Tuesday, July 7, 2015

THE HISTORICAL NUMERICAL SUPERIORITY OF THE MONARCHIANS



That the harbingers of the new logos-christology were in the vast minority, is attested to by both Tertullian and Origen. (Origen, in Johann. T. H; Tertullian, Adv. Prax.) Here is Tertullian’s account of the numerical superiority of the Monarchians, and the steadfastness of their position: “To be sure, plain people, not to call them ignorant and common – of whom the greater portion of believers is always comprised – in as much as the rule of faith withdraws them from the many gods of the heathen world to the one true God, shrink back from the economy” (the economical trinity) “they are constantly throwing out the accusation that we preach two gods and three gods… .  We hold, they say, the monarchy” (Against Parxeas ch III). It is further verified that Modalistic Monarchianism dominated the first, second and third centuries by such a venerated witness as the Most Eminent Cardinal John Henry Newman of England (1801-1890): “Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa.  ... their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, and that the true faith  was hardly preached in the churches” (Essays and Sketches, Vol I, Primitive Christianity 5:2).  By “the true faith” Cardinal Newman meant the dogma of the Trinity. Further, we know from the Acts of Justin Martyr and His Friends that Justin was the teacher and leader of a small Christian group who was not representative of the majority Christian population which held that Isaiah 9:6 referenced Christ and saw Him and the Father as one and the same.

Supporting the testimony of Cardinal Newman is the witness of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia which also declares that Modalistic Monarchianism was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries (Newman: “and at an earlier date”). It states, “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….” (I.S.B.E., Heading “Trinity” section 22.) Notice that the I.S.B.E. acknowledges Sabellianism (which is Modalist Mon-archianism) as the DOMINANT theology in the fourth century. This would make Modalistic Monarchianism the orthodox theology at the time of the Council of Nicaea. This manifested itself in at least two statements of the Creed of Nicaea: 1. the line of the Creed that acknowledges Jesus and the Father being homoousios; and 2. in the anathema pronounced on any who said that the Father and the Son were different hypostases.

The priority and preeminent position of Monarchianism is underlined by the writing of the renown Professor Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930): “The really dangerous opponent of the Logos Christology in the period between A.D. 180 and 300 was ...  the doctrine which saw the deity himself incarnate in Christ, and conceived Christ to be God in a human body, the Father become flesh. Against this view the great Doctors of the (Catholic) Church — Tertullian, Origen, Novatian, but above all, Hippolytus (first anti-pope)— had principally to fight. Its defenders were called by Tertullian “Monarchiani”, and, not altogether correctly, “Patripassiani” which afterwards became the usual names in the West (see e.g., Cypr., Ep. 73. 4). In the East they were all designated, after the famous head of the school, “Sabelliani” from the second half of the third century; yet the name of “Patripassiani” was not quite unknown there also. Hippolytus tells us in the Philosophumena, that at that time the Monarchian controversy agitated the whole 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 (Adv. Prax. 3). Modalism, as we now know from the Philosoph., was ... the official theory in Rome. That it was not an absolute novelty can be proved (see the Modalism of Clement of Rome, Ignatius, Shepherd of Hermas, Melito, etc), but it is very probable, on the other hand, that a Modalistic doctrine, which sought to exclude every other, only existed from the end of the second century. [Because at that time its orthodoxy was being challenged by the innovation of the logos-christology and was raising up to defend itself.] It was in opposition to Gnosticism that the first effort was made to fix theologically the formulas of a naïve Modalism, and that these were used to confront the logos-christology in order (1) to avert Ditheism, (2) to maintain the complete divinity of Christ, and (3) to prevent the attacks of Gnosticism. An attempt was also made, however, to prove Modalism by exegesis. That is equivalent to saying that this form of doctrine (i.e. Modalistic Monarchianism), which was embraced by the great majority of Christians, was supported by scientific authorities, from the end of the second century. ... Against these there appeared, in the Roman Church, especially the presbyter Hippolytus, who sought to prove that the doctrine promulgated by them was a revolutionary error. But the sympathies of the vast majority of the Roman Christians, so far as they could take any part in the dispute, were on the side of the Monarchians, and even among the clergy only a minority supported Hippolytus. ... Bishop Zephyrine, advised by the prudent Callistus, was himself disposed, like Victor, his predecessor, to the Modalistic views; ...” (Harnack, History of Dogma Vol III)

Tertullian, Origen, Justin Martyr, Quadratus of Athens, and Theophilus among others are known in Church history as the apologists. J. N. D. Kelly ( who recognizes Monarchianism to have been the faith of the apostles of our Lord), when writing about the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus (A. D. 198-222) stated that: “Zephyrinus and Callistus were… conservatives holding fast to a monarchian tradition which antedated the whole movement of thought inaugurated by the apologist.” (J. N.  D. Kelly Ancient Christian Creeds, page 124) Athenagoras of Athens, and Melito of Sardis are two other Apologists that are not often included in the historical lists, because, in this writers opinion, their apologies did nothing to advance the logos-christology; more will be said about these men later.

Archeology Establishes Monarchianism as the Original Christianity (Monarchian Church At Megiddo—Third Century)
The Inscription reads: ““Akeptous, the God-loving, offered this table for (the) God  (Himself) Jesus Christ, as a remembrance.”















On November 6th, 2005 the Associated Press reported on the discover of a third century Christian church un-earthed in Northern Israel in a town called Megiddo. As a construction crew was excavating for an addition to the Megiddo prison, workers uncovered a large tile floor with beautiful mosaics intact. A number of inlaid inscriptions were found in the tile. Further excavating discovered the walls of the church within a Roman compound. This may very well be the earliest church building found in the world, but surely in Palestine. The early date of the first half of the third century (A.D. 200-250) is established by the pottery remnants found there and the style of the Greek writing in the mosaics. Plus, the beautiful fish mosaic that is the centerpiece of one of the two tile floors predate the use of the cross as the major Christian symbol; so, the fish (instead of the cross) symbol indicates an early date, indeed.  Also, the “table” (mentioned in one of the inlaid mosaic inscriptions) as a memorial instead of an altar likewise speaks of a very early Christian custom.
  
This discovery is important to Christianity in a number of ways. Most importantly, how-ever, is the Mosaic on the floor of the third century Christian Chruch at Megiddo, Israel. The use of fish instead of the cross as the Christian symbol, the mosaic design along with pottery ramnants dates the site to the early 3rd century.inscription dedicating  the “table” as a tribute to Jesus, “Akeptous, the God-loving, offered this table for (the) God Jesus Christ, as a remem-brance.” This inscription (calling Jesus God) dis-credits all who deny that Jesus was worshipped as God until after the Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325, 4th century). Skeptics often claim that the Christian doctrine of the deity of Jesus was not “invented” until that time. Now, the discovery of an early (A.D. 200-250) third century church in Megiddo, Israel whose worshippers worshipped Jesus as the God discredits that claim. One should observe, further, that the “table” was dedicated to but one God (whom the worshippers recognized as Jesus), and not to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit; as would have been expected if the worshippers were Trinitarians. Nor was the dedication to the Father, or the Son of God, which would have allowed the congregates to have been subordinationist. All the evidence points to this being a Monarchian church.

Along with the style of Greek writing used in the inscriptions, ancient geometric patterns in the mosaics and the depiction of fish rather than the cross indicate that the church predates the fourth century, The church’s location, not far from the spot where the New Testament says the final battle between good and evil will take place (Armageddon), also mades sense since a Christian bishop was active in the area at the time and a church located on this spot would have been very logical.

According to the Apostolic Constitutions the first Bishop of Caesarea was Zacchaeus the Publican, followed by Cornelius (possibly Cornelius the Centurion) and Theophilus (possibly the addressee of the Gospel of Luke). The first bishops considered historically attested are those mentioned by the early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea, himself a bishop of the see in the 4th century. He speaks of a Theophilus who was bishop in the 10th year of Commodus (c. 189), of a Theoctistus (216–258), a short-lived Domnus and a Theotecnus, and an Agapius (?–306). Among the participants in the Synod of Ancyra in 314 was a bishop of Caesarea named Agricolaus,

So, according to the historical lists of Bishops the bishop of Jerusalem during the first half of the third century was Alexander, and of Caesarea was Theotistus. The church in Megiddo was in the jurisdiction of one, or both of these bishops. This brings an interesting situation into view. This was the time period of Origen. Some of his reputed teachings, such as the pre-existence of souls, the final reconciliation of all creatures, including perhaps even the devil (apocatastasis), and the subordination of the Son of God to God the Father, later became controversial among Christian theologians. According to Origen, the mediator between God and the world, through whom the world was made, is the Logos (Fisher). Here, we see Platonic, Alexandria Jewish thought. Origen believed that the Logos was personal and without beginning. Yet in Origen’s idea, the Father is the fountainhead of deity. The Father, moreover, is God as He is, in and of Himself; the Father is “God” with the article affixed to the term.  Origen taught that Jesus was “another substance or essence” from the Father. In one place Origen calls Jesus “the most ancient of all creatures.” Fisher makes the observation that Origen was solicitous to fend off the monarchian inference of the identity of the Father with the Son. That Origen was received by both bishops Alexander of Jerusalem and Theotistus of Caesarea (in fact Origen spent considerable time under the jurisdiction of these two bishops) during the first half of the third century is interesting in that the Megiddo Church is surely a Monarchian congregation who recognizes Jesus as “the God Himself.”


If the ministry of the Bishop is a blessing to you, please consider leaving a monetary gift of any amount at the link provided here:
Apostolically Speaking
☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)


Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:



Read other essays from the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

"The Dual Nature Of Jesus Of Nazareth"

"The Worlds, Made By The Son"

"Hebrews 13:8 vs 1 Corinthians 15:28"

"Glory With The Father"

"Philippians 2:6-8, Answering Trinitarian Objections"

"How Is God One?"

"Hebrew Monotheism"


"The Apostolic Creed"

"Jesus Is Father God"

"Homoousia And The Creed Of Nicaea"

"The Triquetra And Modalism"

"Modalism, Simultaneous Or Sequential?"

"Micah 5:2-4, An Exegesis"


"Elohim, the Plural form For God"

"Can the Deity of Jesus Be called The Son Of God?"

"Mathematical Equation For The Godhead"

"Hebrew Monotheism, Second Edition"

"Jesus, On God's Right Hand"

"The Name of the Deity" (The Tetragrammaton)

"Christology of the Apostolic Church Fathers"

"Christian Modalism challenged by the Greeks"

"The Apologists and the Logos Christology"

"Logos Christology"

"The Seven Spirits of God"

"Historical Numerical Superiority of the Monarchians"

"How Is God One?" Second Edition

"Creed of Nicæa (Creed of the 318) Affirmed"

"Another Comforter (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Echad vs Yachid (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"The Godhead Teaching of Ignatius of Antioch"

"Hebrews 1:8, (Answering Objections to Modalism)"

"Godhead Theology of the Tabernacle of Moses"

"Proper Biblical Understanding of the Word 'Person'"

"Defense of Isaiah 9:6, Answering Objections to Modalism"
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/04/defense-of-isaiah-96.html

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)


Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4





 THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY
PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY




Posted by at

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)