Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I was researching 2 Clement & happened upon the following article arguing that early writings such as 1 & 2 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas & the Gospel to the Egyptians support Modalism (also called Sabellianism) & that is why the RCC destroyed copies of the latter & many copies of the others.
See the entire article here & let me know what you think of it:
I was researching 2 Clement & happened upon the following article arguing that early writings such as 1 & 2 Clement, Shepherd of Hermas & the Gospel to the Egyptians support Modalism (also called Sabellianism) & that is why the RCC destroyed copies of the latter & many copies of the others.
See the entire article here & let me know what you think of it:
both ways have truth but both are not all the truth.
all I will say is all err to some degree.
by even making anyone completely define God is probably the biggest sin..
because he just says HE is, I Just AM.... and he gives to us facets of himself. , His law.. his Son ( father right arm / Covenant arm in a human) , his Spirit in us .. His breath , His Life, His Word , His deeds . His names, His creation declare him to us .
we should know him by those things HE has said in His wWord.. and by his creation which bears his fingerprints.
there is no reason to give mankind the glory of a correct enough definition that isn't really correct enough . there is no way men are even close.
we must know him by his own words not mens.
6This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus Christ; not by water only, but by water and blood. And it is the Spirit that beareth witness, because the Spirit is truth. 7For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 8And there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one
both ways have truth but both are not all the truth.
all I will say is all err to some degree.
by even making anyone completely define God is probably the biggest sin..
because he just says HE is, I Just AM.... and he gives to us facets of himself. , His law.. his Son ( father right arm / Covenant arm in a human) , his Spirit in us .. His breath , His Life, His Word , His deeds . His names, His creation declare him to us .
we should know him by those things HE has said in His wWord.. and by his creation which bears his fingerprints.
there is no reason to give mankind the glory of a correct enough definition that isn't really correct enough . there is no way men are even close.
we must know him by his own words not mens.
Good answer. In order to come to God, one must first "believe that he is" and "that he rewards those who seek him with all their hearts".
I haven't read the article you linked to yet, but I did quickly read through the Shepherd of Hermas to which you referred, and I don't see anything supporting Modalism. There are references to the Father being distinct from the Son. And there is a reference to the Holy Spirit interceding with God. These do not support Modalism (and there is no need to take them that way) in which one God reveals himself in three forms or modes as opposed to one God existing as three distinct persons or centers of consciousness as understood by Trinitarians. Here are some of the pertinent verses from the Shepherd of Hermas.
Vision 2
2[6]8: For the Lord swear concerning His Son, that those who denied their Lord should be rejected from their life, even they that are now about to deny Him in the coming days; but to those who denied Him aforetime, to them mercy was given of His great loving kindness.
Mandate 1
1[26]:1 "First of all, believe that God is One, even He who created all things and set them in order, and brought all things from non-existence into being, Who comprehendeth all things, being alone incomprehensible.
Mandate 5
2[34]:5 For when all these spirits dwell in one vessel, where the Holy Spirit also dwelleth, that vessel cannot contain them, but overfloweth.
Mandate 10
2[41]:4 This sadness therefore seemeth to bring salvation, because he repented at having done the evil. So both the operations sadden the Spirit; first, the doubtful mind saddens the Spirit, because it succeeded not in its business, and the angry temper again, because it did what was evil. Thus both are saddening to the Holy Spirit, the doubtful mind and the angry temper.
2[41]:5 Put away therefore from thyself sadness, and afflict not the Holy Spirit that dwelleth in thee, lest haply He intercede with God [against thee], and depart from thee.
Parable 5
5[58]:5 "Say on," he saith, "if thou desirest anything." "Wherefore, Sir,]" say I, "is the Son of God represented in the parable in the guise of a servant?"
6[59]:2 "Because," saith he, "God planted the vineyard, that is, He created the people, and delivered them over to His Son. And the Son placed the angels in charge of them, to watch over them; and the Son Himself cleansed their sins, by laboring much and enduring many toils; for no one can dig without toil or labor.
6[59]:3 Having Himself then cleansed the sins of His people, He showed them the paths of life, giving them the law which He received from His Father. Thou seest," saith he, "that He is Himself Lord of the people, having received all power from His Father.
6[59]:5 The Holy Pre-existent Spirit. Which created the whole creation, God made to dwell in flesh that He desired. This flesh, therefore, in which the Holy Spirit dwelt, was subject unto the Spirit, walking honorably in holiness and purity, without in any way defiling the Spirit.
Parable 9
13[90]:5 "Listen," saith he. "The name of the Son of God is great and incomprehensible, and sustaineth the whole world. If then all creation is sustained by the Son [of God], what thinkest thou of those that are called by Him, and bear the name of the Son of God, and walk according to His commandments? [Bolding mine]
Do you consider yourself God, the I AM, a Gnostic, new ager, theosophist, or the like?
I wonder why people (Not Scripture) use the Upper Case letters "A" and "M" when in Scripture it is: I am.
Also, "I am" is Not the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) - Exodus 6:3 KJV
I haven't read the article you linked to yet, but I did quickly read through the Shepherd of Hermas to which you referred, and I don't see anything supporting Modalism.
"To make matters worse for Trinitarian scholars, the author of 2 Clement cited a passage from the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 2:4). The Shepherd of Hermas also happens to contain graphic Modalistic theology as the Holy Spirit is identified as the same divine Person as the Son of God. The Shepherd of Hermas Parable 5:6 says, “The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by himself.” Hermas Book 3, Similitude 9:1 says, “…the angel of repentance, he came to me and said, ‘I wish to explain to you what the Holy Spirit that spoke with you in the form of the Church showed you, for that Spirit is the Son of God.’”
Although Eusebius admitted that the second Epistle was attributed to Clement, Eusebius did not regard it as “being equally notable with the former” Epistle of Clement. Eusebius and other “Semi Arians” obviously disagreed with 2 Clement saying that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Christ (2 Clement 14:3-4), and that Jesus Christ is the “Father” (2 Clement 1). Eusebius and his contemporaries obviously knew that Clement quoted the Gospel to the Egyptians and the Shepherd of Hermas which contain graphic Modalistic theology.
The Gospel to the Egyptians describes Jesus making it “clear to the disciples that he himself is the Father, that he himself is the Son, and that he himself is the Holy Spirit.” It is highly improbable that Clement would have cited the Gospel to the Egyptians if he himself did not agree that Jesus is the Father and Holy Spirit. Furthermore, Clements words in 2 Clement 14 parallel the words found in the Shepherd of Hermas (Vision 2:4) which show that Clement must have read and believed in the inspiration of the Shepherd of Hermas as well.
Since Clement believed and read the Shepherd of Hermas, it is apparent that Clement also believed in Modalistic Monarchian theology. For according to Hermas, the angel informed him that the Holy Spirit incarnated Himself in a body who is “that Spirit” which “IS THE SON OF GOD (Similitude 9:1).” In Hermas Parable 5:6, Hermas wrote concerning the deity of Jesus, “The pre-existent Holy Spirit which created all things did God make to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by Himself.”
Hermas Similitude 9:1, “The angel of repentance, he came and said to me, I want to show you what THE HOLY SPIRIT which spoke with you in the form of the church, showed you; for THAT SPIRIT IS THE SON OF GOD.”
Hermas wrote that “the pre-existent Holy Spirit who created all things did God made to dwell in a body of flesh chosen by Himself” and that “the Holy Spirit … is the Son of God.” Trinitarians are supposed to believe that the Holy Spirit is not the Son and the Son is not the Holy Spirit. Wherefore, both Clement and Hermas of the first century Roman Church believed that the Holy Spirit is Jesus, the Son of God. That is Modalism, not Trinitarianism! Therefore Oneness Modalists can claim apostolic succession through Peter and the earliest Roman Bishops rather than the later Trinitarian Catholic Church.
Now we can see why the writings of Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas, and the Gospel of the Egyptians (cited by Epiphanius in the fourth century but likely destroyed in the fifth century) were rejected and fell out of use by the latter Roman Catholic Church. This explains why we have only one fifth century copy of the two Epistles of Clement (which appears to be the source from which the eleventh century Greek copy and the twelfth century Syriac copy of 1 Clement was made), only a limited number of Greek and Latin manuscripts of The Shepherd of Hermas, and none of the Gospel to the Egyptians.
At around 200 A.D., Clement of Alexandria proved that Clement of Rome cited the Gospel to the Egyptians in 2 Clement. Hence, the most likely source of this unknown scripture cited in both 1 and 2 Clement is from the words of Jesus out of the lost Gospel to the Egyptians. For Jesus often used agricultural plants in his parabolic style of teaching just as cited in 1 Clement 23 and 2 Clement 11. Since 1 Clement cites the same “prophetic word” of Jesus from the Gospel to the Egyptians as in 2 Clement, the first century Roman bishop must have believed that the Egyptian gospel was inspired scripture. Therefore Clement of Rome must have believed in Modalism and he must have been the author of both 1 and 2 Clement within the first century.
Under The Shepherd of Hermas, the Orthodox Wiki Encyclopedia states, “Only a limited number of incomplete Greek manuscripts are extant. Additionally, a number of fragments have been discovered, including fragments of a Middle Persian translation. Of note is that the Codex Sinaiticus of the mid fourth century contains a copy of the Shepherd of Hermas at the end of the New Testament, illustrating its popularity at that time.”
The historical evidence suggests that 1 and 2 Clement, the Shepherd of Hermas, and the now lost Gospel to the Egyptians were very popular in the early days of Christianity, but they were neglected or destroyed by the later Roman Catholic Church. This explains why we only have a few copies of 1 and 2 Clement and so few copies of The Shepherd of Hermas, while no copies have survived of the lost Gospel to the Egyptians. It seems very likely that these early Christian writings fell out of use and in some cases were destroyed because the State Church disagreed with their contents.
The Shepherd of Hermas states that Clement of Rome made copies of the Shepherd of Hermas to send it to other churches as scripture. This same Clement of Rome also cited the Gospel to the Egyptians as inspired scripture. These are the facts of early Christian history that cannot be denied.
Clement cited the Gospel to the Egyptians as scripture (a Gospel narrative with known Modalistic content) and the Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2:4 as scripture (which also contains known Modalistic content). This would mean that the first century Roman bishop who cited these passages had to have himself been a Modalist. These facts are totally unacceptable to Trinitarian scholars. For if Clement of Rome who was taught by the first century apostles was a Modalistic Roman Bishop then this would completely destroy the Roman Catholic idea of Trinitarian Apostolic Succession.
Many Trinitarian scholars have erroneously dated 2 Clement, The Shepherd of Hermas and the Gospel to the Egyptians as second century compositions. Yet the evidence proves that all three of these documents were written in the first century.
Glen Davis wrote that “The Gospel of the Egyptians” “was probably written in the first half of the first century”. “All that survives to us from the ‘Gospel of the Egyptians’ are several quotations made by Clement, Hippolytus, and Epiphanius. It was probably written in the first half of the first century (in Greek) and in Egypt …” (From EarlyChristianWritings.com, under “The Gospel of the Egyptians.”)
We know that “Hermas” is listed in Romans 16:14 and was believed by the earliest Christian writers to have been the same “Hermas” who later wrote “The Shepherd of Hermas.” Origen (200-253) believed the author of the Shepherd of Hermas as the one who Paul greeted at the end of his Epistle to the Romans (16:14). Other early Christian sources believed Hermas to have been a contemporary of Clement of Rome, according to (Hermas) vision ii, 4, 3.
Dennis Barton wrote, “It is very unlikely that a situation, where two people with the same names and in the same relationship as Clement and Hermes (who worked together in Rome at the same time), would repeat itself half a century later.” (Dennis Barton, “The Clementine Gospel Tradition”)
Clement is listed in Philippians 4:3 as a fellow labourer who probably travelled with the apostle Paul.
“I ask you also to help these women who have shared my struggle in the cause of the gospel, together with Clement also and the rest of my fellow workers, whose names are in the book of life.” Philippians 4:3
Meyers New Testament Commentary says, “… that Clement of Rome is the person meant. [181] So most Catholic expositors (not Döllinger), following Origen, ad Joh. i. 29; Eusebius, H. E. iii. 15; Epiphanius, Haer. xxvii. 6; Jerome, Pelagius, and others; so also Francke, in the Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol. 1841, iii. p. 73 ff., and van Hengel, who conjectures Euodia and Syntyche to have been Roman women who had assisted the apostle in Rome, and had travelled with Epaphroditus to Philippi (with Clement). See generally, besides Lünemann and Brückner, Lipsius, de Clem. Rom. ep. p. 167 ff.; J. B. Lightfoot, p. 166 ff.; and Hilgenfeld, Apost. Väter, p. 92 ff.”
Besides the internal evidence which states that Clement of Rome sent “The Shepherd of Hermas” to churches throughout the world within the first century (Hermas Vision 2: 4, 3), and that Hermas wrote “The Shepherd” while some of the first century apostles were still “alive” (Hermas Vision 3:5), church historians A. T. Robinson and George Edmondson have convincingly documented the evidence proving that both Hermas and Clement were contemporaries within the first century Apostolic era and that the Muratorian fragment is full of errors.
Church Historians Harnack and Lightfoot stated that both 1 and 2 Clement were known to have been preserved in the archives of Corinth, but are no longer extant.
1. Harnack - This letter (2 Clement) was kept in the archives of the church at Corinth together with I Clement, which had also come from Rome … (Harnack, Chronogie I, pp. 438 ff).
2. Lightfoot - … it (II Clement) was found in the Corinthian archives together with I. Clement. (Kirsopp Lake in The Apostolic Fathers (published London 1912), v. I, pp. 125-127.)
We know that 1 Clement was originally sent to the Corinthian Church to deal with the schism that occurred in the Corinthian Church in the first century. Since the historical evidence proves that 2nd Clement was also found along with 1 Clement in the archives in Corinth, it is highly probable that both letters came from the first century Roman bishop. Wherefore, the historical evidence proves that the early first century Church in Rome believed in Oneness Modalism long before the Trinity doctrine developed."
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
