My debate with a Oneness Pentecostal pastor on March. Need help with quotes!

[Trinity Apologetics]

Hi brethren,

I am debating a Oneness Pentecostal pastor named Steven Ritchie on March 6 on the Godhead in front of a mostly Oneness audience. Please keep this in your prayers and pray for the power of the gospel.

My opponent likes to quote Trinitarian authors who 'admit' to certain things. But his quotes seem to be out of context or even changing what the author actually said. I'm quite sure that he simply got the quotes from online without even reading the books.

Can someone please help me with access to these pages/books? It's quite important.


* Harold Brown's book, Heresies, specifically page 5 where he allegedly said "It is impossible to document what we now call Trinitarian orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity." It's possible the website added in 'Trinitarian' to this quote.
* He also referenced Jaroslav Pelikan pp. 177, 203, and 207 in one of his "The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine" books claiming that many early church writers sounded like Modalistic Monarchians and some even signed the Nicene Creed.
* He also referenced one of John Henry Newmon's books on pg. 118 and 129 where he apparently said that in 248-264 the majority of Christians were patripassians.

If you have the PDF, you may email me at [email protected]

Or if you cannot help me with the books/pages, how would you respond to these points?

I hope by the providence of God, someone can help me! I know it's short notice.

Grace and peace,
Ethan

 

[Trinity Apologetics]

I mainly need the Harold Brown quotation from pg. 5.

 

[Taylor]

Personally, I have always been irked by the "the early Church Fathers didn't think this way" statement, as if that were some kind of argument. I don't understand what any other theologian believes or says about the Trinity has to do with every other person's Trinitarian theology. That's why we are Protestants, because our beliefs are founded upon the Word of God and that alone. Frankly, the man can quote all the Trinitarians and Church Fathers he wants, but, ultimately, he has to deal with Scripture (which I can imagine, unless acted upon by the grace of God, he won't do).

My only concern is what Scripture says. I love Calvin, Edwards, Augustine, and many others. But, when it comes to doctrine, I am only concerned with Scripture.

 

[rickclayfan]

You should reference Cunningham's Historical Theology, v. 1, pp. 267-279 in regard to the first point.

https://archive.org/details/historicaltheolo00cunnuoft

 

[Ed Walsh]

But, when it comes to doctrine, I am only concerned with Scripture.

What an unusual position. While I think that for myself, I would not come up with hardly a single doctrine perfectly. I need the men you cited. Or I would be blind. I even go so far as to say that in some cases, at least, I interpret scripture as instructed by the Confession, not the other way around.

 

[Trinity Apologetics]

The book he quoted by John Henry Newman is called Arians of the Fourth Century. Found the title

 

[rickclayfan]

when it comes to doctrine, I am only concerned with Scripture.

Scripture is the only measure and rule of spiritual truth, but it is not safe to neglect the theologians of the past. It breathes of arrogance and self-infallibility to say that referencing theologians is unnecessary and that Scripture alone is to be read. I am sure that you do not think so. I write to slightly correct the words that were used.

"So much study and reflection on the subject is bound up with [Scripture] that no person can possibly do it alone. That takes centuries. To that end the church has been appointed and given the promise of the Spirit’s guidance into all truth. Whoever isolates himself from the church, i.e. from Christianity as a whole, from the history of dogma in its entirety, loses the truth of the Christian faith. That person becomes a branch torn from the tree and shrivels, an organ that is separated from the body and doomed to die." ~ Bavinck

 

[py3ak]

Ethan, it's quite possible that in a debate setting such quotes will be used to try to smack the other person down. But I wouldn't accuse him of falsifying the quotes unless you are able to verify the correct reading. If you can't demonstrate something, it's better not to assert it.

It's possible his reading of these sources is misleading, misinformed, or decontextualized. But that's not the biggest issue. Certainly there was a long time before people got on the same page with regard to their Trinitarian vocabulary. Athanasius was exiled after Nicea, because there were a lot of (semi) Arians in the Empire and the emperors sometimes favored them. Lines of doctrinal division were not always clear and lines of ecclesiastical power, numbers, and influence didn't always follow orthodoxy. But the Lord raised up those who bore faithful witness to the truth on those controverted points and brought clarity through the midst of all the historical messiness.

People can think of using that kind of quote to score points in a debate, because they are counting (often rightly) on their audience having no idea that history is just like daily life - "a blooming, buzzing confusion." If you can show that John's Gospel forces you to think of genuine duality between Father and Son, and yet the Son being fully divine, you will have borne witness to the truth. And you can point to the series of official, confessional documents produced by the church which were acceptable in the long term to establish that the church has understood, believed, and asserted that truth.

 

[Taylor]

I am not saying we should neglect history—far from it. Do not read into my comments what I never said. Using theologians of the past is wonderful, even necessary in many cases. However, using what a theologian did or did not say as an argument for or against any doctrine is foolish. I do not believe in any doctrine because any man of the past believed it; I believe it because I find it within the pages of Holy Scripture.

I am not addressing using theologians of the past per se. Rather, I am addressing the Oneness Pentecostal's use of the supposed absence of a doctrine within the thinking of the Church Fathers as an argument against it. Context is everything, folks.

 

[Trinity Apologetics]

Thank you very much Ruben and Timothy I'll try to read Cunningham's Historical Theology, v. 1, pp. 267-279. I actually found John Henry Newman's book, Arians of the Fourth Century, and it does turn out Steven Ritchie quoted him out of context and changed what he meant. Newman was describing the majority of Sabellians not the majority of the church.

 

[Bill The Baptist]

I would advise you to avoid falling into his trap of having to prove the trinity. We do not prove the trinity. Rather we prove the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, and the oneness of God. Once these are established, then the doctrine of the trinity only logically follows. To that end, here is an article with 25 quotes from ante-Nicene church fathers affirming the deity of Christ. http://thecripplegate.com/did-the-early-church-affirm-Jesus-deity/

 

[timmopussycat]

Your Oneness friend is misquoting Brown. The full quote is: "There is one very good argument that the story of heresy provides to persuade that it itself is secondary, a reaction to orthodoxy and not the other way around. It is impossible to document what we now call orthodoxy in the first two centuries of Christianity; heresy often appears more prominently so that orthodoxy looks like a reaction to it." However Brown will later go on to say (p. 148) that "In light of the fact that the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are so central to orthodox Christianity, it may seem strange that explicit references to these concepts are rare in the New Testament. Nevertheless, they are there. Because the New Testament writings were held to be verbally inspired and totally authoritative, even a single reference to Christ as God would have been enough to impel the early church in the direction of trinitarian theology." Brown's book is worth borrowing from a theological library on inter-library loan because chapter 9 is a full review of the development of Trinitarian theology.

 

[Trinity Apologetics]

(p. 148) that "In light of the fact that the doctrines of the deity of Christ and the Trinity are so central to orthodox Christianity, it may seem strange that explicit references to these concepts are rare in the New Testament. Nevertheless, they are there. Because the New Testament writings were held to be verbally inspired and totally authoritative, even a single reference to Christ as God would have been enough to impel the early church in the direction of trinitarian theology."

Thank you so much Tim. It's clear the word 'Trinitarian' was added into the first quote. May I ask, where did you get these quotes? Do you own the book yourself? Or from online? I really need to confirm

 

[Trinity Apologetics]

Tim, would you be able to scan page 5 for me and send it to [email protected]? I need it just in case he accuses me of lying etc.

 

[timmopussycat]

Tim, would you be able to scan page 5 for me and send it to [email protected]? I need it just in case he accuses me of lying etc.

I have just sent scans of several key pages in Brown's book. You can get the full version here:

http://www.amazon.com/Heresies-Chri...=1457113142&sr=8-12&keywords=harold+o+j+brown

 

[Trinity Apologetics]

Thank you so much brother Tim! Praise the Lord for His providence I'm downloading the pdf's you sent me as I type this.