholic and Protestant Church hierarchy. He fled Geneva and
became a Pastor in Zurich. After awhile, the ~Zurich council denied him the
privilege of preaching and he took refuge among Italian friends in Poland. Through
Catholic influence he was soon forced to leave country again and became a fugitive.
Found asylum among the Hutterian Anabaptist, died in Austerlitz in 1564.¨ ¡303] In
1563, Ochino published his book entitled Thirty Dialo&ues, which also contained his
one God or one-person belief in the 1esus` godhead.
1569-1573 AD, God`s Anabaptist Apostolic Churches in Poland: Wallace speaking of
God`s Oneness Anabaptists in Poland wrote, they ~first formed themselves into
Churches in the year 1569. In the autumn of that year, when their affairs were in a
very discouraging state, Ronemberg went with 1erome Philipovious, George
Schomann, and some others, into Moravia, for the purpose of holding a conference
with the Brethren in Moravia.¨ But to their surprise these Brethren ~believed in the
doctrine of the Trinity.¨
Schomann, who was one of their ministers, stated in his book The 0ill, ~On the last
day of August, 1572, I, being in the forty-second year of my age, was baptized in the
name of Christ at Chmielnik;` and in the year 1573, I was sent to the ministry of the
Minor Church at Cracow.¨ ¡304] Schomann wrote in the preface of his book, to the
~little and afflicted flock in Poland, which was baptized in the name of 1esus of
Nazareth, to all those who thirst after eternal salvation." ¡305]
Another sixteenth century Anabaptist leader was a man named David 1oris.
According to Harnack, ~David 1oris subjected the Trinity to a Sabellian treatment,
representing it as a threefold revelation of God.¨ ¡306] According to Bainton, 1oris
wrote a strong letter to Calvin and his band of murderers to spare ~the good pious
Servetus¨ who ~was delivered into¨ their ~hands through no kindness and love, but
rather through envy and hate, as will be made manifest at the last judgment to those
whose eyes are darkened by base cunning, and to whom the truth is unknown.¨
¡307]
1645-1800 AD, God`s One God, 1esus` Name Churches In England: Saltmarsh wrote
a book entitled The "mo+e !n The Temple, which was published in England in 1645.
According to Weisser, Saltmarsh revealed that there were people in his day who
preached "the Baptism of 1esus Christ by water, was only in the Name of 1esus
Christ.¨ They believed ~the form by which they ¡the Roman Catholic] baptize, viz. I
baptize thee in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, is a form of man's
devising, a tradition of man, a mere consequence drawn from supposition and
probability, and not a form left by Christ." ¡308]
1646 AD, According to Wallace, Thomas Edwards of England wrote about some so-
called heretics, who taught and wrote that baptism in the name of the Trinity was a
~man-made tradition¨ and that Christian baptism was ~only in the name of 1esus
Christ.¨ ¡309]
1660 AD, William Penn and the Early Quakers Were One God, Tongue Talking,
1esus` Name Modalist Monarchians: The greatest Antitrinitarian, Anabaptist and
Modalist Monarchian of the seventeenth century was William Penn. Wallace say
~Penn attacked the notion of three persons in one God, and came out at last with a
species of Sabellianism.¨ Around 1660 Penn became a Quakers. The early Quakers
according to Wallace ~did not believe in the Athanasian doctrine of the Trinity.¨
Penn was one of their most fearless and outspoken preachers. In 1668 Penn wrote a
book entitled The "andy ,oundation. Throughout his book he denounced the Trinity.
Pen wrote, ~If there be three distinct and separate persons... there must be three
distinct substances, and consequently three distinct gods.¨
As a result of his book denouncing the Trinity, he was thrown into prison. In prison
Penn defended his book by declaring, I ~do not believe Christ to be the eternal Son
of God... I expressed nothing that divested Christ of His Divinity.... I deny a Trinity
of separate persons in the godhead.. Does thou in good earnest think they
¡Catholicism] were one in judgment with Sabellius, who only rejected the imaginary
personality of those times; who at the same instant owned and confessed to the
Eternity and godhead of Christ 1esus our Lord. It is manifest, then that though I
may deny the Trinity of separate persons in one godhead, yet I do not
consequentially deny the Deity of 1esus Christ.¨
Penn went on to say, ~Thou mayest tell my father, who I know will ask thee, these
words; that my prison shall be my grave, before I will budge a jot; for I owe my
conscience to no mortal man; I have no need to fear. God will make amends for all.¨
The truth is says Wallace, ~Penn and the early Quakers, professed to acknowledge
Christ, in what they called his double appearance,` or, as they more commonly
expressed it, in the flesh,` and in the Spirit, He was God over all.¨ He went on to
say that early Quakers held ~the doctrine of Sabellius¨ but expressed it ~in the
peculiar phraseology of Quakerism.¨ ¡310]
Synan revealed that ~the early Quakers¨ definitely experienced the ~phenomenon¨
of speaking in tongues. ¡311] M'Clintock and Strong revealed that speaking in
tongues played a big part in the ~the disciples of George Fox ¡of the 17th century].
¡and] those of a later date in Sweden, America, and Ireland, have in like manner,
been fruitful in ecstatic phenomena." ¡312]
1687-1695 AD, God`s Had Many One God, 1esus` Name Children in England:
According to Wallace, in 1687 there were in England ~many who did not want to
embrace Unitarianism in its naked simplicity, yet agreed with Penn in discarding
the Athanasian Creed, and contented themselves with a belief in a Modal Trinity.¨
¡313] In the seventeenth century, a book appeared in England entitled Gangraena,
which was written by Thomas Edwards. Wallace says this man compiled a list of a
180 errors that were in the churches of England during his time. Edwards declared
that even in ~the best Independent Churches and Congregation are mixed
assemblies¨ of people with many different beliefs. One of the so-called errors
Edward`s names, which some or many of these people believed was that ~the
baptism of Christ by water was only in the name of 1esus Christ, not of the Father,
Son and Holy Ghost.¨ ¡314]
Wallace also mention a ~Collection of Tracts¨ that appeared in England in 1695,
which were entitled ~A Discourse Concerning The Nominal And Real Trinitarians.¨
Its object was to shew that there was ~a clear line of demarcation between these two
classes of Trinitarian believers; that the Nominalists, who are properly the Church
since they form the large majority of it members.¨ After this, says Wallace, the
author of the tracts explained ~in a separate section, the doctrine of the ancient
Nominalists, or the Noetians and Sabellians; and, after a brief recapitulation,
proceeds, in the five following sections, to substantiate the charge of Tritheism
against the Realists.¨ ¡315]
1727-1790 AD, One-God Modalist Monarchian Montanists Had Churches in
England: Some of the one God Montanists survived through the centuries. Arnold,
referring to M. P. Hamilton work The Charismatic Moement, says the ~Apostolic
doctrine¨ of the 1esus` Name Montanists was found to exist ~in Britain in 1727.¨
¡316]
According to Weisser, Robert Robinson (1735-1790 AD), in his book entitled History
Of #aptism, claimed that many Christians in England in his day believed and
practiced baptism in 1esus' name. Robinson says, "many Christians taking it for
granted, that the apostles thoroughly understood the words of the Lord 1esus ¡in
Mt. 28:19], and supposing the form of words of local and temporary use, administer
baptism in the name of Christ, and think themselves justified by the book of the
Acts of the Apostles." ¡317]
1809 AD, God`s 1esus` Name Revival in England Continued: Elias Smith, a
clergyman, was the author and editor of the first religious newspaper in the United
States. This newspaper was called the Herald Of The Gospel. This man of God
denounced the doctrine of the Trinity and rejected Calvin`s predestination
teachings. Smith reported on various religious meetings that took place in New
England. In 1une of 1809 AD, Smith reported in his newspaper that three hundred
people lived in Portsmouth, NH. According to Weisser, Smith wrote in his
newspaper, ~It was not possible for me to describe this glorious scene. Those who
communed, had named the name of Christ; had been baptized in His name; were
blest with a comfortable evidence of being born again; were united in love; and each
in a good degree were determined to press towards the mark."
In 1uly of 1809, Smith reported of a revival that took place in Strafford at the
~Universalist's Meeting House,¨ in which a large number people from the
surrounding areas attended. He wrote, ~one brother and his wife were baptized..
The brother baptized had the command of a company ¡of men] there, and was
Grand Master of Masons, a man much respected in the town. When the people saw
him submitting to be baptized in the name of 1esus, with his companions; it carried
an evidence they had found something superior to all this world affords." ¡318]
David Campbell, a one God 1esus` Name Preacher, in his book on the godhead
entitled %ll The ,ullness, spoke about an English Modalistic Monarchian Preacher
by the name of 1ohn Clowes. This man was the pastor of St. 1ohn`s Church in
Manchester, England around the beginning of the nineteenth century. He wrote a
book in 1828 that contained his sermons.
Clowes says this about his belief on the godhead, ~For if one truth be more to be
depended on than another, it is that God is One, and that thus it is impossible that
there can be more Gods than one. If 1esus Christ be acknowledged to be God, He
must in such case of necessity be acknowledged to be the only God, and approached
and worshipped according, otherwise His divinity is as completely denied and
rejected, as if He were not approached and worshipped at all.... Multitudes at this
day, who still call themselves Christians-acknowledge indeed the divinity of this
Saviour, but then they acknowledge it partially, and thus, for want of seeing that He
is the only God, since there can be but one God, they do not worship Him as the only
God.¨
Clowes still speaking of the deity of Christ says, ~Let us then again imagine that we
hear 1esus Christ ask: Do you see that all the fullness of the Everlasting Father
dwells bodily in Me, so that I and My Father are one.... Do you see therefore, that it
is in vain for you to think of finding rest unto your souls until you come unto Me,
your manifested, visible, and approachable God, in Whom the unmanifested,
invisible, and unapproachable is made known and brought nigh unto you; for he
that seeth Me seeth the Father, and therefore by Me, if any man enter in, he shall go
in and out and fine pasture.¨ ¡319]
In the nineteenth century many of the Plymouth Brethren, as well as some other
English groups, taught on the authority of Acts 2:38 that baptism should be in the
name of 1esus only ¡320]
1762-1828 AD, In France God Had Many Apostolic Pentecostal Churches, their
Catholic Enemies Called them Convulsionaries: Arnold speaking of them said, ~they
had the 1esus Name baptism, tongues, the Holy Spirit, power, boldness, and
miracles upon miracles,` which appeared thaumaturgy,` meaning effusion of
miracles. The historian Gregoire wrote about the French government being so upset
that Parliament, in 1762, forbid working of miracles on some French grounds.... It
lasted until the date of 1828, where the records indicate the shaking Convulsionist
revival began to wan.¨ ¡321]
1800 AD to this Present Time, God Has Sent A Great One God, 1esus` Name Revival
to America: Vinson Synan, in his book entitled The Holiness 'entecostal Moement
in the United States, revealed that the 19
th
century saw many great revivals where
God poured out His Spirit with the biblical evidence of speaking in tongues. He
stated "in the revival that hit the University of Georgia in 1800-1801, students
visited nearby campgrounds and were themselves smitten with the jerks` and
talking in unknown tongues....` Scenes similar to Cane-Ridge were seen in
England...in Massachusetts...in New York City, Boston, and Richmond.¨ ¡322]
Around 1810, Dr. Nathaniel Emmons, a Congregational Pastor, received a revelation
from His God and became a Sabellian. According to Professor Levi Paine, in his
book entitled % Critical History Of The Eolution Of Trinitarianism, Emmons taught
that the ~Father and Son are names` assumed` to set forth certain activities of the
one Absolute God.¨ This says Paine is ~essential Sabellianism at the start. But
Emmons goes farther. He had cast aside the doctrine of the eternal generation of the
Son, but now he suggests that the names Son and Word had no existence before the
incarnation. They were probably unknown in heaven until the purposes of grace
were there revealed.¨ ¡323] Dr. Emmons was a man well-know in the theological
circles of his day for his scholarship and even in this day.
Around 1820, Professor Moses Stuart received his revelation of the Almighty God in
Christ. Paine says, ~I have styled the doctrine of the Stuart-Bushnell school a
modified Sabellianism.¨ He continued, ~Stuart and Bushnell both, following
¡German professor] Schleiermacher, declared that God is not eternally tripersonal,
but unipersonal. The Trinity is not fully developed until the incarnation.¨
Paine say Stuart`s ~persons are not real any more than Sabellian persons are; they
are modes of personal existence of the One Divine Being.... One great merit,
however, must be accorded to Stuart. He was a Greek scholar, and comprehend the
true character of the Nicene Trinitarianism, allowing that homoousios in the Nicene
Creed did not mean numerical unity, and that its doctrine was essential
subordinationism, and on this ground rejected it.¨ Because it ~made the Son a
derived and dependent being, and so broke down, as he declared, His true Deity....
Stuart on the other hand made Christ the incarnation of the Absolute God.¨ ¡324]
Moyer in his biography of Stuart says, ~In 1810 called to the professorship of sacred
literature at Andover Theological Seminary, where he remained until retirement in
1848. At once began a serious study of Hebrew, and in 1821 printed a large Hebrew
grammar, the first to appear in America.... He also wrote He$rew Chrestomathy;
Grammar of the New Testament Dialect; Hints on the Prophecies, and Critical History
and Defense of the Old Testament Canon. Altogether produced more than forty
works.... A gifted teacher and lecturer, exerted a remarkable influence upon
students. In the course of labors taught more than fifteen hundred ministers,
seventy men who became professors and presidents of colleges, a hundred foreign
missionaries, and about thirty translators of the Bible into foreign languages.¨ ¡325]
Also around the year of 1820, Friedrich Schleiermacher a professor at the
University in Berlin, joined hands with Stuart and became a Sabellian. Dr.
Schleiermacher is considered as the founder of modern Protestant theology.
Professor Schleiermacher a treatise on the godhead defending Sabellianism. Paine
spoke of it with disdain as he whined over the fact that ~Professor Stuart had no
sympathy with, or just appreciation of the Nicene doctrine of the generation of the
Son.¨ He continued by saying this can be seen by the welcome Stuart ~gave to the
Sabellianism of Schleiermacher.... Stuart translated with extensive notes an essay of
Schleiermacher in which Schleiermacher had defended Sabellius.... No two names
are more historically incongruous than those of Schleiermacher and Emmons.¨
¡326] Schleiermacher was well-know in theological centers around the world.
In the #i$lical )epository, the April 1835 issue, Stuart in his introductory remarks to
Schleiermacher`s godhead treatise wrote, ~I can truly say that I have met with
scarcely any writer, ancient or modern, who appears to have a deeper conviction of,
or more hardy belief in, the doctrine of the real godhead of Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit. This is the basis, on which the whole superstructure of his Christian system
rests. No where can be found a writer more entirely alien from the views and
speculations of Arians and Socinians; no where one who appears to contend more
with his whole heart and soul for the proper, true supreme Divinity of his Lord and
Saviour. God manifest in the flesh seems to be inscribed, in his view, on every great
truth of the gospel.¨ ¡327]
Around 1833, Horace Bushnell laid down his Trinitarian doctrine and picked up
Oneness. This preacher of the Gospel wrote a book entitled, ~God !n Christ.¨ Paine
says, ~Its Christology is borrowed from Schleiermacher and Stuart. Yet Stuart sat
secure in his chair at Andover, in all the odor of orthodoxy, while the theological air
was hot with accusations against his eloquent disciple. In fact the doctrine of both
was thoroughly Sabellian.¨ ¡328] Paine concludes his remarks on Emmons and
Stuart by saying, ~The Sabellian leaven of Emmons and Stuart did it work
thoroughly, and New England Trinitarianism through all its veins became
inoculated with it virus.¨ ¡329]
Somewhere after 1850, Henry Ward Beecher, one of the most noted preachers in
America, became a One God Modalist Monarchian preacher. ~Mr. Beecher`s own
language,¨ says Paine in a scolding tone ~reveals clearly the thorough Patripassian
character of the new Trinitarianism.` Christ is no longer the incarnation of the Son
of God, the second person of the Trinity, that was the old Trinitarianism, but the
very incarnation of God, the Father Almighty, the Absolute One.¨ Paine quoted
Beecher`s doctrine ~in the following extract: Could Theodore Parker worship my
God? 1esus Christ is his name. All that there is of God to me is bound up in that
name.¨
Paine also gave an extract of ~Beecher`s address to the London ministers: Do I
believe in the divinity of Christ? I do not believe in anything else.` There is nothing
else to me when I think of God.¨ ¡330] According to Moyer, Beecher was one of ~the
most popular and widely-known preachers in America.¨
In 1860 AD or shortly after, Dr. Lyman Abbott a Congregational Pastor and Dr. A.
H. Bradford received their revelation of the Almighty God in Christ. According to
Paine, Dr. Bradford declared, ~The problem of the Trinity is simply this: Are Father,
Son, and Holy Ghost three names for one being, or do they denote three distinct
persons?` And the answer is squarely given. The Trinity does not mean three
distinct persons, but three distinctions in one person.¨ Paine continued, Dr. Abbot
proclaimed, ~1esus Christ is God living a human life...the incarnate God.... In 1esus
Christ in propria persona God has entered human life in order that He might show
us who He is.¨
Paine went on to say, ~Drs. Lyman Abbott and A. H. Bradford and others followed
in the same general path¨ of the ~Patripassian position.... According to these
thinkers, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are but different names and manifestations of
one and the same personal Being. This Being has His completest manifestation in
1esus Christ. Thus the Deity of Christ is made the central and most vital doctrine in
their theology....¨
~He is the manifested God or God manifest in the flesh` is now being constantly
employed by defenders of the dogma of Christ`s true Deity and has become a sort of
watchword and shibboleth of ¡the so-called Trinitarian] orthodoxy. The persistency
with which they employ it shows how easily it suits their Sabellianizing and
Patripassianizing type of thinking.... Thus Christ is all the Father there is, as well as
Son and Holy Ghost. All divinity is centered and summed up in Him. It is hardly
needful to say to any historical scholar that this new Trinitarianism` is no
Trinitarianism at all.¨ ¡331]
In 1876 a book appeared in America entitled !s God % Trinity. It was written by an
ex-Presbyterian Pastor by the name of 1ohn Miller. God by His miraculous grace
gave this man a real revelation of the Almighty God in Christ. Miller speaks of his
conversion from Trinitarianism to Oneness this way, ~Suppose the Trinity was a
mistake; suppose it had enveloped the gospel in its earlier planting. Suppose it were
a Platonic set, grafted by the 1ews, and inarched from them into the faith of
Christians. Suppose that 1ohn opposed it, and that his first strong text was meant to
fence it out - 1ohn 1:1.¨
Miller, a Greek and Hebrew scholar, described what happen to him as he was
studying the scriptures on the Trinity. He says, ~In the midst of all theses studies, I
found one great central object disappearing out of the firmament of my
confession.... In reading the Word of God, the Trinity suddenly deserted me....¨
~Stirred, as I naturally would be, where my very church was slipping away from
me, I awoke to the full seriousness of the case. I gave up everything. For three
months I did nothing but inspect the Trinity. A library happened to be near,
uncommonly rich in all that literature.... There broke upon me with dismay the
panic-driven discovery that there was no Trinity.. It was all a figment...absent
from the Word of God; and I searched and searched, and the discovery almost was
that the Bible was colorless of such a dogma, and, by any reasonable mode, could
not be made to teach those hypostatic differences.¨
Miller continued by telling his readers of the glorious revelation God had given him
because of the honest and sincere study he made. He says, ~Now for the result. I do
not believe in the Trinity. It may be said, You are a Sabellian.. You believe in a
modality....` I would have no objection to that. That is, I hold that these names
¡Father, Son and Holy Ghost] are all different, for that these offices all exist.¨
Miller went on to say, ~All that Dr. Alexander and Francis Turretin would impute of
deity to Christ, I do, and perhaps more. That is I put the whole Godhead in Him..
It would have been infinitely better never to load the faith with the Platonic Trinity.¨
Miller went on to say that he was ~a high Calvinist¨ and that he wrote this book so
the officials of his church could better inspect his belief on the godhead. ¡332]
1oseph Cook was another well-known preacher of the nineteenth century. Paine
writes, ~When Mr. Cook delivered his three lectures on the Trinity in 1887, there
had been a long lull in public discussion, and the supporters of orthodoxy were
quietly waiting for the next moving of the waters.` For Mr. Cook himself the time
was opportune. He was at the zenith of his peculiar reputation. Boston had installed
him in Moses seat.` The orthodox elite of Massachusetts sat at his feet and hung
upon his lips.¨
This Trinitarian professor bemoaned the fact that this One God 1esus` Name
Preacher`s lectures on the Trinity were designed especially for the purpose to
~exorcise the paganism,` as he ¡Cook] called it, of three Gods.¨ Paine continued by
saying, ~Mr. Cook`s doctrine is essential Modalism, going beyond Sabellius himself,
and coming close to the Patripassianism out of which Sabellianism sprang.... The
Holy Ghost, as 1oseph Cook says, is only Christ`s continued life.¨
Paine being painfully jealous of the reception Cook received after he exorcised the
devils out of the pagan Babylonian Trinity of three gods` says, ~Perhaps the most
remarkable thing about this is the unstinted applause with which it was received by
his audience, made up largely of Massachusetts ministers. Surely there could be no
clearer evidence of the chaos that had befallen theological thought in New England
than that such a bold Sabellianism was enthusiastically endorsed by such an
assembly, and that from that day to this, no note of criticism or dissent has been
heard, that I am aware of, in Trinitarian circles.¨ ¡333]
The twentieth century has been privileged to witness one of the greatest one God,
1esus` name, tongue talking revivals the world has even seen. According to
historians, the modern day Pentecostal movement began with Charles Parham on
1anuary 1, 1901. Oneness historian Fred Foster in his history entitled Their "tory6
27th Century 'entecostals revealed that Parham taught speaking in tongues and
1esus` name baptism. ¡334]
Pentecostal evangelist and missionary Andrew Urshan, in his autobiography entitled
The -ife Of %ndrew #ar Daid *rshan, revealed that he received the revelation of
1esus` name baptized in 1910, and from that time on began to baptize all of his
converts that way. ¡335] In 1915 Urshan preached a great Pentecostal revival in
Russia. According to Urshan, God had given some of his converts the revelation of
1esus` name baptism before he even came to Russia. This revival marked the
beginning of a great 1esus` name Pentecostal movement, which is still alive in Russia
today.
In 1917 AD, God in His mercy began to give open the hearts of hungry Chinese
people to the truth of the New Birth. This miracle began with people simply reading
the Bible and praying that God would reveal the truth to them. In fact, when they
received this great truth from God, they did not know at that time that anyone else
in the world believed that way! In the same year, these Chinese Christians started a
great movement in China, which they called the True 1esus Church. According to
the 0orld Christian Encyclopedia, this movement exists in Communist China and
Taiwan even today. ¡336]
A great one God, 1esus` name revival began in America in the year of 1913 in which
many ministers and saints received the revelation of these great truths. From 1913
until now, the one God, 1esus' name movement in the United States has been
growing by leaps. According to Arnold, in ~1979, the World of Apostolic Christian
Fellowship, found over fifty-three Oneness Christian organizations on earth.... The
United Pentecostal Church is no longer the largest, Dr. Wong stated in 1965 that
Taiwan had 120 assemblies alone, and as of 1979, the True 1esus Church of China
numbers around eight million.¨ ¡337]
It has now been reported that there are over a 100 different one God, 1esus` Name,
Apostolic Pentecostal organizations in the world, which believe that 1esus Christ is
God the Father in creation, the Son in salvation, and the Holy Spirit living in the
believer in regeneration. They also hold to baptism by single immersion in the
precious and holy name of the Lord 1esus Christ, as well as to the biblical doctrine
of speaking in tongues as the initial evidence of being born of the Holy Spirit.
Friend, what more proof do you need to see that the New Birth of water and Spirit
consist of these two doctrines? Do not put off water baptism in 1esus` Name another
day! Do not put off receiving the baptism of the Holy Ghost another day, for God is
still pouring it out on all races even today.
According to The Encyclopaedia #ritannica, "in modern times glossolalia has been
found chiefly among Holiness and Pentecostal groups.... In the 1960s by an upsurge
of the phenomenon among some members of the more established churches, such as
Episcopal, Presbyterian, and Lutheran." ¡338] It also stated that speaking in
tongues "recurred in Christian revivals in every age." ¡339]
Yes, friend, the sweet, precious gift of the Holy Ghost is for you. Millions of hungry,
honest believers have received it. God in his great love for you, wants you to receive
it today, if you are willing to believe and obey the truth; for the God said, "to day if
you will hear His voice, harden not your hearts" (Heb 3:7-8). God also said, for
~now is the accepted time, now is the day of salvation¨ (2Co 6:2).
Please do not let preachers confuse you any longer, for the gifts of the Spirit can only
come after one has been born of the Holy Spirit. Do not accept Satan`s imitation!
My prayer for you is that you would receive your personal Pentecost today, for the
Word of the Living God teaches, ~today is the day of salvation.¨ Therefore do not
wait another day, be baptized in the holy precious name of the Lord 1esus Christ
and receive His Spirit today!
If my readers would like some additional information on baptism in the name of the
Lord 1esus Christ, they can read the books, encyclopedias, commentaries,
dictionaries and Bible translations that can be found in this endnote. ¡340]
The author believes that the preceding references are more than enough evidence to
prove that God`s Apostolic 1esus Name, Tongue Talking Pentecostal Church was not
only the original Church that was started by the apostles on the Day of Pentecostal,
but also that it never cease to exist in any century. Surely the gates of hell, never has
and never will prevail against it!
If my readers desire to read a thorough biblical study of the godhead or the New
Birth, I would recommend my books entitled The Mysteries Of The Godhead
)eealed, or 'reacher, 0hat Must ! Do To )eceie Eternal -ife. If my readers wish to
read a historical study of speaking in tongues, I would recommend my book %
Historical )ecord Of "pea+in& !n Ton&ues.
CHAPTER 6
THE HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC
TRINITARIAN FORMULA FOR BAPTISM
From 33-150 AD, all one God Modalist Monarchians, Catholics and other
denominations baptized in 1esus` name. According to Catholic and Protestant
historians, 1ustin Martyr was the first one in the written history of the Catholic
Church to use a Trinitarian formula for baptism. The New !nternational "tandard
#i$le Encyclopedia stated, ~Baptism was always in the name of the Lord 1esus
¡alone] until the time of 1ustin Martyr, when the triune formula was used.¨ ¡341]
150 AD, Catholic Priest 1ustin Martyr Changes the Mode and Formula
for Baptism, and the Catholic Church Adopted His Teaching
1ustin Martyr and his rebellious Catholic cohorts hated the Apostolic Pentecostal
one God doctrine of the Almighty God or the Father dwelling in the one person of
Christ. Col 2:8-9; Isa 9:6. He did not like them very much because most of
Christendom was of their faith, and they were always, no doubt, reproving him for
his heresy. He expressly denounced these Modalist Monarchians when he said that
they were ~justly convicted of knowing neither the Father nor the Son; for they who
say that the Son is the Father.¨ ¡342]
1ustin hatred against the truth led him to change the formula of baptism around 150
AD. He probably did not like the idea that God`s people were using the Biblical
formula of baptism in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ to prove that the entire
godhead dwells in the one person of Christ. So, what did he do about it? He
perverted and converted the Biblical formula to a Trinitarian one, so he could teach
his two-god doctrine.
1ustin not only changed the formula for baptism, but also the mode. Instead of using
the Biblical mode of one immersion in the name of 1esus, he changed it to three
separate immersions. He did not use the three titles of the godhead mention in
Matthew 28:19, but one name and two titles. The first immersion was done in the
title of Father. The second in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ. The third in the
title of Holy Ghost. In fact, it was right after He finished his discourse on Plato's
teaching of "the cross of the second god," who was the "power next to first god,"
that he gave his own Trinitarian formula for baptism. His exact words were, a
convert is baptized or immersed one time "in the name of God the Father and Lord
of the universe, and ¡a second time in the name] of our savior 1esus Christ, and ¡a
third time in the name] of the Holy Ghost." ¡343]
1ustin`s formula for baptism became the standard formula for baptism used by all
Catholic Churches from that time on until 250 AD, when the African Catholic
Churches took out the name of 1esus and started using all the titles in their
baptismal formula. Even after that, most of the Catholic Churches continued to use
1ustin`s formula until 325 AD. After the Council of Nicea, most Catholics baptized
in the formula of Matthew 28:19.
Tertullian (200 AD), like 1ustin and all others of that ilk, definitely connected his
belief in the Trinity to trine immersion in water baptism. He wrote against the
singular immersion of Praxeas, a 1esus` Name preacher, stating, ~Not once, but
thrice, for the several names, into several persons, are we dipped.¨ ¡344] By the time
of Tertullian, trine immersion in the name of the Father, 1esus and the Holy Ghost
was in established law of the Catholic Churches.
Schaff revealed that the early Catholic Church made their converts strip themselves
of their clothing so they can be baptized naked. He stated, ~The immersion consisted
in thrice dipping the head of the candidate who stood nude in the water.¨ ¡345]
Schaff speaking of 1erome's baptismal formula of 390 AD stated, "triple immersion,
that is, thrice dipping the head while standing in the water, was the all but universal
rule of the ¡Catholic] Church in early times. There is proof of its existence in Africa,
Palestine, Egypt, at Antioch and Constantinople, in Cappadocia and Rome." ¡346]
The Pagan Origin of Trine Immersion
and the Use of the Triune Titles of God in the Formula for Baptism
Where did 1ustin get his idea for trine immersions and connecting it to the
godhead? Could it be from the pagans who practiced trine immersions, invoking the
names of their gods in the Babylonian Trinity, which was composed of father, son
and mother, who were called by different names in various countries. The
Encyclopaedia #ritannica commenting on the antiquity of trine immersions stated,
~Trine immersion then, as to the origin of which Basil confesses his ignorance.¨
It then went on to give its origin, ~For pagan lustrations ¡or baptismal ceremony for
purification] were normally threefold...Virgil...Ovid...and Horace (Ep. i. I.37)
similarly speak of trine lustrations; and on the last mentioned passage the scholiast
Acro remarks: He uses the words thrice purely, because people in expiating their
sins, plunge themselves in thrice.` Such examples of the ancient usage encounter us
everywhere in Greek and Latin antiquity.¨ ¡347] There can be no doubt that 1ustin
received his inspiration for his trine immersion doctrine from Mystery Babylon or
one of her pagan daughters.
Professor Guignebert speaking of the pagan element in Catholic baptism stated,
~Baptism itself has now become a complicated ceremonial embracing at least a
course of special instructions and exorcisms, a threefold immersion, the laying on
hands, accompanied by an anointing with holy oil and the first communion.. It is
not difficult to recognize echoes of the spirit of the Hellenistic Mysteries in these
progressive stages of initiation of these all-powerful rites.. The converts won from
the tenets of Orphism or the Mysteries do not willing renounce these in becoming
Christians. On the contrary, they seek and desire to find them in ¡Catholic]
Christianity, and even unconsciously - though irresistibly - they introduce them into
it.¨ ¡348]
255 AD, Catholic Priest Cyprian Changes the Catholic Formula for Baptism
by Takings the Name of the Lord 1esus Christ Out of their Second Immersion
and Replacing It with the Title Son
As we can see from the preceding paragraphs, the pagan mode of trine immersion
and the threefold name of god used in water baptism was copied by 1ustin Martyr
and introduce into Nicolaitan Christianity by him. This was done to confirm and
teach his deceived converts his form of the Trinitarian doctrine. All of his Catholic
pagan buddies imitated him and started doing the same. Now this is an important
point for my readers to remember, if they wish to understand the following
historical quotes concerning the horrendous battle that took place between the
Roman Catholic Churches and the African Catholic Churches over the name of
1esus used in the baptismal formula.
Both parties in this conflict knew that the book of Acts and history taught baptism
by single immersion in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ, but as we have said
before, this did not agree with their two-god doctrine. The conflict started when the
African Nicolaitan Churches decided they could best teach their godhead doctrine,
by taking the name of 1esus out of their Trinitarian formula of baptism, and
substituting in its place the title son, exactly the way it is stated in Matthew 28:19.
This act violated the baptismal tradition 1ustin started. For one hundred and five
years or from 150-255 AD, all Catholic Churches baptized in a trine immersion
using the formula in the name of God the Father, the Saviour 1esus Christ and the
Holy Ghost. With these things in mind, let`s examine the history of this battle.
Around 255 AD, Cyprian and the many of the African Catholics bishops, rebelled
against the standard formula for baptism and change it. This is the first place in
history where not only baptism in all the titles of the godhead was used, but also
where 1esus` Name baptism was formally denounced. As a result, Bishop Stephen of
Rome (254-257 AD) reproved them for this. The African Catholics were probably
angry with God`s 1esus Name Churches because they re-baptized all their Catholic
and other heretical converts with one immersion in the name of 1esus. As a result,
they retaliated by taking the name of 1esus out of their baptismal formula.
The Encyclopedia #ritannica speaking about this conflict stated, "In the third
century, baptism in the name of Christ was still so wide spread that Pope Stephen,
in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid." ¡349] In fact, baptism
in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ was so popular up to 255 AD, that all the
heretical Catholic Bishops in the Roman Empire, and heretics of other
denominations, used the name of 1esus in their baptismal formula, either with one
immersion or three. They all continued to baptize this way, excluding the African
and a few others, until 325 AD. Bishop Stephen was obviously a strong believer in
baptism in the name of 1esus Christ, and violently opposed the new African
formula.
Historians have done their best to totally ignore the real issue in this conflict, which
is the name of 1esus in the formula for baptism. The only thing they mention is that
it was over the baptism of heretics, whether or not they should be re-baptized. So,
there is absolutely no need to quote any of these bias historians on this particular
issue. The best way to discover the real truth about the conflict is to read the
writings of those who were involved in it.
In the Ante Nicene Fathers, there is a writing entitled ~A Treatise On Re-baptism,¨
written somewhere between 255 AD, by an ~anonymous writer.¨ There is no doubt
in this author's mind that it was one of Bishop Stephen's Epistles, which he sent to
the Catholic Churches that were scattered throughout the Roman Empire. No
Protestant or Catholic historian has ever tried to explain how or why all the epistles
Pope Stephen wrote in this conflict were mysteriously lost. Not only this, but how or
why all the letters written to him by other Catholic Bishops, who agreed with him,
were mysteriously lost. Not to mention the mysterious disappearance of all the
records of the Council of Rome that Stephen called in 255 AD, whereby all the
Catholic Bishops throughout the Roman Empire excommunicated all of the African
Catholic Churches .
Let`s hear what this Catholic Pope has to say against some of the rebellious Catholic
Bishops in Africa: ~I observe that it has been asked among the ¡Catholic] brethren
what course ought specially to be adopted towards the persons of those who,
although baptized in heresy, have yet been baptized in the name of our Lord 1esus
Christ.... The point is whether, according to the most ancient custom and
ecclesiastical tradition, it would suffice, after baptism which they have received
outside the ¡Catholic] Church indeed, but still in the name of 1esus Christ our Lord,
that only hands should be laid upon them by the bishop for the reception of the Holy
Spirit, and this imposition of hands would afford them the renewed and perfected
seal of faith; or whether, a repetition of baptism afresh, just as if they were never
baptized in the name of 1esus Christ.¨
Bishop Stephen went on to say, ~no controversy or discussion could have arisen at
all if each one of us had been content with the venerable authority of all the
churches, and with becoming humility had desired to innovate nothing ¡meaning to
introduce a new formula for baptism], as observing no kind of room for
contradiction.¨ ¡350] He went on to explain the importance of the name of 1esus in
water baptism. He says, ~The Lord said in the Gospel: `except a man be born again
of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Whence it
manifestly appears that baptism alone is profitable wherein also the Holy Spirit can
dwell...the apostles had charged those whom they addressed in the Holy Spirit, that
they should be baptized in the name of Christ 1esus.¨
Pope Stephen went on exalting the name of 1esus by saying, ~the power of the name
of 1esus invoked upon any man by baptism, might afford to him who should be
baptized, no slight advantage for the attainment of salvation as Peter related in the
Acts of the Apostles, saying: ` for there is none other name under heaven given
among men whereby we must be saved.' As also the apostle Paul unfolds, showing
that...invocation should be made in the name of 1esus.... Therefore ought this
invocation of the name of 1esus to be received as a certain beginning of the mystery
of the Lord common to us and to all others ¡meaning other denominations].¨ ¡351]
Bishop Stephen continued his discourse by rebuking the African Catholic Bishops
for changing the formula for water baptism. He said, ~You esteem what our Lord
said as being contrary to this treatment: go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.` Because, although
this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover
has been observed, yet it behooves us to consider that the invocation of the name of
1esus ought not to be thought futile,¨ or done away. He continued by saying, ~with
the authority of so many years, and so many churches and apostles and bishops;
even as it is the very greatest disadvantage and damage to our most holy mother ¡the
Catholic] Church, now for the first time suddenly and without reason to rebel
against former decisions after so long a series of so many ages.... The invocation of
the name of 1esus which cannot be done away, may not seem to be held in disesteem
by us; which assuredly is not fitting.¨ ¡352]
Pope Stephen concluded his Epistle to the African Catholic Churches by giving his
decision on the subject. He said, ~Wherefore the whole of this discussion must be
considered, that it may be made clearer. For the invocation of the name of 1esus can
only be an advantage if it shall be subsequently properly supplemented, because
both prophets and apostles have so declared. For 1ames says in the Acts of the
Apostles: `men and brethren, hearken: Simon hath declared how God at the first
visited the Gentiles, to take out of them a people for His name..' ¡Therefore]
heretics who are already baptized in water in the name of 1esus Christ must only be
baptized with the Holy Spirit.¨ ¡353]
Let`s examine this Epistle to see what we can learn about the author and his Faith.
First, the writer of this Epistle is Catholic because he calls the Church ~our most
holy mother.¨ This is a standard term that Catholic Bishops have used many times
in their writings. Secondly, the author defended baptism in 1esus` Name, and
connected it to salvation. In fact, he even believed heretics can receive remission of
sins as long as they were baptized in the name of 1esus. Third, he claimed that
baptism in 1esus` Name is the ~most ancient custom,¨ and has been around for
~many ages.¨ He also claimed that it had the support of the ~apostles and bishops,¨
and ~many churches.¨
Fourth, he rebuked certain ones for changing the formula for baptism by taking the
name of 1esus out. He claim that this was the ~first time¨ in the history of their
church, that anyone in their organization has rebelled against the ~venerable
authority of all the churches¨ concerning the formula for baptism. He even accused
them of not understanding Matthew 28:19, as though our Lord was teaching
something ~contrary¨ to what they were teaching. He reminds them that Matthew
28:19 ~has been observed¨ in their churches, no doubt through 1ustin`s Trinitarian
formula. He then told them that ~the invocation of the name of 1esus¨ must not be
~done away with¨ in the baptismal formula.
My fifth and last comment, the author claimed that heretics cannot receive the Holy
Ghost outside the Catholic Church. They needed a Catholic Bishop to lay hands on
them to receive it. The author definitely speaks as though he is a man who has
authority. At the end of his Epistle, He gave these instructions, ~Heretics who are
already baptized in water in the name of 1esus Christ must only be baptized with
the Holy Ghost.¨
Cyprian wrote many letters to the Catholic Bishops in Africa vehemently
condemning Pope Stephen and all the other Catholic Bishops who were opposed to
the new African Trinitarian formula for baptism. In one letter he wrote, "The
apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles
` in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.' How, then do
some say that a gentile baptized without, outside the ¡Catholic] Church, yea, and in
opposition to the church, so that it ¡water baptism] be only in the name of 1esus
Christ, everywhere and in whatever manner, can obtain remission of sin, when
Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in the full and unite Trinity.¨
¡354]
Cyprian, like all other Catholic apologists, believed that water baptism was essential
to salvation, therefore, he condemned Stephen for claiming that so-called heretics
were children of God because they baptized in 1esus` name. This is exactly why the
African Catholic Church took the name of 1esus out of 1ustin`s Trinitarian
baptismal formula. They hated the 1esus` Name people so much that they did not
want to have anything in common with them.
Let`s read Cyprian`s condemnation of Stephen. He said, ~Why has the bitter
obstinacy of our brother Stephen broken forth to such an extent, as to contend that
sons are born to God from the baptism of Marcion; moreover of Valentinus and
Apelles, and of others who blaspheme against God the Father; and to say that
remission of sins is granted in the name of 1esus Christ.¨ ¡355] Let my readers
notice that Pope Stephen like the author of Re-baptism, affirmed that baptism in the
name of 1esus alone is sufficient to remove sins.
In 255 AD, Cyprian called a Council at Carthage in which 31 bishops denounced
baptism in the name of 1esus. This is the first council in history, where baptism in
the name of 1esus was formally denounced. After this Council, Catholic Pope
Stephen called a Roman Council, in which he and other Catholic Bishops
excommunicate Cyprian and all those in the African Synod for their stand on
baptism.
Cyprian wrote to 1ubaian in 256 AD, defending the African Catholic Churches`
stand on the formula for baptism. In it he revealed that Stephen and all the other
Catholic Bishops claimed that those who join their churches from other
denominations "ought not to be baptized because they seem already to have been
baptized in the Name of 1esus Christ. We ought to consider, likewise, the faith of
those who believe without as to whether they can gain any grace according to that
same faith. For if there is one faith for both us and the heretics, there can also be we
one grace.¨
Cyprian continued, ~If the Patripassians ¡the one God, 1esus' Name believers], the
Anthropians, the Valentinians, the Apelletians, the Ophites, the Marcionites, and
others, pests of heretics, and swords and poisons for overthrowing the truth, confess
the same Father, the same Son, the same Holy Ghost, the same church, it can be that
their baptism is one, if faith is also one.. There cannot be any hope of salvation
except in the knowledge of these two¨ not three persons or gods in the godhead.
Notice, he connected the formula of water baptism with his godhead teachings.
Cyprian went on to say, ~God the Father has not been known, nay rather, has been
blasphemed.... How, therefore do some say that a Gentile baptized without, outside
the Church, nay rather, and against the ¡Catholic] Church, provided it be in the
Name of 1esus Christ, wherever it be and whatever it be, can obtain the remission of
sins, when Christ Himself ordered the Gentiles to be baptized in the complete and
united Trinity." ¡356] Here is another proof that Pope Stephen wrote the Epistle on
Re-baptism, for he contended that so-called heretics who baptized in name of 1esus,
do not need to be re-baptized.
This is also absolute proof that not only the one God, 1esus Name Modalist
Monarchians, or in this case, the Patripassians baptized in the name of 1esus, but
many, if not all of the heretics did also. Some of the heretics Cyprian mentions were
Pope Stephen and other Catholics Bishops, the Anthropians, the Valentinians, the
Apelletians, the Ophites and the Marcionites. This can only mean that name of the
Lord 1esus Christ was the baptismal formula, or used in the formula of most of the
religious denominations of the first, second and third centuries.
If this is not true, then Cyprian's argument would be a lie. For his argument was
basically this, if water baptism in the name of 1esus is correct, then all so-called
heretics who baptize that way are saved and have their sins remitted. Even though,
according to him, they blaspheme the Father by their teachings on the godhead and
were always standing against them, they would still be considered Children of God.
His conclusion was, since these things can not be, baptism in the name of 1esus can
not be correct, but baptism in all the titles of the Trinity must alone be true baptism.
Bishop Firmilian wrote to Cyprian in 256 AD stating that, "Stephen and those who
agree with him contend that the remission of sins and a second birth can proceed
from the baptism of heretics, among whom even they themselves confess that the
Holy Spirit is not, let them consider and know that there cannot be spiritual birth
without the Spirit.... ¡It] is also absurd for them to think it is not necessary to
inquire who it is ¡the minister] who has baptized, because he who has been baptized
may have received grace by the invocation of the Trinity of the names.¨ ¡357]
The above statement is another proof that Catholic Pope Stephen wrote the Epistle
on Re-baptism, for he also contended that none of these religious groups were born
of God`s Spirit. Let my readers also notice that this letter clearly revealed that their
were many other Catholic Bishops who agreed with Stephen that the name of 1esus
should be used in 1ustin`s Trinitarian formula for baptism.
Firmilian continued by saying, ~If the baptism of heretics can have the regeneration
of the second birth, they who are baptized among them must not be considered
heretics but sons of God, because the second birth which is baptism generates sons
of God. But, if the spouse of Christ, which is the Catholic Church, is one, it is she
herself alone who generates sons to God.¨ Let my readers take note of his argument
against 1esus` Name baptism. He basically argues, this proposition, if baptism in the
name of 1esus is correct, than all heretics must be considered children of God, for
they have received the new birth. Since this can not be true, then baptism in the all
the titles of the godhead must be true baptism.
Firmilian went on to say, ~I am justly indignant in this respect at this so open and
manifest stupidity of Stephen that he who so glories in the place of his episcopate
¡meaning the City of Rome] and contends ¡claims] that he has the succession from
Peter, on whom the foundations of the Church were established, should introduce
many other rocks and constitute new buildings of many churches while he maintains
by his authority that baptism is there. For...he says, the Name of Christ
accomplishes very much for the faith and sanctification of baptism, that whoever
anywhere has been baptized in the name of Christ, immediately gains the grace of
Christ." ¡358]
Let my readers take a minute to reflect on this last statement, for it contains the true
feelings of Pope Stephen and the majority of other Catholic Bishops concerning the
importance of the name of 1esus in the baptismal formula. Even though these men
baptized in a triune formula and by trine immersions, it must have been the second
immersion in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ they believed brought salvation, the
remission of sins or the grace of God to the one being baptized. If they truly believed
that the first immersion in the name of the Father, or the third immersion in the
name of the Holy Ghost, was also needed to bring salvation, they would have never
claimed that the Patripassians and some of the other religious groups, who practiced
single immersion in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ, were truly baptized or saved.
Even though Pope Stephen and these other Catholic Bishops knew that single
immersion in the name of the Lord 1esus Christ alone was sufficient for the
remission of sins, they had to add the other two immersions to confirm their form of
Trinitarianism to their members and converts. Let`s not forget, it was their distorted
view of the Logos doctrine that cause the early apostates to depart from the truth.
They just could not believe the oneness of the godhead because it was contrary to
the two god teaching of their heroes - Plato and Philo.
Firmilian also mentioned that Stephen and all the other Catholic Bishops objected
to their African formula for baptism in ~respect to the refutation of custom, which
they seem to oppose to the truth.... And this is observed among us, that whosoever is
dipped by them and come to us are baptized among us as strangers, and have
obtained nothing without the only and true baptism of the ¡African] Catholic
Church." ¡359] This is just another proof that Pope Stephen wrote the previous
mention document on Re-baptism, for the author of this work defended baptism in
the name of Christ as the ~ancient custom¨ of the Catholic Church for ~so many
ages.¨
In September of 258 AD, Cyprian and about 87 African bishops, presbyters and
deacons met at Carthage to denounce their Catholic brethren and the thousands of
so-called heretical ministers who baptized in the precious name of the Lord 1esus
Christ. Let`s hear what the these heretics had to say against the truth. He told his
small band of rebels that all one God, 1esus' Name believers, along with the false
religious denominations, who baptized in the name of 1esus, "must be baptized and
sanctified by the baptism of the ¡African Catholic] Church.¨ ¡360] What he meant
by the term ~the baptism of the church¨ is obviously baptism in all the titles of the
Trinity.
Munnulus of Girba proclaimed, ~the truth of our mother the Catholic Church ...in
the Trinity of baptism ...¡is] in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit.¨ ¡361] The writer of Re-baptism also called the Catholic Church ~our
mother.¨ Eucharatius of Thenae told his fellow African Catholic heretics, the ~false
and wicked baptism ¡meaning in the name of 1esus] of heretics must be rejected by
us ¡as] blasphemy of the Trinity.¨ ¡362] Notice, Munnulus and Eucharatius
connected the formula of baptism with the godhead. 1anuarius of Muzzuli said, ~If
heretics have baptism, we have it not, but if we have it, heretics cannot have it."
¡363]
Polycarp from Adrumetum said that the Catholic Bishops in the Roman Empire,
~who approve the baptism of heretics makes void our baptism.¨ ¡364] It must of
grieved Polycarp that the majority of his fellow Catholic Bishops, defended baptism
in 1esus` Name, even if they did use the titles of Father and Holy Ghost in their
Trinitarian formula. The truth is that baptism by singular immersion in the name of
the Lord 1esus Christ, done by the true believers, not only make void the African
Catholic Churches` baptism but the Roman Catholic Churches` baptism as well.
Weisser in his great work entitled, .esus4 Name #aptism Throu&h The Centuries,
revealed that the Catholic Church held a General Council at Arles in Gaul in 314
AD. At this council they declared that Cyprian and his band of renegades were right
to baptize so-called heretics who did not believe in the Trinity. Nothing was mention
of the formula for baptism. Canon eight stated, ~Concerning the Africans, because
they used their own law so as to rebaptize, it has been decided that, if anyone from a
heretical sect come to the ¡Catholic] Church, he should be asked his ¡godhead]
creed.... But if, upon being questioned, he does not answer the Trinity, let him be
baptized." ¡365]
Weisser quoted Robert Robinson book entitled Ecclesiastical Researches as saying
the following about the Council of Nice in 325 AD, "All the classes, who did not hold
the doctrine of a Trinity of persons in God, whether called Aretemonites,
Paulianists, Arians, Monarchians, Patripassians, Sabellians, or by any other name,
administered baptism in the name of Christ: and these were the people, whom the
council of Nice required to be rebaptized." ¡366] As my readers by now should
know, the Modalist Monarchians or Patripassians and Sabellians were the true
believers of their day.
Catholic Bishop Basil (370 AD) commenting on the titles used in the three
immersions of baptism says, ~Whoever, therefore, is worthy to be baptized in the
Name of the Holy Spirit and who has been born anew, undergoes a change of abode,
habits and associates, so that, walking by the Spirit we may merit to be baptized in
the Name of the Son and to put on Christ.... Then, having put on the Son of God
who gives us power to become children of God, we are baptized in the Name of the
Father and are called sons of God.¨ ¡367]
From all of the above quotes, one should realize by now that most of the Catholic
Churches had by 325 AD accepted the new Trinitarian formula. Many of the
Catholic Popes from this time on condemned baptism in 1esus` Name, and
demanded all those who came to the Catholic Church to be baptized in the all the
titles of the Trinity. When the Roman Catholic Bishops accepted the African
Catholic`s Trinitarian formula, they had to bow their knee to the African Bishops. If
it was not for this conflict, the Trinitarian doctrine of three separate persons in the
godhead may have never became a doctrine in the Catholic Church or even in the
Protestant Churches that it is today.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
A Critical History Of The Evolution Of Trinitarianism ¡And Its Outcome In The
New Christology], 1900, Levi Paine: Houghton, Mifflin & Company: Boston, MA
and NY, NY: Riverside Press: Cambridge, MA
A Dictionary Of The Bible, 1909 (13th edition), 1ames Hastings: Charles Scribner`s
Sons: NY, NY
A History Of Christianity In The Apostolic Age, 1897, Arthur C. McGiffert: T. & T.
Clark: Edinburgh,
All The Fullness, 1975, David Campbell: Word Aflame Press: Hazelwood, MO
An Introd)ction To The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tian Doctrine2 1D332 6.. /eth)neC/a,er?
-eth)en F Co.? !ondon
Ante-Nicene Fathers, 1977 & 1979, Alexander Roberts & 1ames Donaldson, ed.:
William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI
Antitrinitarian Biography, 1850, Robert Wallace: E. T. Whitfield: London, England:
Microfiche: Sketches Of The Lives And Writings Of Distinguished Antitrinitarians
Aspects Of Pentecostal-Charismatic Origins, 1975, Vinson Synan, ed.: Logos
International: Plainfield, N1
BibleWorks For Windows¹, 95/NT Release V 3.5 Copyright 1996, Michael S.
Bushell, Hermeneutika¹ Computer Bible Research Software: P.O. Box 2200, Big
Fork, MT 59911-2200
Biblical Repository, Edward Robinson, ed.: Gould & Newman Pub.: NY, NY, (a
quarterly periodical published from 1830-1850 AD)
Christianity Through The Centuries, 1975, Earle Cairns: Zondervan Pub. House:
Grand Rapids, MI
Compton`s Encyclopedia, 1974, F. E. Compton, ed.: F. E. Compton: Chicago, IL
Cyclopedia Of Biblical, Theological, And Ecclesiastical Literature, 1969, 1ohn
M`Clintock & 1ames Strong: Arno Press: NY, NY
Dictionary Of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical Parties, And Schools Of Religious
Thought, 1971, 1ohn H. Blunt: Gryphon Books: Ann Arbor, MI
Early And Medieval Christianity, 1962, Roland Bainton: Beacon Press: Boston, MA
Encyclopedia Biblica, 1903, Thomas K. Cheyne: Macmillian: NY, NY
Essays And Sketches, 1948, 1ohn H. Newman: Longmans, Green & Co.: NY, NY
Fragments Of A Faith Forgotten, 1960, George R. Mead: University Books: New
Hyde Park: NY
God In Christ, 1849, Horace Bushnell: Brown and Parsons: Hartford, CN
Here I Stand, 1978, Roland Bainton: Abingdon: Nashville, TN
History Of Dogma, 1897, Adolph Harnack: Robert`s Brothers: Boston, MA
History Of Dogma, 1961, Adolph Harnack: Dover Publications, Inc.: NY, NY
History Of The Christian Church, 1979, Marvin M. Arnold: Apostolic Publishing
House: Memphis, TN
History Of The Christian Church, 1970, 1980, Philip Schaff: William B. Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, MI
History Of The Christian Church, 1950, Williston Walker: Charles Scribner`s Sons:
NY, NY
Hunted Heretic, 1978, Roland H. Bainton: Peter Smith: Gloucester, MA, (The Life
And Death Of Michael Servetus)
Is God A Trinity, 1975, 1ohn Miller: Word Aflame Press: Hazelwood MO
1esus' Name Baptism Through The Centuries, Thomas Weisser:
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, The Catholic University Of America: McGraw-
Hill Book Co.: NY
Nicene And Post-Nicene Fathers ¡Of The Christian Church], Philip Schaff & Henry
Wace, ed.: William B. Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, MI
Priscillian Of Avila, 1976, Henry Chadwick: Clarendon Press: Oxford, England
Sage Digital Library, Version 2.0 © 1996, Sage Software: Albany, OR: (Ante-Nicene
Fathers, 1977 & 1979, editors Alexander Roberts & 1ames Donaldson; Nicene And
Post-Nicene Fathers, editors Philip Schaff & Henry Wace: William B. Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, MI)
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia Of Religious Knowledge, Funk & Wagnalls: NY
Scribner`s Dictionary Of The Bible,
Secret Societies, 1965, Akron Daraul: Tandem Books: London
Strong`s Exhaustive Concordance Of The Bible, 1980, 1ames Strong: World Bible
Pub.: Iowa Falls, IA
The Babylonian Connection, 1978, Stephen E. 1ones: America`s Promise: Phoenix,
AZ
The Babylonian Talmud, 1935, I. Epstein, ed.: The Soncino Press: London
The Cambridge Medieval History, 1967, H. G. Watkins & 1. Whitney, ed.:
University Press: Cambridge, MA
The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1911, C. Herbermann, E. Pace, C. Pallen, T. Shahan &
1. Wynne, ed.: The Gilmary Society: NY, NY
The Chari*3atic -o7e3ent2 1D$$2 -ichae% Ha3i%ton? Eerd3an*? Grand Ra<id*2 I!
The Church Teaches, 1973, translators 1. Clarkson, 1. Edwards, W. Kelly, 1. Welch:
Tan Books & Pub. Inc.: Rockford, IL
The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire, 1968, Edward Gibbon: Washington
Square Press, Inc.: NY, NY
The Early Christian Church, 1976, 1ohn G. Davies: Greenwood Press Pub.:
Westport, CN
The Early History Of Christianity, 1927, Charles Guignebert: Twayne Pub.: NY, NY
The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910, 1972, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.: NY, NY
The Encyclopedia Of Religion And Ethics, 1928 & 1951, 1ames Hastings, ed.:
Charles Scribner`s Sons: NY, NY
The Encyclopedia Of The 1ewish Religion, 1965, R. 1. Werblowsky & Geoffrey
Wigoder: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, ed.: NY, NY
The Encyclopedia Of Religion, 1987, Mircea Eliade, ed.: Macmillan Pub. Co.: NY,
NY
The Ethnic Trinities ¡And Their Relations To The Christian Trinity], 1901, Levi L.
Paine: Houghton, Mifflin & Co.: NY, NY
The Expositor's Greek Testament, 1974, W. R. Nicolli, ed.: William. B. Eerdmans:
Grand Rapids, MI
The Fathers Of The Church, 1964, Roy 1. Deferrari, ed.: The Catholic University Of
America Press: Washington, DC
The Holiness Pentecostal Movement In The United States, 1971, Vinson Synan:
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids, IL
The Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1980, 1ames D. Douglas: Tyndale House Pub.:
Wheaton, IL
The Interpretor's Dictionary Of The Bible, 1962: Emory S. Bucke, ed.: Abingdon
Press: Nashville, TN
The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1960, 1ames Orr, ed.: William. B.
Eerdmans: Grand Rapids: 5 vols.
The 1ewish Encyclopedia, 1905, Isidore Singer, ed.: Funk & Wagnalls Co.: NY, NY
The !ife of Andre1 /ar Da7id Ur*han2 Andre1 Ur*han? (toc,ton2 CA? A<o*to%ic Pre**2
1DG$.
The Mission And Expansion Of Christianity, 1962, Adolph Harnack: Harper &
Brothers: NY, NY
The Mystery Of Babylon Revealed, 1980, Mitchell & 1ody Scharf, ed.: Victory
Press: Palm Springs, CA
The Mythology Of All Races, 1930, 1ohn A. MacCulloch: Archaeological Institute Of
America: Boston, MA
Their (tor9? 20th Cent)r9 Penteco*ta%*2 1DB12 red o*ter? ;ord Af%a3e Pre**?
HaHe%1ood2 -O
The Philosophy Of The Church Fathers, 1964, Harry A. Wolfson: Harvard
University Press: Cambridge, MA
The Primitive Church, 1964, Maurice Goguel: The Macmillan Co.: NY, NY
The Roots Of Witchcraft, 1974, Michael Harrison: Citadel Press: Secaucus, N1
The Secret Societies, 1875, Charles W. Heckethorn: R. Bentley & Son: London
The Story of the Christian Church, 1962, 1esse Hurlbut: Holt, Rinehart & Winston:
NY
The Two Babylons, 1959, Alexander Hislop: Loizeaux Brothers: Neptune, N1
The Two Treatises Of Servetus On The Trinity, ed 1ames H. Ropes and Kirsop Lake,
trans. Earl Morse Wilbur (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932)
The Works Of Flavius 1osephus, Flavius 1osephus: tr. William Whiston: Associated
Pub. & Authors Inc.: Grand Rapid, MI
The Works Of 1ohn Adams, 1ohn Adams,
They Speak In Other Tongues, 1976, 1ohn L. Sherrill: McGraw Hill: NY, NY
Think It Not Strange, 1965, Fred 1. Foster: Pentecostal Pub. House: St. Louis, MO
Witchcraft In History, 1977, Ronald Holmes: Citadel: Secaucus, N1
Who Is Who In Church History, 1974, Elgin S. Moyer: Keats Publishing, Inc.: New
Canaan, CN
;or%d Chri*tian Enc9c%o<edia2 edited +9 Da7id /arrett? Ne1 "or,? O:ford Uni7er*it9
Pre**2 1DB2.
Zoroastrian Theology, Maneck 1. N. Dhalla
ENDNOTES
I1J !ife Of Chri*t2 6one*2 <5 i Ithe fore1ordJ
¡2] Hi*tor9 of the Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o%. III2 <<. GG3CGGK).
¡3] Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% 1K2 << 2DGC2D$.
¡4] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o%. 32 <5 GGK.
¡5] The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tianit92 G)i5ne+ert2 << 122 13.
¡6] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 K#0.
¡7] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 K#0.
¡8] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion and Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% G2 << G1$2 G1G.
¡9] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 G0.
¡10] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 <5 #D$.
¡11] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 3K0.
¡12] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 KKD.
I13J Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 <5 G02.
I1KJ I+.2 7o% 32 Tert)%%ian2 A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 ch<* 1DC202 <5 11#3
¡15] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 pt 2, Tert)%%ian2 A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 bk 7, ch< 2$2 <5 11GD.
I1GJ Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 pt 2, Tert)%%ian2 A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 bk 7, ch< 2D2 <5 11$K
¡17] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 12#.
¡18] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 #$
¡19] Ante Nicene ather*2 Hi<<o%9t)*2 7o% #2 +, D2 ch< 22 <5 2#D.
¡20] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 GK.
¡21] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% #2 <5 12$.
¡22] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 GB
¡23] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% #2 << 130C131.
¡24] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 B#.
¡25] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% G2 E<i*t%e on Arian Here*9 and De<o*ition of Ari)*2 ch< 12
*ec 122 <5 #BD.
¡26] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 << #122#13.
¡27] NFPN2 *erie* 22 7o% 22 (ocrate*2 +, 12 ch< 302 << 1##C1#G.
¡28] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 << K#12 K#0.
¡29] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 ;o%f*on2 << #B3C#BK.
¡30] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o% 22 << B#K2 B##.
¡31] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 KKD.
¡32] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 << 2DK2 2D#.
¡33] The Dec%ine And a%% Of The Ro3an E3<ire2 Gi++on2 7o% 12 << 3D3C3DK.
¡34] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 << K2G2 K2$.
¡35] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 7o%. 122 << K#BCKG0.
¡36] The Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion2 Headin5 Trinit92 7o% 1#2 <5 #K.
¡37] The Enc9c%o<edia /ritannica2 1D10 ed.2 7o%. 22 <5 2B#.
¡38] C9c%o<edia Of /i+%ica% Theo%o5ica% And Ecc%e*ia*tica% !iterat)re2 Headin5 of
Trinit92 7o%. 102 <5. ##3.
¡39] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 1D10 ed.2 7o%. K2 a<<endi: i= 7o%. 22 <5. 20D.
IK0J E**a9* and (,etche*2 Ne13an2 7o% 12 <5 1K2.
IK1J E**a9* and (,etche*2 Ne13an2 7o% 12 << 21B2 232.
IK2J E**a9* and (,etche*2 Ne13an2 7o% 12 <5 20#.
IK3J E**a9* and (,etche*2 Ne13an2 7o% 12 << 20D2 232.
¡44] The T1o /a+9%on*2 Hi*%o<2 <<. 1KC1B.
¡45] The 6e1i*h Enc9c%o<edia2 7o%. K2 <5. #K.
¡46] The -i**ion And E:<an*ion Of Chri*tianit92 Harnac,2 <5 K3D.
¡47] The -i**ion And E:<an*ion Of Chri*tianit92 <5 2D3.
¡48] I.(./.E.2 headin5 LTrinit9A *ection 22.
¡49] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 22 << 22B2 1$#.
¡50] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 <5 1D1.
¡51] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 I5nati)*2 E< to (39raean*2 ch< $2 << 110C1112
& chp 20, pp 122, 120, also chp 1, pg 175, long ver., Sage Digital Library.
¡52] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< 1#2 <5 13G2 *hort 7er.2 F <5 13$2 %on5 7er.2 (a5e.
¡53] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< G2 <5 12D2 a%*o ch< 112 <5 13K2 %on5 7er.2 (a5e.
¡54] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< #2 <5 2122 ch< G2 <5 2132 (a5e.
¡55] A Critica% Hi*tor9 Of The E7o%)tion Of Trinitariani*32 Paine2 <5 2D.
¡56] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 << #B22 2D2.
¡57] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 6)*tin2 ir*t A<o%o592 ch< 332 <5 32G2 (a5e
¡58] I+.2 7o% 12 6)*tin2 (econd A<o%o592 ch< G2 <5 3GK2 F ch< 132 <5 3$02 (a5e.
I#DJ I+.2 7o% 12 Dia%o5)e 1ith Tr9<ho a 6e12 ch< G12 << K#32 K#K= ch< G22 <5 K##= ch<
1302 <5 #K0= ch< 12B2 <5 #3D.
¡60] I+.2 7o% 22 Tatian2 Addre** to the Gree,*2 ch< #2 <5 1332 (a5e F 7o% 22 <5 G$ +,.
¡61] I+.2 7o%. 22 Theo<hi%)*2 To A)to%9c)*2 +, 22 ch< 102 <5 1D#.
¡62] I+.2 7o% 22 Theo<hi%)*2 to A)to%9c)*2 +, 22 ch< 222 <5 20$.
IG3J I+.2 7o% 22 Theo<hi%)*2 To A)to%9c)*2 +, 22 ch< 1#2 <5 201
¡64] I+.2 7o% 12 Irenae)* A5ain*t Here*ie*2 +, 22 ch< 2$2 <5 B30.
¡65] I+.2 7o% 12 Irenae)* A5ain*t Here*ie*2 +, 32 ch< 112 <5 BBG.
¡66] I+.2 7o% 12 Irenae)* ra5. 3D2 <5 11D1= ra5. #32 <5 11D#.
¡67] I+.2 7o% 12 Irenae)*2 +,K2 ch< 202 *ec 112 << 1013.
¡68] I+.2 7o% 12 Irenae)*2 +, 32 ch< 102 <5 B$B.
¡69] I+.2 7o%. 12 Irenae)*2 +, K2 ch< 3B2<5 10$#2 *ec 12 F2.
¡70] Hi*tor9 of the Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o%. 22 <5. ###.
I$1J Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 <t 22 Tert)%%ian2 A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 +, $2 ch< 232 <5 11G1
I$2J I+.2 7o% 32 <t 22 Tert)%%ian2 A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 bk 7, ch<*. #CG2 << 112KC112$2 (a5e
¡73] I+.2 7o% 32 <t 22 Tert)%%ian? A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 +, $2 ch< $2 << 112BC112D2 ch< D2 <<
1131C1132.
I$KJ The &ohar2 7o%. 32 K2a2 <5. 130= e7en tho)5h the 3a8orit9 of the 6e1i*h Zohar i*
a%%e5orica% tra*h2
and the #a$ylonian Talmud also, every now and then you can find some truth.
¡75] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%. 12 Dia%o5)e of 6)*tin 1ith Tr9<ho a 6e12 ch< 11K2 <5 #20.
I$GJ I+.2 7o% 32 <t 22 Tert)%%ian? A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 +, $2 ch< 2#2 <5 11G#.
¡77] I+.2 7o% 32 <t 22 Tert)%%ian? A5ain*t Pra:ea*2 +, $2 ch< B2 <5 112D2 ch< 2G2 <5 11G$2
ch< 1K2 <5 11K2.
¡78] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o%. 22 <5. ##2.
¡79] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 7o%. 22 <5. 3#K.
¡80] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%. K2 <5. 2KG.
¡81] I+.2 7o%. G2 <5. D22 D3.
¡82] I+.2 7o%. $2 <5. 10#.
¡83] I+.2 7o%. G2 <5. 2DG.
¡84] The Ethnic Trinitie*2 << B02 B1.
¡85] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%. $2 <5. 10#.
¡86] The Ethnic Trinitie*2 Paine2 << 1312 130.
¡87] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 <5 1B32 ch< G0.
¡88] ;ho ;a* ;ho In Ch)rch Hi*tor92 -o9er2 << 331C332.
¡89] The Internationa% (tandard /i+%e Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% K2 <5 23B2
¡90] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 << #B22 2D2.
¡91] The Ethnic Trinitie*2 Paine2 << 1312 130.
¡92] The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tianit92 <5 11G
¡93] The Ca3+rid5e -edie7a% Hi*tor92 <5 11.
¡94] The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tianit92 << 1G$2 1GB.
¡95] The Ca3+rid5e -edie7a% Hi*tor92 <5 10.
IDGJ I+.2 7o% 22 *er 22 (ocrate* (cho%a*tic)*2 +, 12 ch< B2 <<#GC#B.
¡97] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%. 22 <<. B2 D.
¡98] The Dec%ine And a%% Of The Ro3an E3<ire2 7o%. 12 << 1$2 3$#.
¡99] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%. 22 <<. D2 11.
¡100] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 7o%. 22 <5 3#0.
I101J Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% 1K2 << 2DGC2D$.
¡102] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o%. 32 <5 GGK.
¡103] The Ch)rch Teache*2 <<. 12#C12$.
¡104] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 7o%. G2 <5 32G.
¡105] The ;or,* Of 6ohn Ada3*2 Ada3*2 7o% 102 << KK2 BK2 100.
¡106] (tron5M* E:ha)*ti7e Concordance Of The /i+%e2 N2D3$.
¡107] I+.2 N3KGG.
¡108] Enc9c%o<edia Of Occ)%ti*3 And Para<*9cho%o592 7o%. 22 <5. D20.
¡109] (ecret (ocietie* And ()+7er*i7e -o7e3ent*2 ;e+*ter2 <5. K .
¡110] The Re<)+%ic Of P%ato2 /r9an2 <<. 31#2 110C111.
¡111] Enc9c%o<edia Of Occ)%ti*3 And Para<*9cho%o592 7o%. 32 <5. 11DB.
¡112] The T1o /a+9%on*2 Hi*%o<2 << 12C13.
¡113] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% B2 Reco5nition of C%e3ent2 +, K2 ch<* 2$C2D2 << 2GDC2$0.
¡114] The -9tho%o59 Of A%% Race*2 -acC)%%och2 <5. ##.
¡115] The T1o /a+9%on*2 << 12C13.
¡116] The ;or,* Of %a7i)* 6o*e<h)*2 <5. 30.
¡117] The 6e1i*h Enc9c%o<edia2 7o%. D2 <<. 30DC310.
¡118] The T1o /a+9%on*2 <5. 22B.
¡119] The /a+9%onian Connection2 6one*2 <5. 1K1.
¡120] The -9*ter9 Of /a+9%on Re7ea%ed2 -itche%% F (charf2 <5. 20.
¡121] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o%. G2 <5. 2#0.
¡122] The /a+9%onian Connection2 <5. 2.
¡123] The Internationa% (tandard /i+%e Enc9c%o<edia2 7o%. K2 <5. 2333.
¡124] The -9*ter9 Of /a+9%on Re7ea%ed2 <<. 20C21.
¡125] The T1o /a+9%on*2 <<. #BC#D2 GD2 21.
¡126] (ecret (ocietie*2 ;e+*ter2 <5. K.
¡127] The Ori5in And Gro1th Of Re%i5ion A* I%%)*trated /9 The Re%i5ion Of Ancient
E59<t2 Reno)f2 <5. 22B.
¡128] /a+9%on -9*ter9 Re%i5ion2 ;oodro12 <<. B2CB3.
¡129] The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tianit92 <5 1$0.
¡130] (ecret (ocietie*2 Dara)%2 <5 B0.
¡131] The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tianit92 <5 GB.
¡132] The /a+9%onian Connection2 6one*2 <5 KB.
¡133] ;itchcraft In Hi*tor92 Ho%3e*2 <5 3K.
¡134] The (ecret (ocietie*2 Hec,ethorn2 7o% 12 <5 $#.
¡135] I+.2 7o%. 12 << 1K2 $#2 $K.
¡136] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 7o% G2 <5 32G.
¡137] E**a9* And (,etche*2 Ne13an2 7o% 12 <5 1K2.
¡138] I+.2 7o% 12 << 21B2 232
¡139] I+.2 7o% 12 <5 20#.
¡140] I+.2 7o% 12 << 20D2 232.
¡141] I+.2 7o% 12 <5 1#2.
¡142] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 <5 $B0.
¡143] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 ch< G2 <5 1K32 %on5 7er.2 (a5e.
I1KKJ I+.2 7o% 12 I5nati)*2 E<i*t%e to the Phi%i<<ian*2 ch<* 2C32 <5 230.
¡145] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< #2 <5 2122 (a5e
¡146] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< 12 <5 21G2 (a5e.
¡147] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< G32 <5 3#22 (a5e.
¡148] I+.2 7o% 12 +, 32 ch< 1G2 <5 D0D2 *ec 12 (a5e.
¡149] I+.2 7o% 32 << #DBC#DD.
¡150] I+.2 7o% 32 << #DBC#DD.
¡151] I+.2 7o% #2 << 1KB2 12$C12B.
¡152] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 << $12 $22 $D.
¡153] C9c%o<edia Of /i+%ica% Theo%o5ica% And Ecc%e*ia*tica% !iterat)re2 7o% G2 << KKBC
KKD.
¡154] Ante Nicene ather*2 Dia%o5)e* 1ith Tr9<ho2 7o% 12 ch< 12B2 <5 #3B2 (a5e.
¡155] C9c%o<edia Of /i+%ica% Theo%o5ica% And Ecc%e*ia*tica% !iterat)re2 7o% G2
pp 448-449; op. cit. Ante Nicene Fathers, 1ustin Martyr, First Apol., chp 63.
¡156] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 << #1C #K.
¡157] I.(./.E.2 Headin5 @Trinit9A *ection 22.
¡158] The9 (<ea, In Other Ton5)e*2 (herri%%2 <5 B2.
¡159] The /i+%ica% Re<o*itor92 A<ri% 1B3K2 <5 2$2.
¡160] Dictionar9 of the /i+%e2 7o% 12 <5 BB.
¡161] The I%%)*trated /i+%e Dictionar92 << 1$3C1$K.
¡162] Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% 22 <5 #D.
¡163] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 ;o%f*on2 <5 310
¡164] E**a9* And (,etche*2 Ne13an2 7o% 12 <5 1#2.
¡165] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 << #DBC#DD.
¡166] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< G2 <5 1K32 %on5 7er.2 (a5e.
¡167] A Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch In The A<o*to%ic A5e2 -cGiffert2 <5 G1.
I1GBJ Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 22 Her3a*2 The (he<herd2 7o% 12 ch< 32 <5 $= 3.D.1G (112
132 1#2 KB2 KD).
¡169] The Enc9c%o<aedia /ritannica2 10th ed.2 7o% 32 << 3G#C3GG.
¡170] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% 22 <5 2G3= a%*o O the chan5e M <5 33.
¡171] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% B2 Act* of Pa)% and Thec%a2 <5 KD0.
¡172] I+.2 7o% 12 ch< G32 <5 3#22 (a5e.
¡173] Ne1 Internationa% (tandard /i+%e Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% 22 << 3$$C3$B2 3BD.
¡174] (cri+nerM* Dictionar9 Of The /i+%e2 7o% 12 <5 2K1.
¡175] Dictionar9 Of The /i+%e2 Ha*tin5*2 artic%e @/a<ti*32A 7o% 12 <5 2K1.
¡176] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 <5 1B3.
¡177] I+.2 7o% 32 << G232 G2G
¡178] I+.2 7o% 32 <5 G0.
¡179] I+.2 7o% 12 +, 32 ch< 1G2 <5 D0D2 *ec 12 (a5e.
¡180] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 12#.
¡181] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 G0.
¡182] I+.2 7o% 32 <5 #$
¡183] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% #2 <5 12#.
¡184] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 <5 B30.
¡185] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 << 3K02 3K1.
¡186] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 KKD= 7o% B2 <5 10$D.
¡187] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% 102 <5 B1.
¡188] The (tor9 of the Chri*tian Ch)rch2 H)r%+)t2 <5 GG=
op. cit. The New Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 9, pg 1079.
¡189] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 << B2B2 B30.
¡190] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 GB
¡191] I+.2 7o% 32 <5 #3.
¡192] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 32 << #DBC#DD.
¡193] I+.2 7o% 32 A5ain*t Pra:ea* ch<. 2G.
¡194] I+.2 7o% 32 << #DBC#DD.
¡195] I+.2 7o% #2 << 130C131.
¡196] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Though, Blunt, pp 512,513.
¡197] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 << K#12 K#0.
¡198] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 KKD.
¡199] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 22 <5 3$32 7o% 32 <5 BK.
¡200] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% #2 << 1KB2 12$C12B.
¡201] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 << #1C #K.
¡202] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 ;o%f*on2 << #B3C#BK.
¡203] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o% 22 << B#K2 B##.
¡204] Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% D2 <5 10$D.
¡205] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% K2 <5 G1K.
¡206] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 33B.
¡207] I+.2 <5 33$.
¡208] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,.2 7o% 32 << BB2 BD.
¡209] The Enc9c%o<aedia /ritannica2 1D102 7o% 32 <5 3G#=
op. cit. New Catholic Encyclopedia, 1967, vol 4, pg 876.
¡210] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%)3e #2 <5 GG$.
¡211] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 G$0
¡212] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 3BB
¡213] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o% 22 <5 2GK.
¡214] The ather* Of The Ch)rch2 7o% #12 << 2$12 2$22 2$B2 2$D.
¡215] I+.2 7o% #12 << 30K2 30G2 30$.
¡216] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% #2 C9<rian2 $3.#2 <5 3B$.
¡217] The Ear%9 Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Da7ie*2 <5 13B.
¡218] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5io)* 4no1%ed5e2 7o% 12 <5 K3#.
¡219] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 B2.
¡220] The -i**ion And E:<an*ion Of Chri*tianit92 Harnac,2 7o% 12 <5 KBK.
¡221] The Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 1D112 7o% 102 <5 KKD.
¡222] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 33B.
¡223] I+.2 <5 #1K.
¡224] Canne9>* Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion2 )nder the headin5 of /a<ti*32 <5 #3.
¡225] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 ;a%,er2 <5 ##.
¡226] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 ;ei**er2 <5 $.
¡227] The Dec%ine And a%% Of The Ro3an E3<ire2 Gi++on2 7o% 12 << 3D3C3DK.
¡228] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5ht2 /%)nt2 << K2G2 K2$.
¡229] I+.2 << 2D#2 K2$
¡230] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 22 << KK CKG.
¡231] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% K2 <5 KG3.
¡232] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5ht2 /%)nt2 <5 K2$.
¡233] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% 22 <5 K#.
¡234] I+.2 7o% 22 <5 #$.
¡235] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5ht2 /%)nt2 <5 K2B.
¡236] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 B0.
¡237] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% 22 <5 101.
¡238] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 ;o%f*on2 << #B32 #BK2 #B#.
¡239] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5ht2 /%)nt2 <5 K2B.
¡240] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% 32 <5 B0.
¡241] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% 22 <5 101.
¡242] The Phi%o*o<h9 Of The Ch)rch ather*2 ;o%f*on2 << #B32 #BK2 #B#.
¡243] The ather* Of The Ch)rch2 7o% KK2 << B32 #02 BD.
¡244] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% K2 <5 BG.
¡245] The ather* Of The Ch)rch2 /a*i%2 !etter 2102 7o% B2 (ec 32 << #B0C#B1.
¡246] I+.2 7o% 2B2 <5 2K2.
¡247] I+.2 7o% 132 <5 2G2.
¡248] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 #1K2 K2B.
¡249] I+.2 <5 2D#.
¡250] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o% 32 <5 KB#.
¡251] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 33B.
¡252] The Ch)rch Teache*2 <5 12#.
¡253] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% 32 3BB.
¡254] Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% D2 <5 10$D.
¡255] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 3K0.
¡256] The ather* Of The Ch)rch2 7o% 22 <5 332.
¡257] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 #DD.
¡258] Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% D2 <5 10$D.
¡259] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 ;ei**er2 <5 B.
¡260] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 <5 2D#.
¡261] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 7o% 32 <5 B0.
¡262] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 <5 2D#.
¡263] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d2 <5 23G= o<. cit. Co3<ton>*
Enc9c%o<edia2 1D$K2 7o% G2 <5 K10.
¡264] Ne1 Catho%ic Enc9c%o<edia2 7o% D2 <5 10$D.
¡265] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 <5 B30.
¡266] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 ;ei**er2 <5 B.
¡267] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 <5 $B0.
¡268] An Introd)ction To The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tian Doctrine2 <5 2# n. 1.
¡269] Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% 132 <5 B3.
¡270] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 <5 $B0.
¡271] The Ch)rch Teache*2 <5 130.
¡272] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 #1K2 K2B.
¡273] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o% 32 <5 KB#.
¡274] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d2 <5 2G3.
¡275] I+.2 Arno%d2 << 2K32 2GKC2G#.
¡276] The Enc9c%o<aedia /ritannica2 1D102 7o% 32 <5 3GG.
¡277] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 ;ei**er2 << 1BC20.
¡278] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 3G.
¡279] The Enc9c%o<edia /ritannica2 1D102 7o%. 32 < 3GG.
¡280] The Nicene And Po*t Nicene ather*2 (chaff2 7o% 32 <5 3D1.
¡281] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d2 <5 2G3.
¡282] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 #1K.
¡283] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d2 <5 2G2= o<. cit. - P. Ha3i%ton2 The
Chari*3atic -o7e3ent2 <5 $1.
¡284] Enc9c%o<edia Of Re%i5ion And Ethic*2 Ha*tin5*2 7o% B2 <5 $B0.
¡285] The Ch)rch Teache*2 << 13#C13G.
¡286] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d2 << 22GC22$2 2GG.
¡287] A*<ect* Of Penteco*ta%CChari*3atic Ori5in*2 (9nan2 <5 1#B.
¡288] Enc9c%o<edia A3ericana2 7o% 1#2 <5 1D2.
¡289] H)nted Heretic2 /ainton2 /ainton2 << 2$BC 2$D2 2DB.
¡290] Chri*tianit9 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 Cairn*2 << 3322 333.
¡291] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d2 << 2GK2 23B2 2GK2 2G#.
¡292] Enc9c%o<edia A3ericana2 7o% 1#2 <5 1D2.
¡293] ;ho ;a* ;ho In Ch)rch Hi*tor92 -o9er2 << 3$02 3$1.
¡294] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 3$.
¡295] Antitrinitarian /io5ra<h92 ;a%%ace2 7o% 12 << K322 K#02 KKD.
¡296] Ear%9 And -edie7a% Chri*tianit92 /ainton2 <5 13G.
¡297] H)nted Heretic2 /ainton2 <5 KD
¡298] C9c%o<edia Of /i+%ica% Theo%o5ica% And Ecc%e*ia*tica% !iterat)re2 7o% D2 <5 #D0.
¡299] The T1o Treati*e* Of (er7et)* On The Trinit92 tr +9 Ear% ;i%+)r2 << 1$3C1$K
¡300] I+.2 << 1DGC1D$
¡301] Antitrinitarian /io5ra<h92 ;a%%ace2 7o% 12 << KK2CKKK.
¡302] Dictionar9 Of (ect*2 Here*ie*2 Ecc%e*ia*tica% Partie*2 and (choo%* Of Re%i5io)*
Tho)5h2 /%)nt2 <5 ##$.
¡303] ;ho ;a* ;ho In Ch)rch Hi*tor92 -o9er2 << 311C312.
¡304] Antitrinitarian /io5ra<h92 ;a%%ace2 7o% 22 << 3KD2 3#0.
¡305] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 <5 2D.
¡306] Hi*tor9 Of Do53a2 Harnac,2 7o% $2 <5 132.
¡307] H)nted Heretic2 /ainton2 <5 20G.
¡308] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 ;ei**er2 <5 31.
¡309] Antitrinitarian /io5ra<h92 ;a%%ace2 7o% 12 <5 D0.
¡310] I+.2 7o% 12 << 1G12 1GKC1G#2 1G$C1GD.
¡311] A*<ect* Of Penteco*ta%CChari*3atic Ori5in*2 (9nan2 <5 12G.
¡312] C9c%o<edia of /i+%ica% Theo%o5ica% And Ecc%e*ia*tica% !iterat)re2 7o% 102 <<
KB#CKBG=
op. cit. History Of The Christian Church, Schaff, vol 1, pg 237.
¡313] Antitrinitarian /io5ra<h92 ;a%%ace2 7o% 12 <5 1BK.
¡314] I+.2 7o% 12 <5 D0.
¡315] I+.2 7o% 12 << 3K02 3K1.
¡316] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d << 2K12 2GBC2GD= o<. The Chari*3atic
-o7e3ent2 <5 $$.
¡317] 6e*)*> Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 ;ei**er2 <5 1$.
¡318] I+.2 << 3D2 K0.
¡319] A%% The )%%ne**2 Ca3<+e%%2 << 1GD2 1$2C1$32 (a%*o *ee << G32GK2KG0)
I320J The E:<o*itorM* Gree, Te*ta3ent2 ed.2 Nico%%i2 7o% #2 <5 330.
¡321] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d << 2K12 2GBC2GD= o<. -. P. Ha3i%ton2 The
Chari*3atic -o7e3ent2 <5 $$.
¡322] The Ho%ine**CPenteco*ta% -o7e3ent in the United (tate*2 (9nan2 <5 2#= o<. cit.
Enc. Of Re%i5ion2 7o% 32 <5 3$0.
¡323] A Critica% Hi*tor9 Of The E7o%)tion Of Trinitariani*32 Paine2 <5 10G.
¡324] I+.2 <5 1122 113.
¡325] ;ho ;a* ;ho In Ch)rch Hi*tor92 -o9er2 <5 3D2
¡326] A Critica% Hi*tor9 Of The E7o%)tion Of Trinitariani*32 Paine2 <5 10DC111.
¡327] /i+%ica% Re<o*itor92 A<ri% 1B3#2 <5 2GB.
¡328] A Critica% Hi*tor9 Of The E7o%)tion Of Trinitariani*32 Paine2 <5 111.
¡329] I+.2 <5 10D.
¡330] I+.2 << 1K#2 1KK.
¡331] I+.2 << 12#C12$2 1K2C1K32 1KG.
¡332] I* God A Trinit92 -i%%er2 << 222 1#C212 B2CB32 GG.
¡333] A Critica% Hi*tor9 Of The E7o%)tion Of Trinitariani*32 Paine2 << 11DC1222 1K$.
I33KJ Their (tor9? 20th Cent)r9 Penteco*ta%*2 o*ter2 <<. 120C212
0)otin5 Parha32 A Eoice Cr9in5 in the ;i%derne**2 <<. 23C2K.
I33#J The !ife of Andre1 /ar Da7id Ur*han2 Ur*han2 <5 1K1.
I33GJ ;or%d Chri*tian Enc9c%o<edia2 editor /arrett2 <5 23K.
¡337] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 Arno%d << 2212 2D1.
¡338] The Enc9c%o<aedia /ritannica2 1D$22 7o%. 22 <5 $#.
¡339] I+.2 1D10.2 7o% 2$2 <5 102 )nder 5%o**o%a%ia.
¡340] The I%%)*trated /i+%e Dictionar92 1DB02 6 D Do)5%a*2 <5 1$3= The ;e*t3in*ter
Study Edition Of The Holy Bible, pg 72; The Interpretor's Dictionary Of The Bible,
vol l, pg 351; The Interpretor's Bible, 1951, vol 7, pg 624; A Commentary on the
Bible, 1919, Dr. Peake and Dr. Grieve, pg 723; Harper's Bible Dictionary, 1961, pg
60; Encyclopedia Biblica, 1903, vol. 1, pg 473. The reader also may want to read the
footnote on Matthew 28:19 in the following Bible translations: The Clarified New
Testament, E. C. Kraeling; The 1erusalem Bible published by Catholic Church; A
Literal Translation of the Bible, Dr. Robert Young; The Greek Testament, published
by the British and Foreign Bible Society.
¡341] Ne1 Internationa% (tandard /i+%e Enc9c%o<edia2 Eo% 22 << 3$$C3$B2 3BD.
¡342] C9c%o<edia Of /i+%ica% Theo%o5ica% And Ecc%e*ia*tica% !iterat)re2 7o% G2 <5 KKB.
¡343] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% 12 <5 1B3.
¡344] I+.2 7o% 32 A5ain*t Pra:ea* ch< 2G.
¡345] Hi*tor9 Of The Chri*tian Ch)rch2 (chaff2 7o% 22 <5 2KB.
¡346] I+.2 footnote on <5 32K.
¡347] The Enc9c%o<aedia /ritannica2 1D102 7o% 32 <5 3GG.
¡348] The Ear%9 Hi*tor9 Of Chri*tianit92 << 1#02 1#1.
¡349] The Enc9c%o<aedia /ritannica2 1D102 7o% 32 <5 3G#= o<. cit. Ne1 Catho%ic
Enc9c%o<edia2 1DG$2 7o% K2 <5 B$G.
¡350] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o%)3e #2 <5 GG$.
¡351] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 G$0
¡352] I+.2 7o% #2 << G$1CG$2
¡353] I+.2 7o% #2 << G$3CG$K.
¡354] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 3B3.
¡355] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 3BB
¡356] The ather* Of The Ch)rch2 7o% #12 << 2$12 2$22 2$B2 2$D.
¡357] I+.2 7o% #12 << 300C301.
¡358] I+.2 7o% #12 << 30K2 30G2 30$.
¡359] I+.2 7o% #12 << 3022 30#.
¡360] Ante Nicene ather*2 7o% #2 <5 #G#.
¡361] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 #G$.
¡362] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 #GB.
¡363] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 #GD.
¡364] I+.2 7o% #2 <5 #GG.
¡365] 6e*)*M Na3e /a<ti*3 Thro)5h The Cent)rie*2 <5 G.
¡366] I+.2 <5 $.
¡367] The ather* Of The Ch)rch2 7o% D2 <5 3B#.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful