THE EARLY CHURCH WRITINGS AND MODALISM (ONENESS)

Since it has been presumed by many that it is fact to say the early church writers after the death of the last of the 12 apostles, John, were not oneness, I have compiled proof that they were more Modalistic. Now, while nobody should interpret biblical doctrine only by reading the post-apostolic writings, but they can be used to simply identify what beliefs were current among professing believers in those centuries. Most modern scholars do not believe what many writers championed and proposed at that time. For example, in the third century writers expressed their dogma using the language of tritheists and subordinationists who are considered heretics by all of us today. What beliefs do the early writers express? I believe you will be interested to read the following:

TERTULLIAN
Although Tertullian is looked upon as a man who wrote valuable history, though a heretic, this rhetorician is called the founder of Western Theology. (Klotsche, The History of Christian Doctrine). The reason we speak first of him is that he was the first writer to refer to God as three Persons yet one substance. Tertullian was binitarian at first, and called the Holy Spirit the Word of God, in Against Praxeas (an anti-modalist letter). Tertullian joined the Montanists in 207. It seems that the Montanists' influence on Tertullian influenced his thinking towards his later version of the trinity, for they spoke much of the paraclete in more personal terms than Tertullian. The man believed that the Son was inferior to the Father. So, although he is regarded as a father of Western Theology, so-called mainline theologians would today call him a heretic. He compared the Son and the Spirit to angels in his defence of maintaining there is no division of the one substance of God. He said that the angels are actually members of the Father's own substance, and since their existence does not destroy God's oneness, then neither does the Son and Spirit. (Against Praxeas, Chapter 3). He believed God's personal distinctions had a beginning and would have an ending. He felt that each Person of the Godhead had a bodily substance, bringing Tertullian next to tritheism. Tertullian was the earliest Trinitarian as per the record of writings. But if we maintain he was simply a good historian, read the following statements he made

regarding the fact that Modalists outnumbered all others in his day. Referring to Modalists and their doctrine: TERTULLIAN: "The majority of believers"; the doctrine was "everywhere." HYPPOLYTUS wrote the same: "no one is ignorant" of the doctrine; it "prevailed]" for a time. NOVATIAN: "many heretics"; "very many heretics" ORIGEN: "the general run of Christian"; "many who are sincerely concerned about religion"; "scholars"; "the great multitude of those who are counted believers"; "some individuals". ATHANASIUS: "So successful"; the Trinitarian doctrine of the Son "was scarcely any longer preached in the churches."

CLEMENT
Post Apostolic Age
The Four Major authors of writings immediately following the death of the last of the 12 apostles, John, were CLEMENT, IGNATIUS, POLYCARP and HERMAS. It is claimed that Clement was trinitarian. Tertullian, a trinitarian, denounced the thought that God could suffer, but Clement wrote: "Content with the provision which God had made for you, and carefully attending to His words, ye were inwardly filled with the doctrine, and His sufferings were before your eyes."

He clearly identified Jesus as God. Modern theologians disagree with their doctrinal father, Tertullian, here and say that God did suffer. Clement called the Father the Creator: "Father and creator of the universe"(19); "Creator and Lord of all"(20,33) "Creator and Father of all worlds, the most holy"(35); "only benefactor of spirits and God of all flesh... the Saviour of those in despair, the Creator and Guardian of every spirit" (59)

So, He called the Father our Creator, Saviour, and Lord. These are all titles of Jesus Christ! Clement consistently called Jesus "our Lord", which title He also gave to the Father. Clement stressed the SINGULAR name of God as Modern Oneness people do

today. Many believers today place no such stress upon the Name. "His all-holy and glorious name" (58); "the most hallowed name of His majesty" (58); "Thine almighty and all-excellent Name" (60); "our hope resting on thy name" (59); "To the well-pleasing of His Name" (64); "Every soul that calls upon His glorious Name" (64).

That last phrase may allude to the Jesus Name baptismal formula, as does James 2:7, Acts 15:17 and Acts 22:16. From I Clement, only TWO sentences may allude otherwise. "Have we not (all) one God and one Christ? Is there not one Spirit of grace poured out upon us?"(46)

But when seeing an allusion to Eph. 4:4-6, which refers to one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one Baptism, one hope, and one God and father, Clement may have been stressing ONENESS and not THREENESS. Eph. 4:6 refers to the titles of Lord and Spirit as being those of the one God who is Father: "One God and Father of all, who is above all [i.e., who is Lord], and through all, and in you all [i.e., who is the Spirit in you]. In that sense, Clement's above phrase from his chapter 46, certainly is conducive to Oneness theology. Chapter 58 exists in only one Greek manuscript, dated 1056, and is missing from the only other Greek MS available. "For as God lives, and as the Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost live -- both the faith and hope of the elect, he who in lowliness of mind, with instant gentleness, and without repentance hath observed the ordinances and appointments given by God -- the same shall obtain a place and name in the number of those who are being saved through Jesus Christ, through whom is glory to Him for ever and ever."

When you read the original Greek, the first part of the paragraph literally says, "For as God lives and the Lord Jesus Christ lives and the Holy Spirit, not only the faith but also the hope of the elect ones..."

It is NOT explicitly trinitarian. Notice the lack of use of the terms "Father" and "Son". These two titles are the unique names of the first two persons of trinitarianism. And directly before this passage, Clement wrote of God and His Name in the singular. Not NAMES as some imply Father, Son and Holy Ghost are, despite the fact that Matt 28:19

maintains ONE name common to all three. What we have quoted speaks of God in the singular, which is conducive to Oneness, and it speaks of salvation we have from God through Jesus Christ, thus using a twofold reference instead of a threefold reference. Oneness accepts all of that. The particular passage focuses upon salvation. We see words like, "faith", "hope", "elect" and "being saved". The focus is not upon the context of the doctrine of God. We simply read of the living God and of the glorified Christ through whom God provided salvation and reveals Himself now and for eternity, and to the Holy Ghost regenerating people.

IGNATIUS
Ignatius equates Jesus with the One God so strongly that many historians called him modalistic. There are seven genuine letters from him remaining today, and six questionable ones from the fourth century and three questionable ones from the twelfth century. It is told by Cyril Richardson (Early Christian Fathers) that the genuine letters are found in an abridged Syriac version, a long version splattered with fourth century interpolations, and a medium version which is most accurate. The longer version, known to be full of interpolations, when compared with the Medium version always "corrects" statements which contradict most people's theology today, and adds statements that are more in line with their thoughts: MEDIUM Farewell in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ, our common hope (Ephesians 21) Ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ, (Magnesians 15) Fare ye well in the grace of God (Smyrnaeans 13) LONG VERSION (interpolated) Fare ye well in God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ, our common hope, and in the Holy Ghost. Ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, in Christ Jesus, by the will of God. Fare ye well in the grace of God, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, being filled with the Holy Spirit.

Ignatius wrote words testifying that Jesus was the One God manifest in the flesh, whereas third century trinitarians, like Origen, objected to calling Jesus God without qualification. Ignatius specifically calls Jesus the indwelling Holy Spirit. If we assume that he called God the Father (as read in John 17:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; 2 Corinthians 1:2-3, and Ephesians 4:6), Ignatius thought of Jesus as God the Father incarnate. Epistle to the Ephesians: "Jesus Christ, our God" (salutation).

"Jesus Christ, our inseparable life, is the (manifested) will of the Father" (3). (Richardson translates this as, "Jesus Christ... is the Father's mind.") "[Jesus] may be in us as our God, which indeed He is, and will manifest Himself before our faces"(15) . "We have received the knowledge of God, which is Jesus Christ" (17). "Our God, Jesus Christ, was according to the appointment of God, conceived in the womb of Mary, of the seed of David, but by the Holy Ghost"(18). "God Himself being manifested in human form" (19).

Epistle to the Magnesians: "There is one God, who has manifested Himself by Jesus Christ His Son, who is His eternal Word" (8). (Lightfoot translates this as God manifesting Himself "through" Jesus Christ). "The inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ" (15).

Epistle to the Trallians: "Jesus Christ our God" (7)

Epistle to the Romans: "Jesus Christ our God" (salutation). "the passion [suffering] of my God" (6).

Epistle to the Smyrnaeans: "I glorify God, even Jesus Christ" (1). (The Long Version reads, "I glorify God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ"). "He that is among the wild beasts is in company with God; provided only he be so in the name of Jesus Christ" (4). Chapter 10 refers to servants of "Christ our God" which is literally "the Christ God". The altered version reads, "the servants of Christ".

Epistle to Polycarp: "Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes: impalpable and impassible, yet who became passable on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes" (3). "Our God, Jesus Christ" (8).

Ephesians 7:

We read of Jesus Christ as the One God who suffered in the flesh. "There is One Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible -- even Jesus Christ our Lord."

Tertullian later ridiculed the Modalists for this very teaching! Theologians of the fourth century must have seen the "heresy" of Ignatius' statement here, because Longer Version is changed to read, "We have also a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For 'the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body."

Ignatius called Christians the people of the Name of Jesus. "I am come bound from Syria for the common name" (Ephesians 1). "I am bound for the name (of Christ)" (3). "Some are in the habit of carrying about the Name (of Jesus Christ) in wicked guile" (7). "The grace we owe to the Name" (20, Richardson). "The Church which... is named from Christ, and from the Father" (Romans, salutation), or, "being true to Christ's Law and stamped with the Father's name" (Richardson).

Just a FEW phrases may be interpreted as non-Oneness, but the same phrases are easily regarded as Oneness the manner that New Testament threefold references are taken. Similar to 2 Corinthians 13:14 and I Peter 1:2, we read from Ignatius in Ephesians 9 that God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are mentioned in distinguishing aspects of salvation. Saints are, "prepared fro the building of God the Father, and drawn up on high by the instrument of Jesus Christ, which is the cross, making use of the Holy Spirit as a rope." We are thus said to be saved (designed to be God's Temple) through Jesus' atoning death which is applied to us by the regenerating work of the Holy Ghost. Magnesians 6: Jesus was "with the Father before the beginning of time."

This alludes to John 1:1 where Jesus is the eternal Word. "With" translated from Greek is "PARA" in the dative case. Thayer says this "indicates that something is or is done either in the immediate vicinity of some one, or (metaph) in his mind." (Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 477). Since it was not distinctly non-oneness, later theologians

CHANGED the words to read, "He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son." Archbishop Wake translated Vossius' 1646 Greek text of Magnesians 6 in a VERY MODALISTIC FASHION: "Jesus Christ, who was the Father before all ages, and appeared in the end to us." (The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden, 173)

How many other readings of Ignatius were deleted or interpolated? Only Magnesians 13 speaks of the Father, Son and Spirit together. And it encourages believers to abound in flesh and spirit, faith and love, in Son, Father, and Spirit. He wrote that believers be subject to the bishop and one another as the apostles were subject to Christ, the Father, and the Spirit and as Christ was subject to the Father. Notice how the threefold references disrupts the pattern of the twofold references. The threefold references may be looked at as God's manifestations for the purpose of redemption, but they may simply be additions. Here, the Longer Version is shorter than the Medium Version, and seems to be more along the line of Ignatius' original writings. In it there is no mention of prospering in the Father, Son and Spirit. It simply tells us to subject ourselves to the bishop as Christ was to the Father. Why else would theolgians have so altered Ignatius' writings in the 4th century, than the fact that his writings simply did not support their thoughts? The Epistle to the Tarsians was a false book attributed to Ignatius. It refutes Ignatius' own doctrine when it said, "Certain of the ministers of Satan's" wrongly declared that Jesus "is Himself God over all" (2). Also, "He Himself is not God over all, and the Father, but His Son" (5).

Another 4th century forgery, deemed so by scholars, was called Epistle to the Philippians. It attempted to put anti-modalist statements in the mouth of Ignatius: "There is then one God and Father... And there is also one Son, God the Word .... And there is also one Paraclete....Not....one (person) having three names....but....three possessed of equal honour" (2). "For there is but One that became incarnate, and that neither the Father nor the Paraclete, but the Son only)"(3).

There is a denial that Christ is "God over all, and the Almighty"(7). Therefore, the writings of Ignatius wholly fit the Oneness doctrine. The only writings that contradict the Oneness are regarded as forgeries by scholars!

POLYCARP
All we have of Polycarp is a brief Epistle to the Philippians. In it he recommended Ignatius' letters very highly, since he obviously agreed with their doctrine.

"The Epistles of Ignatius written by him to us, and all the rest (of his epistles) which we have by us, we have sent to you, as you requested. They are subjoined to this Epistle, and by them ye may be greatly profited" (13). Polycarp said, "God and our Lord" (1) He said Jesus Christ was "our Lord and God" (6) and "the Son of God" (12).

Only one passage in the letter COULD be regarded as trinitarian. It is found in chapter 12, which does not exist in the original Greek, and is only complete in Latin. Polycarp prayed, "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth".

Polycarp asked that God would bless those who "believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who raised Him from the dead." Oneness accepts such language also as distinguishing between God the Father and the man Jesus. The man Jesus is our mediator who died for us. Notice how scripture stresses that the mediator is the MAN Jesus Christ, thus implying that we should not think of Jesus as Father in the case of dying for us, though He is Father (1 Tim 2:5). If Polycarp was trying to propose another doctrine here he would have also mentioned the Holy Ghost as a third, coequal person in praying to Him, too, for help and letting us know that he depended on faith in the Spirit along with faith in the Father and Son. Do not depend upon the Martyrdom of Polycarp for a reliable account of Polycarp since it is generally dated much later than the date of his death in 155 AD, and is full of untrustworthy accounts of fanciful miracles, such as Polycarp's body glowing like gold, silver and emitting sweet odours while he was burning on the stake. A dove supposedly left his body and the flames were quenched by his blood. Eusebius' version shows us that many interpolations were made to the letter when compared to other versions. Many trinitarian prayers are found in this spurious book. There are contradictory prayers and scholars admit they sound like "Eucharistic prayers of a later date" (Cyril Richardson, Early Christian Fathers, 143). AGAIN, the only explicit non-oneness phrases attributed to Polycarp are found in, as is generally regarded, spurious letters.

HERMAS
The Hermas of The Shepherd is not the Hermas as found in Romans 16:14. The letter The Shepherd was written in 140-145 A.D. He is claimed to be the brother of Pius, Bishop of Rome, according to the Muratorian Fragment written in 170 A.D. The Shepherd was a very popular book in the early days. "First of all, believe that there is one God who created and finished all things" (Commandment 1).

The following may be used to support the pre-existent Son as a separate person: "The Son of God is older than all His creatures, so that He was a fellow-councillor with the Father in His work of creation" (Similitude 9:12).

He may have intended us to understand how the Son was then a plan in the mind of God, since he also called the church "an old woman...because... she was created first of all. On this account she is old. And for her sake was the world made." (Vision 2:4).

After speaking of the flesh of Jesus as being indwelt by the Spirit of God and as the partner of the Spirit we read, "For this conduct of the flesh pleased Him [God], because it was not defiled on the earth while having the Holy Spirit. He took, therefore, as fellow-councillors His Son and the glorious angels" (Sim. 5:6).

We seem to see that Hermas meant the Son here to be the flesh of Christ. And it seems to imply that the Son was a counsellor at the time of the incarnation. If God spoke of the Son, in Hermas' mind, as being counselor in creation, God may have actually created humanity with the Son in view depending upon the future manifestation of the Son of God. When the Son would be manifested in the future, He would redeem fallen humanity and spiritually recreate believers. There is no definite and explicit note to refute that. And that is in accord with Modalism (Hebr. 1:1-3). In Vision 3:9, Hermas equates the Lord with the Father. Hermas said the Holy Spirit was manifested to the world as the Son. "The holy, pre-existent Spirit, that created every creature, God made to dwell in flesh, which He chose. This flesh, accordingly, in which the Hole Spirit dwelt, was nobly subject to that Spirit" (Sim. 5:6). (Another version says, "The Holy Spirit, who created all things, dwelt in a body in which He wished to dwell.") "I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit...showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God" (Sim. 9:1). "[Ye] will dwell with the Son of God; for ye have received of His Spirit" (Sim. 9:24). "The man being filled with the Holy Spirit, speaks to the multitudes as the Lord wishes. Thus, the, will the Spirit of Divinity become manifest. Whatever power therefore comes from the Spirit of Divinity belongs to the Lord" (Com. 11).

Hermas said water baptism was essential as was the name of God, The Holy Spirit, and holiness of life. Hermas alluded to Jesus name baptism when he wrote:

"Your life has been, and will be, saved through water... founded on the word of the almighty and glorious Name" (Vis. 3:3). "These are they who have heard the Word, and wish to be Baptized in the name of the Lord" (Vis. 3:7). "The name of the Lord by which they were called" (Sim. 8:6). "No one shall enter the Kingdom of God unless he receive His holy name...A man cannot otherwise enter into the kingdom of God than by the name of His beloved Son...Whosoever does not receive His name shall not enter into the kingdom of God" (Sim. 9:12). "If you bear His name but possess not His power, it will be in vain that you bear His name" (Sim. 9:13). "The name of the Son of God is great, and cannot be contained, and supports the whole world" (Sim. 9:14). "Before a man bears the name of the Son of God he is dead; but when he receives the seal he lays aside his deadness, and obtains life. The seal, then, is the water: they descend into the water dead and they arise alive" (Sim. 9:16). "Ye who suffer for His name ought to glorify God, because He deemed you worthy to bear His name, that all your sins might be healed" (Sim. 9:28).

This last phrase refers to baptism since Hermas wrote that only water baptism can remit sins (Com. 4:3).

CONCLUSION:
Clement, Ignatius, Polycarp and Hermas stick close to the bible in terminology. They all said that God is One and that Jesus is the true God and Christ is truly human. They used the New Testament manner of distinguishing between God and Jesus Christ, by distinguishing the MAN Christ through whom God became manifest and the eternal Spirit, and distinguishing Father and Son. Their writings reveal that the Holy Spirit was the Spirit of the One God and was also Jesus Christ Himself in Spirit form. As in modern Modalism, these men laid great stress upon the Name of God (Jesus) and used it in alluding to water baptism.

Man theologians have been known to point out that these writers do not explicitly identify Jesus as the Father. Therefore, they affirm, they were not Oneness. But Ignatius in fact did. Polycarp and Clement said that Jesus was the one God in the 'biblical sense' and therefore

implied that He is the Father incarnate. They used the same titles for Father in speaking of Jesus.

In the Bible, the primary reason the title "Father" is used is to distinguish God from His Son. The Son was the man Christ Jesus, and God was incarnate in that man. These early post-apostolic writers simply carried on that pattern of the use of titles. Modern Oneness writers do the same. Oneness writers also state that in order for Jesus to be God incarnate He must also be the Father incarnate. Nowhere did these post-apostolic writers describe God as "three persons". They even contradicted non-oneness teachings, and such statements sound much like Oneness statements today.

That is the reason copyists interpolated Ignatius' writings. Where non-oneness phrases are expected to be found they are missing. Most theologians require the Father, Son and Holy Ghost to be mentioned in prayers, and phrases of praise spoken to God, references to baptism and closing benedictions. These writers did not stress this as heavily as would be expected, in order to properly contrast sharply with Old Testament Monotheism, and to stress the belief as necessary to salvation as some people stress Godhead thought today. It is HIGHLY notable that they did not stress the Godhead in the manner deemed as required today by many. The phrases that are alleged to be non-oneness are few and are ambiguous, offhand to the context, and easily interpreted in a oneness manner.

Some will argue that the lack of such stress simply is due to the deeply ingrained doctrine in all believers at the time, making it unnecessary to speak of it explicitly. What they are saying is that their beliefs are PRESUMED rather than taught. If it was so ingrained and well understood, why then did later centuries have such a struggle in trying to define the Godhead? No. The scarce references to anything that may be deemed as non-oneness is due to the lack of special significance the authors placed on references to the titles, Father, Son and Holy Ghost. The formulation of the a non-oneness doctrine occurred much later in time, and therefore the people living at the time of the post-apostolic writings were not so confused by the ambiguous terms as people would be confused with today. Since the people did not think in a non-oneness manner back then, there was no chance for such statements to be regarded as non-oneness. Hermas is questionable since he wrote about a pre-existent Son. Yet many see a problem with his references which equate Jesus with the Holy Spirit. If Hermas is anything other

than Oneness, he was a binitarian, believing in two persons, with one person subordinate to the first, and not three co-equal persons. Except for Hermas, these writers were staunchly monotheistic, centering all upon Christ (Christocentric). And these writers are certainly much closer to Oneness.