MR RADDATZ WROTE: Steven Ritchie unwittingly confessed that Onenessians were influenced by Gnosticism very early on. As I was working on this treatise, a friend of mine pointed out a Steven Ritchie video wherein he unwittingly admits the Gnostic, antiChristian and pagan nature of the Oneness doctrine. That video is found here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NPgVLsUuCE
At least, giving him the benefit of the doubt, I assume he made these comments not realizing the ramifications of what he was admitting about early modalists. If he made these statements fully aware that this doctrine he is supporting originated in Gnosticism, then he is purely Gnostic.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: It is absurd to allege that common Greek words that are even used in inspired scripture would prove that someone is a Gnostic. By inspiration, Luke used the Greek noun ousia twice, once in Luke 15:12 and again in Luke 15:13. Can anyone rightly say that Luke was a Gnostic merely because he used a common Greek word that was widely used in ancient Greek literature and then later by Gnostics?
Under Gnosticism – Neo-Platonic Influences, Wikipedia says, “Gnostics borrowed significant ideas and terms from Platonism, using Greek philosophical concepts throughout their text, including such concepts as hypostasis (reality, existence), ousia (essence, substance, being), and demiurge (creator God).”
Merriam Webster defines the Gnostic view of the “demiurge” as “a Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world.” Everyone knows that Oneness believers do not confess that Jesus is a “demiurge” or “subordinate deity” as a lesser creator under the Father (which would be Arianism).
Since the Greek nouns “hypostasis” and “ousia” were words used by the inspired writers of New Testament Scripture, it is hard to accuse someone of being a Gnostic merely because they used “hypostasis” or “ousia.” For if we accuse people of being Gnostics simply because they used one or two Greek words which happen to have been used by Gnostics then we can also charge the inspired writers themselves with Gnosticism.
The booklet entitled, “The Use of the Term Hypostasis” says, “Hypostasis is in origin a Stoic term which corresponds to the Platonic term ousia. They both mean in effect essence of being.” (The Use of the Term Hypostasis, Page 2, Copyright ã 1997 Wade Cox)
While the Greek word “hypostasis” corresponds to the Greek word “ouisa” which were often used in Platonic Greek philosophy, the use of these common Greek words were certainly not forbidden to be used by the inspired writers of the Greek New Testament. In fact, hypostasis is used throughout the Greek Septuagint and throughout the Geek New Testament (Ruth 1:12; Ezekiel 19:5; Ezekiel 43:11; Psalm 68:3; 2 Cor. 9:4; 2 Cor. 11:17; Heb. 1:3; Heb. 3:14; Heb. 11:1 “faith is the SUBSTANCE of things hoped for…”).
Hebrews 1:3, “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person (hypostasis).”
Here we have evidence to show that the inspired author of Hebrews used the Greek noun “hypostasis” when he described Jesus as the express image of the Father’s Divine “Person” (Substance of Being). The King James Version translates the Greek noun “hypostasis” as the express image of the Father’s Divine Person. Thayer wrote that “hypostasis” is “a word very common in Greek authors, especially from Aristotle onward, in widely different senses.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, points to the context of Hebrews 1:3 as the “actual existence; a substance, real being” of the Father’s Being. Since the inspired author of Hebrews used the Greek word “hypostasis” referencing Jesus as the copied image of the Father’s Divine Being/Person, no one can allege that the inspired author of Hebrews was a Gnostic or a Platonic Philosopher merely because a common Greek word was used within an inspired passage of scripture.
Furthermore, notice how closely Thayer defines the meaning of “hypostasis” in Hebrews 1:3 with the Greek word ‘ousia’ which means, “Essence” or “Substance of Being.” Therefore the Greek noun “hypostasis” essentially has the same meaning of “ousia” in the context of Hebrews 1:3.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: Here are some of the things said in the video that clearly demonstrate that Modalism is steeped in, if not based on, antichristian thought about Christ:
MR RADDATZ CITES ME FROM ONE OF MY VIDEOS:
“If historians are correct about the alliance of the Athanasian camp with the Marcellan camp, we can be certain the Modalistic doctrine contributed to the development of the 325 AD Nicene Creed... Athanasius actually borrowed terms from the Sabellians in developing the Nicene Creed. ‘It has been reported that the Greek term ‘homooousian’ or ‘con-substantial’, which Athanasius of Alexandria favored, was actually a term reported to be put forth by Sabellius, and was a term that many followers of Athanasius were uneasy about. Their objection to the term ‘homoousian’ was that it was considered to be un-Scriptural, suspicious, and ‘of a Sabellian tendency.’... “‘the Creed of Nicaea...was formulated around the word ‘homoousia’ which was the watchword of the Modalists...’ Modalistic Monarchianism not only influenced the Creed of Nicaea of 325 AD, but it dominated the Creed... “Jesus Christ was produced, or born from the substance of the Father, the essence of being of the Father, to become a human being, this is Oneness Theology, this is Modalistic Monarchian Theology.”
THEN MR RADDATZ WROTE: Apparently, Mr. Ritchie is ignorant, or just doesn’t care, or maybe he does know and is proud still of it, the ultimate source of this word he is now so delighted with. This word ‘homoousian’ comes directly from paganism as many highly reputable scholars are in total agreement on.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: Again, Mr Raddatz fails to tell us that the same root word “ouisa” that was used by Sabellius and many other early Christian writers was also utilized by the Holy Spirit of God within the original Greek manuscripts of inspired scripture. If we are going to charge everyone with paganism simply because they used Greek words that were also used by pagan writers then we would have to charge the first century apostles themselves with paganism. For example, Pagan Greek writers often used the same Greek words used in the Greek New Testament such as “resurrection.”
Under ‘Resurrection”, Ancient Greek Religion,’ Wikipedia says, “In ancient Greek religion a number of men and women were made physically immortal as they were resurrected from the dead. Asclepius was killed by Zeus, only to be resurrected and transformed into a major deity. Achilles, after being killed, was snatched from his funeral pyre by his divine mother Thetis and resurrected, brought to an immortal existence in either Leuce, Elysian plains or the Islands of the Blessed. Memnon, who was killed by Achilles, seems to have received a similar fate. Alcmene, Castor, Heracles, and Melicertes, were also among the figures sometimes considered to have been resurrected to physical immortality. According to Herodotus's Histories, the seventh century BC sage Aristeas of Proconnesus was first found dead, after which his body disappeared from a locked room. Later he found not only to have been resurrected but to have gained immortality.”
If we are going to charge anyone with Paganism or Gnosticism simply because they utilized the same Greek words as Pagans or Gnostics then we must also charge the first century apostles for using the same Greek words that Pagans and Gnostics used within the Greek New Testament.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: First is the Gnostic word homoousios, which was used in the Nicene Trinitarian Creed to mean the three persons were “of one substance.” Another word is agénnetos. This word, which means “not-generated,” is the Gnostic word that Trinitarians would use to distinguish the Father from the Son; that is, it is a term for the Father’s distinction from the Son. In their view, the Son was generated from the Father, but the Father alone was ungenerate and unbegotten, thus agénnetos. Finally, there is the Gnostic word trias, which in English is the word Trinity itself. Tertullian is credited with translating the Greek word trias with the Latin word trinitas, and that eventually led to the English word Trinity.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: I challenge Mr Raddatz to submit proof that the Gnostics writers owned their own Greek words. By claiming that ‘homoousios’ is a “Gnostic word,” he condemns Luke’s use of it in Luke 15:12-13.
Moreover, all knowledgeable students of early Christian history know that the Nicene Creed does not use the later Trinitarian idea of “three” coequal and coeternal “persons.” It was the later fifth century so called Athanasian Creed which utilized the words “three persons” from the writings of Augustine of Hippo.
I challenge Mr Raddatz to submit proof that the Greek word “trias” is a “Gnostic word.” In fact, the Greek word “trias” has nothing to do at all with Gnosticism as it simply means "Τριάς" "a set of three" or "the number three." Since the Greek word “trias” has nothing to do with Gnosticism, Mr Radaatz appears to be making up in his own arguments as he goes along. Since One God Apostolic Faith Christians do not believe in using the word “trias” or “trinity”, it is pointless to bring up “trias” in his polemic against Oneness Theology.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: Secondly, a contemporary historian, Christopher Stead, confirms Harnack’s conclusions. He agrees that the word and concept of homoousios (of the same substance) originated with the Gnostics. Notice in particular that the term refers to physical, material substance:
“The word homoousios, usually translated ‘consubstantial’ or ‘coessential,’ appears to have been introduced by Gnostic Christians of the second century…It originally meant, ‘having the same substance,’ ousia; and in the majority of cases at least, the notion of ousia that is implied is either material or conceived in physical terms. It thus means roughly, ‘made of the same…kind of stuff.’” (Christopher Stead, Divine Substance, 190.)
Stead credits the Gnostics with introducing the word and concept of homoousios, “same substance.” Ironically, both Tertullian and the Gnostics credited spiritual revelation as their sources, but they got it from the false “wisdom of the world”. The reason it is significant that the word homoousios refers to “substance” is that God is a Spirit; He doesn’t have a “substance.” In other words, homoousians have to first change the glory of God into a substance, like what created beings are made of, in order to conceive of words to make the Father, son and spirit of the same “kind of stuff.”
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: The Greek word “Hypostasis” is used for God’s Being/Person in the context of Hebrews 1:3. It is obvious that Hebrews 1:3 is addressing God’s Spirit Substance of Being rather than a physical substance. Why would the inspired writer of Hebrews use the Greek noun “hypostasis” which Thayer says means “Substance” or “Real Being” relating to God if hypostasis did not point to God the Father’s Spiritual Substance or Essence of Being [Person] in Hebrews 1:3? Thayer wrote that “hypostasis” is “a word very common in Greek authors, especially from Aristotle onward, in widely different senses.” Thayer’s Greek Lexicon, points to the context of Hebrews 1:3 as the “actual existence; a substance, real being” of the Father’s Being. Since the inspired author of Hebrews used the Greek word “hypostasis” referencing Jesus as the image of the Father’s Divine Being/Person, no one can allege that the inspired author of Hebrews was a Gnostic or a Platonic Philosopher merely because a common Greek word was used in an inspired passage of scripture.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: Tertullian [c. 155 – c. 240 AD] recognized that it would be impossible to have a Trinity without ascribing to God a corporeal substance. Tertullian says that in order to “make two” God must first be regarded as having substance. Thus, in order to have a Trinity, God’s nature must first be made like corruptible creatures:
“But you will not allow Him to be really a substantive being, by having a substance of his own; in such a way that he may be regarded as an objective thing and a person, and so be able (as being constituted second to God the Father,) to make two, the Father and the Son, God and the Word.” (Tertullian, Against Praxeas, Chapter 7. c. 155 – c. 240 AD)
Ritchie makes the statement that Sabellius is credited with “putting forth” the word “homoousios” and claims it for modalism. However, a generation before Sabellius, Tertullian was criticizing Praxeas for not “allowing” that God has an actual substance. Perhaps Ritchie should call Praxeas a “semi-modalist” since his doctrine wasn’t as developed as Sabellius’ and Marcellas’ “homousian modalism” was.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: Notice that the subject of Against Praxeas chapter 7 is Jesus Christ the Son of God. Rather than rejecting the concept that God the Father could have His own Spiritual Hypostasis (“Substance of Being” - as recorded in Heb. 1:3), the early Oneness believers were rejecting Tertullian’s Semi-Arian theology that Jesus could have “a substance of his own” as a separate god person. Hence, the early Oneness believers were not saying that God does not have a “hypostasis” (Substance of Being – Heb. 1:3), they were simply rejecting Tertullian’s Semi-Arian idea that the Son could have “a substance of (being) of his own” (See Origen’s Commentary of the Gospel of John, book 1:23) separate from the Father’s Hypostasis (Substance of Being – Heb. 1:3).
Just as Tertullian had argued against the Modalilsts that the Son had “a substance (essence) of his own”, so Origen argued against the Modalists in his Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23,
“I wonder at the stupidity of THE GENERAL RUN OF CHRISTIANS (the Modalistic Christian majority) IN THIS MATTER. I do not mince matters; it is nothing but stupidity … THEY PROCEED DIFFERENTLY AND ASK, WHAT IS THE SON OF GOD WHEN CALLED THE WORD? The passage they employ is that in the Psalms, ‘My heart has produced a good world;' AND THEY IMAGINE THE SON TO BE THE UTTERANCE OF THE FATHER DEPOSITED, as it were, in WORDS … THEY DO NOT ALLOW HIM … ANY INDEPENDENT HYPOSTASIS (substance of Being), nor are they clear about His essence. I do not mean that they confuse its qualities, but the fact of His having AN ESSENCE OF HIS OWN (Origen's view). For NO ONE CAN UNDERSTAND (among “the general run of Christians”) HOW THAT WHICH IS SAID TO BE THE WORD CAN BE A SON. AND SUCH AN ANIMATED WORD, NOT BEING A SEPARATE ENTITY FROM THE FATHER (Origen’s view) … God the Word IS A SEPARATE BEING AND HAS AN ESSENCE OF HIS OWN.” ” Origen’s Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book 1, Chapter 23
I challenge Mr Raddatz to prove that Tertullian was alleging that the Modalists were rejecting the idea that God has a Spiritual Substance of Being. There is nothing in the writings of Tertullian to suggest that the early Oneness believers had rejected the idea that God could have a Spiritual Substance or Essence of Being. Such a view is clearly coming from Mr Raddatz’ own mind rather than from the writings of Tertullian.
While I’m certainly not defending Tertullian’s Semi-Arian theology of Jesus being a created second god person before the virgin conception, I do defend Tertullian’s use of the word “substance” regarding the Spiritual “hypostasis” (Substance of Being) of God the Father as recorded in Hebrews 1:3. I do not believe that Tertullian or any of the early Oneness or Semi-Arian writers were alleging that the invisible God (Col. 1:15) could have a physical Substance of Being as they were obviously addressing God’s unseen Spirit Being.
The Oneness Modalistic Christians refused to accept Tertullian’s idea that that Jesus is a lesser-god person with “a substance of his own” which differed from the Father’s “Substance of Being” (Origen and Hypolytus were contemporaries of Tertullian who were also contending against the Modalists by saying that the Son has his own “substance of being” which differed from the Father’s). This is the clear meaning of the context cited from Tertullian, but Mr Raddatz twists the context of Tertullian to make up another false allegation against me out of his own wishful thinking.
Mr Raddatz goes on to cite a pagan writing called Poimandres in which the ‘homoousious’ [Substance of Being] of pagan gods were said to be of the same ‘homoousious’. Since the Greek words ‘hypostasis’ and ‘homoousious’ have very similar meanings when addressing the Substance of Being of a living Individual, the use of ‘hypostasis’ for Jesus being the express image of the Father’s Hypostasis [Substance of Being] in Hebrews 1:3 dispels the notion that the use of these Greek words by some pagan Greek writers proves that the Son could not be the express image of the Father’s Hypostasis [Substance of Being] as recorded in Hebrews 1:3.
MR RADDATZ FALSELY CONCLUDES: Inadvertently, unwittingly, and ever so arrogantly, Onenessians have admitted they are neo-Gnostics!
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: Since Mr Raddatz has already demonstrated that he does not even know what the early Gnostics believed in, Mr Raddatz does not know what he is talking about when he falsely alleges that I have admitted that I am a “neo-Gnostic.”
Mr Raddatz clearly wrote, “This is one of the major doctrines that Onenessians have totally missed in their zeal to incorporate the pagan, Gnostic doctrine of incarnation into their belief system.”
If Mr Raddatz would stand up for his beliefs in a public debate, I would ask him how the Gnostics could have held a “doctrine of the incarnation in their belief system” when the Gnostics did not believe that God could become incarnate in the flesh? Since the early Gnostics denied that Jesus came in the flesh they could not have believed in a true incarnation of God in Christ.
I copied and pasted the following info about what the early Gnostics taught from this reputable website: https://classroom.synonym.com/gnosticism-beliefs-about-incarnation-12085709.html
“For Gnostics, flesh itself is evil and prevents the spirit from connecting with God entirely. The Christian doctrine of the incarnation says that God became flesh, which is an obvious problem for Gnosticism. Different Gnostic groups tried to solve this problem in different ways, primarily by altering their view of Christ's nature.”
“If God must by nature be purely spiritual, there can be no incarnation. That leaves Gnostics with the problem of Jesus. Instead of believing Jesus was God in the flesh as taught by the church, different Gnostic groups offered different solutions. One group, for example, suggested that Christ's suffering and death only appeared to be happening, and didn't actually happen to Christ's spiritual reality. Another Gnostic option is found in the Gospel of Thomas, which describes Jesus simply as a teacher of wisdom rather than God in the flesh. Yet another strain found in the Gospel of Truth looks at symbolic themes from the life of Christ, rather than attempting a narrative … At the core of the Gnostic problem was the incarnation.”
Since Mr Raddatz is the one having the “problem” with “the incarnation,” it appears that Mr Raddatz’ theological position is closer to Gnosticism than any other professing Christian theology. Mr Raddatz has clearly embarrassed himself by using the argument that Oneness believers received the doctrine of the incarnation from Gnosticism even though the historical evidence proves that “the core of the Gnostic problem WAS THE INCARNATION.” Since the Gnostics did not believe in an incarnation, Mr Raddatz has made a fool of himself by inaccurately attacking Oneness theology by misapplying the beliefs of the early Gnostics in his bogus attack on Oneness believing Christians. Thus it is utterly despicable that someone who claims to be so knowledgeable would inaccurately attack his opponents with false historical ideas that seem to emanate from his head rather than from true historical sources. Mr Raddatz, go and do your homework in church history before you misapply church history in slanderously attacking us.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: The biblical Son, generated from Mary, is the one and only begotten Son, whom John 3:16 says to believe in; not the Gnostic one (adopted by Trinitarians and Modalists) made of, or generated from, deific substance (homoousious). The doctrine of homoousios is in direct and express denial of the Scriptures: in particular, it is the epitome of the antichristian spirit, because it strips Christ of being Christ on the basis of being an “anointed human,” and replaces it with the idea he is lord because he shares the same deific substance as the Father.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: Inspired scripture clearly states that the Biblical son of God is “the brightness of his glory (the Father’s glory) and the express image of his person (Hypostasis = the Father’s Person)…” Oneness theologians are not saying that the flesh of Jesus is the express image of the Father’s Hypostasis (Substance of Being). We are saying that the human spirit of Jesus (Christ’s real inner person) is the express image of the Father’s Invisible Being/Person as a true human being/person
MR RADDATZ WROTE: Quite frankly, to say that the Son was made of the “same substance” of the Father is the opposite of saying that the son was “made flesh,” that he “came in the flesh” and was made of his mother Mary, and was made like his brothers in all things. Yet the “same-substance” doctrine is what the Trinitarian “homoousians” were saying, according to explicit statements from Athanasius, the champion of Nicene Trinitarianism:
“…We are driven to say that what is from the essence of the Father, and proper to him, is entirely the Son …that which is begotten is neither affection nor division of that blessed essence. Hence it is not incredible that God should have a Son, the Offspring of his own essence; nor do we imply affection or division of God’s essence, when we speak of ‘Son’ and ‘Offspring’; but rather, as acknowledging the genuine, and true, and Only-begotten of God, so we believe.” (Athanasius, Four Discourses Against the Arians, Discourse 1, Chapter 5, par. 16.)
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: While we know that Athanasius certainly leaned toward Trinitarian theology before the Trinity doctrine was fully developed, I agree with his scriptural statement that the Son of God is “the offspring of his own essence (the offspring of the Father’s Essence). What Oneness theologians are affirming here is that God the Father’s own Divine Essence of Being also became a true human being via virgin conception through the Holy Spirit’s Substance of Being (Matthew 1:20; Heb. 1:3). To speak more plainly, Jesus Christ is the Father’s Divine Being who also became a true human being. This is what the scriptures affirm without having to resort to the later definitions of the Roman Catholic Councils.
Mr Raddatz goes on to falsely allege that Oneness theology denies that Jesus came in the flesh.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: “…Every spirit who doesn’t confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God, and this is the spirit of the antichrist…” (1 John 4:2-3)
Jesus said that which is born of flesh is flesh; and then he claimed to be flesh and not spirit since spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones. John says those who don’t believe Jesus came in flesh (which one would have to be born of flesh to be in the flesh, per Jesus), are antichristian.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: Of course we believe that Jesus came in the flesh. Mr Raddatz erred by saying, “he claimed to be flesh and not spirit since spirit doesn’t have flesh and bones.”
Let us read Luke 24:36-39 which says,
“And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you. But they were terrified and affrighted, and supposed that they had seen a spirit. And he said unto them, Why are ye troubled? and why do thoughts arise in your hearts? Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”
The disciples had erroneously thought that they had seen a ghost or spirit which is why Jesus responded to his disciples by saying, “a spirit has not flesh and bones.” Of course, all corporeal human beings have a human spirit. Since Jesus clearly demonstrated that he had a resurrected corporeal body, he had to also have had a true human spirit. For a “body without the spirit is dead (James 2:26).” It appears that Mr Raddatz is denying the true humanity of Jesus by denying that he possesses a true human spirit.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: So by claiming Onenessians as homoosians (same substance as God the Father), Steven Ritchie has just unwittingly confessed to being antichristian!
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: I do not see any argument from Raddatz to prove that I have unwittingly confessed that Jesus Christ did not come in the flesh. For the essence of the word incarnation is to believe that someone came in the flesh in order to save us. Yet Mr Raddatz has unwittingly denied the true humanity of Christ when he wrote that Jesus “claimed to be flesh and not spirit.”
MR RADDATZ WROTE: Homoosians (Trinitarians and Onenessians) believe Jesus was constituted of the same deific substance of God just like the antichristian Gnostics believed; they just use a shell-game to move some of the minor concepts around so the unsuspecting don’t catch on.
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: It amazes me that Mr Raddatz keeps alleging that Oneness Pentecostals hold a theological view “just like the anti-Christian Gnostics believed” even though it is Mr Raddatz and his Unitarian colleagues who hold beliefs much closer to the early Gnostics.
The following information is taken from Olson, The Story of Christian Theology, p. 37 https://www.theopedia.com/gnosticism
“God is wholly transcendent, that is, he is far removed from his creation. He did not create the material universe because it was instead created by an evil or lesser God, sometimes called a “demiurge.” God is thus too perfect and pure to have much to do with the evilness of the material universe.
“Gnostics believed that human beings were “sparks” or “droplets” of the very same spiritual substance (or essence) that God is. Somehow we became trapped in our physical bodies from which we are to escape.”
“Lastly, as far as most scholars know, Gnostics considered themselves Christians and saw Jesus as a heavenly messenger. However, they rejected the idea of God becoming incarnate (God becoming a man), dying and rising bodily. These beliefs were considered unspiritual and against true wisdom because they entangled spirit with matter.”
Like the early professing Christian Gnostics, Unitarian Socinians reject the idea that God could become incarnate in the flesh. Yet I would not say that the Unitarian position of Mr Raddatz is “just like the anti-Christian Gnostics,” because, like us, they believe that Jesus suffered and died in the flesh; like us, they believe that Jesus did not literally create all things as a living son; and like us, they do not believe that Jesus is a “demiurge” which would be an Arian view of Christ rather than a Oneness or Unitarian view.
Merriam Webster Defined the "Demiurge" of Platonism and Gnosticism as:
A) A Platonic subordinate deity who fashions the sensible world in the light of eternal ideas.
B) A Gnostic subordinate deity who is the creator of the material world.
Everyone knows that Oneness Apostolic Faith Christians do not believe that Jesus is a “subordinate deity” as a lower creator under God the Father which would be an Arian view rather than a Oneness Modalistic view. Hence, Mr Raddatz has clearly misapplied the theological beliefs of Gnosticism in his false polemic against Oneness theology. I seriously doubt that honourable Unitarians such as Sir Anthony Buzzard would resort to twisting the historical data like Mr Raddatz has done against us in order to try to win his apologetic argument.
MR RADDATZ WROTE: Next, Mr Ritchie’s video above made it clear that Onenessians are now quite proud of being at the forefront of influence at the council of Nicaea in 325 AD which was called, led and overseen by emperor Constantine. This means that now Onenessians are proud of being in bed with Emperor Constantine! This is a problem in its own right on at least a couple levels!
ONENESS RESPONSE FROM RITCHIE: No, I’m not proud of what transpired at the Council of Nicaea as I have clearly stated in my videos that most of the Oneness believing Christians probably did not participate in the Council of Nicaea and that God was certainly not endorsing “the leaven of Herod.” I teach that the leaven of Herod is the doctrine of secular governmental intervention in the teachings and practices of the Church.
It would be much appreciated if Mr Raddatz would refrain from personally attacking me by alleging that I’m “proud of being in bed with Emperor Constantine.” Mr Raddatz is wrongfully prejudging me because I totally reject the concept of governmental control over the affairs of the New Testament Church. God knows my heart that my purpose was to present all of the historical data relating to the development of the early Nicene Creed and that some early Modalistic Monarchian Bishops involved themselves in the development of the Nicene Creed and even signed it. Thus I used the historical evidence to prove that the early Nicene Creed of AD 325 was not explicitly Trinitarian. I never said that God had endorsed the Nicene Creed and I certainly never said that any of the Oneness Bishops who attended were in the will of God.