Dr. Boyd makes sweeping claims concerning the early church Fathers and their supposed Trinitarianism. These men wrote after the death of the Apostles and their writings span a three hundred year period. Dr. Boyd is convinced not only that they were Trinitarians, but that "each of these figures understood himself to be simply passing on the faith that had been handed down by the apostles from the beginning" (Boyd, 161). And he feels this Faith was an "unqualified Trinitarianism." As far as Oneness is concerned, he will tell you they were the first to oppose it and "stand up behind the church tradition" (Boyd, p. 102). But is all this really so?
I am not going to devote much time to the discussion of the Early Church Fathers for two reasons. Primarily it would require more space than the limitations of my present book would permit. But secondarily, and more importantly, such a discussion is not really necessary at this point. Oneness scholars such as Bernard, Weissner, and Chalfont have thoroughly researched the writings of these Fathers and disclosed their findings in several excellent volumes available through the Pentecostal Publishing House. They have sorted the fact from the fiction and arrived at the Truth which lay buried beneath centuries of "vain tradition" and "holy forgeries". I find their evidences to be unanswerable on all counts. When the true facts about the beliefs of the sub-Apostolic Church and the subsequent Trinitarian innovations are carefully sifted, no unbiased researcher would care to claim that the Early Fathers held an "unqualified Trinitarianism." And perhaps even more significant, it becomes abundantly clear that not all of them were "passing on the Faith that had been handed down from the Apostles." A catalog of all that they were actually "passing on" leaves very little left for the imaginations.
Trinitarians like to create the impression that for about three hundred years after the death of the apostles all was well. The Church held the true faith , apostasy was kept at bay, and heresies were held in check. This is the picture they paint for us, but an examination of their writings reveals the exact opposite. One can find a cornucopia of strange and mutually contradictory doctrines nestled among their writings. The seeds of every latent heresy were sown in the fertile furrows of their manuscripts.
How soon did this departure form the truth begin? The Apostle Paul informs us in AD 60 that it was well underway in his very own day. If the mice were that active while the cat was at home, how much more so in his absence? Paul spent years weeping over the impending apostasy which he knew would expand vigorously after his death:
Paul also said in II Thessalonians that "the mystery of iniquity doth already work."
The great apostle knew that the first doctrine to be attacked after his death would be the Godhead. And he named the twin enemies in charge of it, namely, "vain tradition" and Greek "philosophy." Listen to this echoing warning against the emerging Greek Trinitarian ideas which were trying to replace the full deity of Christ:
What specifically was Paul referring to when he mentioned a "philosophy" that was trying to get into the Church, and which would spoil them? This Philosophy was Greek Platonism, which advocated a system of Trinitarianism known as "The Timaeus." Using mathematics, the Greek Philosopher-Mathematician Plato (427-347 BC) worked out a system in which God was conceived of as three "coequals." He used the equilateral triangle as both symbol and proof of this new Trinity-God.
One of the "Early Fathers" Dr. Boyd mentions adapted this Greek Trinity for Catholic needs:
The aged Apostle John also saw the creeping influence of false teachers in his day. He wrote:
That is why he admonished them to remain in the original apostolic faith and to resist these new Godhead innovations:
He also stated that, "many false prophets are gone out into the world," and we should therefore "try the spirits." (I John 4:1) The assault against truth was already in full swing when John penned these words in 90 AD. he fearlessly declared that "many deceivers are entered into the world" who did not have the true "doctrine of Christ" (II John 7-9). These false subverters of truth were not even to be allowed in the house! (II John 10). And what was this "doctrine of Christ" that this invading army of false prophets were already tearing down? John defined it for us:
The doctrine that in Christ one has both the Father and the Son, was the target of attack. And John knew it!
Jude recognized the same theological nightmare that was beginning to unfold in his day. In AD 66 he wrote
The focus of the attack by these heretics was the same as Paul and John mentioned. It was a denial of the full deity in Christ. Jude's last clause could be translated: "denying the only Lord God, even our Lord Jesus Christ." In the light of John 20:28, where Christ is called "Lord and God," this is really the only proper translation.
Dr. Boyd says on page 162:
The objections and "shreds" Dr. Boyd fails to see are plainly recorded for us by Paul, John and Jude, so that even "He that runneth may read." They vigorously warned and protested the invading attempts to divide up Christ. Dr. Boyd's problem is that he is looking for "objections" within the "objectionable" writings themselves. he needs to search the New testament where protests and warnings abound!
These early writings, known as the Apostolic Fathers, or the Ante-Nicene Fathers, were not inspired of God. These authors were not "holy men who were moved upon by the Spirit of God." Their writings are utterly uninspired They were not "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, or instruction in righteousness," because they were not given by "inspiration of God." They are not "thus saith the Lord." their promises are not "yea" and "amen." No Holy Spirit conviction attends their reading. We are never commanded to search these writings. And what's more, we will not be judged by what's written in these books. (Thank God!) They were filled with errors, mistakes, contradictions and outright myths. However, they are of historical interest, and provide us with insights into church development and early Christian influences. Beyond this they are of no value.
We do not know exactly what the Nicene Fathers originally wrote, seeing the first autographs have been lost to history. We have only copies of copies. The manuscripts that we possess have been altered, reworked, amended, interpolated, redacts, rescinded, and outrightly forged. The Catholic Church is a past master at forging and "reworking" historical documents. The greatest forgery of all time (and believed genuine for centuries) was the so-called "Donation of Constantine." This was a product of the Catholic Church, as were the Isodorian Decretals and a host of other false documents. So it should not surprise us if these writings were "fixed up" by scribes "here a little, there a little," in order to bolster the Trinitarian concept.
Cyril C. Richardson says concerning the manuscripts of Ignatius' Letters:
Concerning the earliest Ante-Nicene writing, The First Letter of Clement, written AD 96, we read:
Hellenistic (Greek), Judaism and Roman Catholic Emphasis! And that is to be found in the "earliest" of the writings!
Even the dating of these writings is often open to question. Take the much touted "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (Didache) for example:
Concerning the forgeries and alterations of this ancient(?) document we read:
The Second Letter of Clement does not fare any better.
It is tinged with "Gnostic speculation," uses "semi-Gnostic phrases" and quotes for authority an apocryphal "Gospel of the Egyptians" (ibid, p. 183, 186). This "Gospel of the Egyptians" was even considered heretical in its own time!
The First Apology of Justin, much quoted by Trinitarians, introduces Christ as a "second divine entity." Justin actually used the Greek phrase "deuteros theos" which means a "second god." he boldly admits worshipping and adoring an "army of good angels" whom he lists ahead of the Holy Spirit in order of dignity! (First Apology of Justin, 6). No wonder Dr. Boyd is forced to admit: Worshipping and adoring an "army of angels" is certainly going "too far!" What do you think, dear reader? But we need not fear, for Dr. Boyd informs us that the Council of Nicea did a splendid job of rescuing us from the unorthodox ideas of the Early Apologists:
Why call up these apologists as witnesses in the first place if they are "unorthodox" and require "banning?" Why call to the stand witnesses known to be in error? This is absurd to the point of hilarity.
If the Early Fathers were all just "passing down the Faith as they received it from the Apostles, then we are going to have to "redefine" what constitutes the "True Faith." For we find many things being "passed on" that were anything but Apostolic! The seeds of Romanism and ritualism were even at this early date beginning to bear fruit. This is not surprising in the light of the warnings the Apostles had sounded. Grievous wolves were very busy.
The First Letter to Clement, chapter 25, offers up the ridiculous story of the mythological Phoenix as a proof of Christ's resurrection.
I have quoted this utterly fictitious nonsense in full, so that the reader may be completely aware of the type of things these Fathers were "passing on." Things, Dr., Boyd informs us, "had been handed down by the Apostles from the beginning" (Boyd, p. 161). Clement uses this absurdity as his theological climax in arguing for the resurrection:
Can you imagine the Apostle Paul resorting to such pagan drivel to prove the resurrection? And yet from such sources as Clement we are to receive confirmation of the Truth of the Trinity!
Such nonsense as this fable of the Phoenix precisely fulfills Paul's warning:
The Roman Catholic Church dogma that the office of Bishop was to be passed on in an unbroken line of succession, similar to Kings, emerges in the Ante-Nicene Fathers very early. This doctrine of "Apostolic Succession" is the foremost argument used by Rome in her claims to being the "One True Church," as opposed to Protestantism which lacks it.
I'd like to see that "codicil" they added, wouldn't you?
Instead of a memorial of Christ's death, the Last Supper is being explained as a "sacrifice." This is the heart of Romanism, and a direct contradiction of the Bible which says:
And also we are told:
In I Clement 44:4 we read of a "sacrificing" priesthood for the first time:
Catholicism is known far and wide for its insistence that the Communion bread wafer and wine are literally and actually changed into the very substance of the Lord's flesh and blood. Catholics believe they actually eat the real flesh and blood of Christ at Mass. It is only "disguised" under the appearance of bread and wine. The priest has really changed its substance by the words - "This is my body" and "This is my blood." This is the foundation for the "sacrifice of the Mass."
The Early Fathers had departed sufficiently from the Truth to also teach the "flesh eating, blood drinking" doctrine. Actually they "borrowed" it from the Mithra cults and the pagan Gnostics which surrounded them. They were all busy eating up their gods, flesh and blood, in order to acquire their "powers."
Ignatius says:
Drink the blood of a god, gain his immortality. Pure paganism! He gets worse:
Justin in his First Apology, chapter 66 is even more explicit:
Justin is very clever however. He realizes he has "borrowed" from the pagan Mithra cult (not from the apostles) so he adds this "cover up" statement:
Who's borrowing with "whom" is the question. And seeing the Mithra religion had "transubstantiation" first, the answer is quite obvious. Justin seems to know an awful lot about what takes place in Mithra's secret rites of initiation.
The dogma that the Church of Rome has authority to rule the other Churches of Christendom is the very definition of Roman Catholicism. This supposed right to meddle and rule has long been known as the "Primacy of Rome."
Clement, Bishop of Rome, instructs the Corinthians to "bow the neck and adopt the attitude of obedience" and to give up their "futile revolt." He further writes:
Clement also sent "delegates" from his See, "trustworthy and discreet persons," whose job it was to "mediate between us" (I Clement, 63). Who gave him the right, sitting across the Mediterranean Sea in Rome, to take authority over the Church at Corinth? No wonder Paul said in his day: "The mystery of iniquity doth already work".
The Early Fathers taught "baptismal regeneration." They believed the mere contact with the water, coupled with the newly emerging Trinitarian formula, remitted sin automatically. Justin says:
Justin blasphemously censors out the truth of Jesus' Name being the Name of the Father by saying:
Thus according to Justin, anyone who believes that God the Father has a name is "hopelessly insane." Jesus said: "I am come in my Father's name" (John 5:43), and also, "I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it" (John 17:26). Justin the blasphemer wants none of this, in spite of what Christ has said! Here we see our choice is real clear: The Early Fathers or the Everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6).
In spite of all this heresy and mythic adaptations, including the censoring of God's name, by these so-called Fathers, Dr. Boyd writes:
And, as we have seen, that included protecting such "teachings" as transubstantiation, Papal primacy, Sacrificial Mass, Baptismal Regeneration, Apostolic Succession, Angel Worship, Second Gods, and 500 year old birds and worms!
ONENESS PENTECOSTALISM DEPENDS ON NO "CHURCH COUNCILS" OR "EARLY FATHERS" FOR THEIR DOCTRINAL FOUNDATION. THE BIBLE ALONE IS THE SOURCE OF ALL TEACHING IN THIS RESTORED APOSTOLIC FAITH.ONENESS AND THE CHURCH FATHERS
HOW SOON DID APOSTASY SET IN?
PAUL'S WARNING (AD 60)
JOHN'S WARNING (AD 90)
JUDE'S WARNING AD 60
NO OBJECTIONS?
THE NATURE OF THE ANTE-NICENE WRITINGS
TAMPERED WITH AND FORGED
LETTERS OF IGNATIUS
FIRST LETTER OF CLEMENT
THE DIDACHE
"We should assume, then, that some scribe in Alexandria about 150 AD edited two ancient documents which came into his hands... He made some changes in them -- how many we shall never know" (ibid, p. 165).SECOND LETTER OF CLEMENT
FIRST APOLOGY OF JUSTIN
PAGAN MYTHS AND LEGENDS
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION
SACRIFICE OF THE MASS
TRANSUBSTANTIATION
PRIMACY OF ROME
BAPTISMAL REGENERATION