What is Modalism???

Status
Not open for further replies.
In capsule, Modalism is the heresy that the
three Persons of the Trinity are actually mere
manifestations (or modes) of God ...rather
than distinct and co-existent Persons.

This is known as Monarchianist Modalism,
and also Sabellianism (after a Roman priest,
Sabellius), as well as Patripassianism.


For a real detailed account of what it is and why its wrong try this site: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-modalism.htm

:) God Bless
 
Upvote 0
Chuck said
For a real detailed account of what it is and why its wrong try this site: http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-modalism.htm
--------------------------------------------------
I went to this site. I am Oneness Pentecostal, UPCI. We do not beleive like it says at that site. The statements may be true to the teachings of modalism, but they are not true to Oneness Pentecostals. There are some similarities.
 
Upvote 0
Sorry ontherock I was not trying to come againest the upci, I do not agree with the doctrine of upci but was not using modalism to make an arguement againest it either.

So that everyone can see exactly the doctrine of upci you can go to http://www.upci.org/doctrine/ thats thier offical website with the doctrine of this denomination.

God Bless
 
Upvote 0
Thanks Chuck. But, you have not answered my questions sufficiently---one of them not at all. I am very serious here. You have not demonstrated exactly what Modalism is, as opposed to Trinitarianism, nor have you even begun to show why Modalism is bad, wrong, evil.

Notice, I'm not asking so much of why, or if, Modalism is untrue on the basis of the Bible, but of how it is wrong, evil, false, misleading, fallen-short. At http://www.chalcedon.edu/articles/article_as_17.html it says, in part:

---modalism makes the events of redemptive history a kind of charade": if Christ is not discrete Person, his death for our sins and resurrection, assession, and his intercession for us as his people, are illusory.

But, note, please, that this quote does not demonstrate how this charge against Modalism is true. If I argue in court against a presumed-guilty-of-wrong defendent on the basis of a document that says that this defendent has failed to keep a contract, and I do not actually say what constitutes the contract, nor why the contract is reasonable in the first place, then I have not upheld my case.
 
Upvote 0
Adam2Adam
That site does not give a good portrayal of Modalism. Basicaly, it is just a refutal against modalism from the trinity point of view.

I have spent the past 5 days searching different sites to also learn about modalism. I have not found any good sources yet. Most give only a nutshell expaination. Or a refutal against it.

I will say from all of the reading that I have done, that Modalism is not a prevelent teaching in the church today. There are similar teachings which are better built on scripture. From what I have seen Modalism was not built very good on scriptures and had quite a few loop holes.

I will post what ever sites I find.
 
Upvote 0
Ok, I think I've figured out some of the confusion. It seems that most records of the exact teachings of Modalism were destroyed. And most writings describing Modalism were written by trinitarian beleivers. Even today, most refutals to Modalism distorts what Modalism actualy teaches. If you read any refutals on Modalism, you will not get an accurate view of Modalism.

Based on David K. Bernard's "The oneness of God", UPCI beleives in Modalistic Monarchianism. This is the term given to Oneness beleivers.

From BERNARD'S BOOK http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/pentecostal/One-Ch10.htm
---------------------------------------------------------
According to the church historian Adolph Harnack, modalistic monarchianism was the most dangerous rival to trinitarianism in the period from 180 A.D. to 300 A.D. He concludes from passages in Hippolytus, Tertullian, and Origen that modalism was the official theory in Rome for almost a generation, and that it was at one time "embraced by the great majority of all Christians."

Despite its evident importance, it is difficult to arrive at a complete description of what modalistic monarchianism really was. Some of the more prominent modalists were Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, Epigonus, Cleomenes, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Commodian. At least two Roman bishops (later classified as popes), Callistus and Zephyrinus, were accused of being modalists by their opponents. It is difficult to obtain accurate information about these men and their beliefs because existing historical sources were all written by their trinitarian opponents who were intent upon disproving the doctrine of their antagonists.

Undoubtedly, the modalists' doctrine was misunderstood, misrepresented, and distorted in the process. It is impossible, therefore, to find a precise description of the beliefs of a particular modalist. However, by putting together different statements about these various men, it is possible to arrive at a fairly good understanding of modalism. For example, there were possibly some differences in the theologies of Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and Marcellus; how serious is difficult to determine. It is certain, however, that each maintained the full deity of Jesus Christ while admitting of no distinction of persons in the Godhead.

The modalist doctrine is usually explained simply as the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only manifestations, or modes, of the one God (the monarchia), and not three distinct persons (hypostases). It should be distinguished from dynamic monarchianism which also upheld the oneness of God, but did so by claiming that Jesus was an inferior, subordinate being. More precisely, modalistic monarchianism is the belief that considers "Jesus as the incarnation of the Godhead" and "the Father incarnate."
--------------------------------------------------------

I want to stess that trinity beleivers do not know the teachings of the Oneness and they distort the teachings of Oneness and of Modalistic Monarchianism. If you want to study these teachings then don't get your info from trinitarians as they will alter its teachings and make it say what it is not saying. They beleive that it is a heresy and they have put out much info that calls Oneness a false teaching.
 
Upvote 0
Adam I was not trying to "answer" you but to give you a place to start. I looked back the beginning of my post was also a quote from another website. It was my mistake not to place it in quotes along with the url I am sorry about that.

To be honest I have no idea if it is wrong or right I had never heard of it before your post. But in responce to your question I pasted the definition I found as for you first question, again without qoutes or the website my fault, then I posted a url that was making the statement of why it was wrong as you asked.

Sorry about the miscommunication

God Bless
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Thanks OntheRock.

Oneness people seem to see no reason why God would be three
y's. But, a war trial is not complete unless all three realms of proof are taken care of. The victor must be victor not by reason alone, nor by power alone, nor by goodness-of-spirit alone. No war trial between a
righteous man and a wicked man is ever conducted without these three, even if one of these three is sometimes left implicit.

What is wrong with a tri-modalism if it is based on a God who is triune in the sense of being all three primary realms of existence, and that the modes are simply the result of the relationship of God to a fallen race who are at enmity with Him even while they claim that they can be righteous and wise without Him and His revelation? If, according to many atheists, an atheist world, made up solely of natural atheists, could not think up the idea of a
god, then where did the idea of God come from if God does not exist? Hence, a war trial.
 
Upvote 0
Adam2adam
I'm sure you made a good point, but I'm confused as to what you were saying.

Trinity's main beleif hinges on the fact that all 3 are "eternaly externaly existent". In other words all 3 have always been and always will be. They are of the same substance, yet distinct and seperate. They are all God. They stress 3 in 1 and not 1 who is 3. All 3 are of God and are God.

Oneness hinges on one God with 3 manifestation or avenues of revelations or offices. God the father is a spirit and has no body or form and is invisible. In the begining God had a plan, with a blueprint. He created man in that image. Anytime God was seen in the OT it was the image they saw.

Jesus was God in the flesh. God became human to be a high preist who knew our feelings through being alive like we are. Also to die for our sins. Jesus (God) rose again and is now in heaven. He will return and rule as the physical God. He has been given all power and authority as pertaining to the flesh. God the Father, the invisible spirit will still be God but now has a body to operate in throughout all eternity.

The Holy Spirit referes to God the spirit in his office of fellowship to man. In other words when God operates in the lives of men it is in the capacity of the holy spirit.

I am not an authority figure on the teachings of Oneness. I do have scriptures to back up what I beleive, but it would be an extremely lengthy task. I can refute all trinity attacks on Oneness.

quote
"why does God have to be three people and what is wrong with saying that he is one person?"
There are some beleifs out there that take away the diety of God from one of his manifestations. Some say Jesus was just a man filled with the spirit. The Roman church started the trinity doctrine to combat this by making 3 prevalent and all God.
 
Upvote 0

Apologist

2 Tim. 2:24-26
Jan 9, 2002
1,294
11
62
Northern California
Visit site
✟1,980.00
Faith
Christian
Originally posted by Adam2Adam
why does God have to be three people and what is wrong with saying that he is one person?

First of all God is three 'persons' not three 'people.'
He is revealed as such in scripture and that is why most Christians believe this doctrine. Saying that God is only one person makes many scriptures rediculous. When we say that God is three persons we are not talking about three people walking around. We are talking about identities which are formed and completed on the basis of relationships within the Godhead. For instance the Son prays to the Father, the Father loves the Son, the Father sends the Spirit, etc.

God Bless
 
Upvote 0
Hello all. As I was going through this topic I think of all the others not only on this board but others and how we all seem to see differently on this but are we seeing it so differently that the end result is not the same? If 2 siblings were asked to give a detailed account of their mother and father would each use the same exact wording or would the picture we get be the same?
I know these questions have been brought up many times before but in this particular topic lets try this alittle compatability test, using "yes" and "no" answer the questions below. Make sure it is just simply yes or no:

1) Is there only one true God?
2) Do you believe Jesus Christ is your Savior
3) Do you believe that the "Father" spoken in the bible is God
4) Do you believe that Jesus Christ is God
5) Do you believe the Holy Spirit is God
6) Do you believe Jesus Christ was also man
7) Do you believe Jesus Christ is now at the right hand of the Father
8) Do you believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have no beginning and no end


My answers:
1 yes
2 yes
3 yes
4 yes
5 yes
6 yes
7 yes
8 yes
 
Upvote 0
OntheRock,

Maybe I'm making more out of this Trinity idea than I need to (while making, in some sense, less out of it than Trinitarians would prefer), but what I am trying to do is show what seems to me to be the case: If God has three manifestations or avenues or offices, what are these offices, really, and why must there be three of them? Is this because those offices are the only three offices possible, being the outcome of something that is inherent/eternal in God as God, or is it because of something that is not inherent in God but rather is created?

quote:
Trinity's main beleif hinges on the fact that all 3 are "eternaly externaly existent". In other words all 3 have always been and always will be. They are of the same substance, yet distinct and seperate. They are all God. They stress 3 in 1 and not 1 who is 3. All 3 are of God and are God.

But, if they three are inseparable by their very nature (which they would have to be if we are talking about monotheism) then each one is both God and of God. Thus, they each are personal and are not merely non-personal things. If they were merely things, then God could not be personal, and, as a consequence of being made up of things, would be a sythetic being (a being who congealed together out of these things).

What I'm talking about here are root attributes. Omnipresence is not a root attribute, is not an attribute in itself, but only implies that something is present. Once something is present, it has the attribute of being present---of existing. Some things necessarily logically are omnipresent and not just present locally. I beleive that all of creation can be logically traced back to these root attributes (that is, to God).







Originally posted by Apologist


First of all God is three 'persons' not three 'people.'

What is the difference? If we say thatr God is three persons as opposed to three people, this does not say what the difference is.

He is revealed as such in scripture and that is why most Christians believe this doctrine.

God is revealed as three what and not three what in scripture? Was it the "person" of "God the Son" who prayed in the garden, saying "Nevertheless, not my will, but thine be done." ? Or, was this Jesus' humanity praying? (Someone had recorded it, so for whose benefit was Jesus praying this prayer?) If it was "God the Son" praying this prayer, then how does God have a will contrary to God's will? If God willed that God not experience death as a man, then how did God also will the opposite? When Jesus prayed to God the Father just before he raised Lazarus from the dead, he spoke to the God who is "in Heaven on the throne" (the Father), saying that he was so speaking only for the benefit of those who heard him speak (pray) to the Father. Yet, if God is omnipresent, then why would one "person" of God speak to another "person" of God as if that other person were in a different location from himself? This locality difference is exactly what we would end up with if we were to take the account of Jesus' baptism as literally we take the scriptures which are used to support the idea that God is a Trinity of people.

And, I say Trinity of people, not Trinity of persons, because that's exactly what it seems to me we get if we imply that God needs to pray to God by saying that Jesus, as God, was praying to God.

Why is the "person" of God who became incarnate called logos? And, if God is three people who are somehow a Trinity, then why did only one of them become incarnate? If God is omnipresent, and each of three people are fully God, then each person is inseperable from the other two. And, then why was Jesus praying to some location of God above the earth? Is the Father only in heaven? And, what is heaven? Is the person incarnate only within that human flesh when he became incarnate? Is it logically required that the scriptures that record these "persons" as talking to each other mean that these scriptures are revealing a plain truth about the constitution of God's being, or are they revealing the action of God in relation to fallen man? Surely, when Jesus prayed to God just before raising Lazarus, this was the case, and not that Jesus needed to talk to the invisible God from which he came.

Jesus' body was concieved by that God. And, as the scripture says, in that body dwelt the fullness of the Godhead. What is the Godhead, really? We can call it Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but what does that mean? For all most people know, those three could as well have been called something else instead of father, son and holy spirit, say, food, water and air. But, what did Jesus mean with these words: that he was the, Truth, the Life and the Way? Those three are three, but what are they, and why are there three of them? God the Father is said to be the One who has life in himself (Jesus said do), so what is the picture of "father" refering to, and how is this "father" eternally generating the "son"?

Almost all of Jesus' life, words and actions were that of God as a man, not of God as God. God showed by this that he could be the best man possible considering the world he was born into. That is, he proved to all around him that he alone was worthy by the way he lived and by what he said and did. And, he had faith above even that of Elijah, to heal people and raise them from the dead without having to ask God to do the work. He died as a man who was concerned for other men above himself. Yet, he was God, the self-existent One who cannot deny Himself. Why is God self-existent? What is God?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Adam2Adam
You've said alot. I don't know exactly what your stance is on father,son,holy ghost. You seem to be seeing the oneness of it all. Seeing one God is a revelation in my opinion, weather you see it through the trinity beleif or the Oneness beleif. I prefer the Oneness beleif for many reasons.

quote
"they each are personal and are not merely non-personal things."

There is One personal God that we have. And He has revealed himself in 3 ways. How can we personaly know an invisible God now and through out all eternity? By knowing Him as Jesus. This is God, who took on humanity and became human to be a personal God. And at the same time died for us. When we get to heaven it is Jesus who we will see. We can personaly know God in spirit right now through Jesus, or in other words through the work that God did in the flesh by faith, which destroys the barrier between man and God because of sin, we can know God through the holy spirit, Which is God who inhabits us because of the Blood.

God interacts with man as a spirit right now. God the father. But He can only interact to a certain point because of sin being in man. When man destroys the barrier caused by sin, then God can interact with man on a different more personal level, the Holy Spirit. The work of God as a human is the avenue to change the interaction of God the spirit to Holy Spirit. God the spirit and Holy Spirit are the same God, but they interact with man on different levels. I am not the best at explain this.

Concerning the humanity of Jesus (God). You have the concept down pretty good. All of Jesus' actions were performed through humanity. While as a human he was seperated from God the spirit. When he rose to heaven he received all power and authority in the flesh and The glory of God the spirit was placed on the flesh. God is not sharing his glory, I want to make that clear.

Concerning 'logos'. Logos is the expression of thought or reasoning - not a spiritual being. Some view it as a blueprint or plan. The bible states that "Jesus was slain from the foundation of the world". We know this is not true except as a plan that God had from the beginning.
John 1:1 In the begining was the word(blueprint), the word(blueprint) was with God, and the word(blueprint)was God.
John 1:14 ...and the word(blueprint)(which is God) became flesh...

I didn't answer all of your questions. I will look them over some more later and see if there is more I can add. Remember Oneness is a revelation from God. As it says in the bible Math 16:16. And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven.
18. And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.