Serious Question: Is Modalism a Damnable Heresy or just a Heresy ?

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

I mean technically a person could still believe in The Lord Jesus Christ As Savior and God and be saved as a Modalist right ?

 

[Call me Nic]

I mean technically a person could still believe in The Lord Jesus Christ As Savior and God and be saved as a Modalist right ?

The Bible doesn't say, "Don't be a Modalist and thou shalt be saved."

It just says, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and thou shalt be saved."

Besides, the first time the word "trinity" was used was by Tertullian. The word itself is not found in scripture, even though it speaks of God's triune nature; neither does scripture say "three persons." Scripture is never exactly clear on the nature of the Godhead, because great is the mystery of godliness. The closest thing we have is 1 John 5:7 which neither vindicates Trinitarians or Modalists.

If a person believes that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh as the Son of God, and died and rose again on the third day to take away our sins, they're saved. Everything else comes from the disputing of man.

 

[Albion]

I'm inclined to say yes because that still affirms the belief that Jesus is God incarnate.

However, that wouldn't keep the belief from being a heresy, if that matters, and it wouldn't go for every other anti-Trinitarian theory that has ever come along.

 

[bcbsr]

If a person believes that Jesus is God manifest in the flesh as the Son of God, and died and rose again on the third day to take away our sins, they're saved. Everything else comes from the disputing of man.

No, not "everything else". The scriptures clearly make a distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit. Like how does "modalism" work when Jesus speaks to the Father (as in John 17), or of the Father in the third person, as he does also the Spirit. He himself distinguishes between the Spirit and the Father as separate persons. It's not "the disputing of man", it's the rhetoric of Jesus Christ himself.

 

[abysmul]

I personally can't imagine anyone grovelling at the great white throne of judgement and being tossed into the lake of fire only because they didn't understand the mystery of the Godhead.

I'm certain, though someone will say that I'm doomed to burn for eternity because I just said/typed the above statement.

 

[Call me Nic]

No, not "everything else". The scriptures clearly make a distinction between the Father, Son and Spirit. Like how does "modalism" work when Jesus speaks to the Father (as in John 17), or of the Father in the third person, as he does also the Spirit. He himself distinguishes between the Spirit and the Father as separate persons. It's not "the disputing of man", it's the rhetoric of Jesus Christ himself.

Why is Jesus called the Everlasting Father in Isaiah 9:6?

How was the Son of man both on earth and in heaven at the same time as in John 3:13?

It's because God is omnipresent.

And it really depends on how you define Modalism. Modalism in the traditional sense is defined as the theory that God can only be manifested as one record-bearer (either the Spirit, Father, or Son) at any one time, and is not all three at the same time. That's obvious heresy. 1 John 5:7 says that God bears record as three which are simultaneously one.

God is omnipresent and omnipotent. Jesus could speak to himself as God spoke to himself in plurality in Genesis 1:26. I mean, we're talking about God here, scripture gives us a taste of the nature of God, but we will never understand it fully in this life.

 

[bcbsr]

Modalism in the traditional sense is defined as the theory that God can only be manifested as one record-bearer (either the Spirit, Father, or Son) at any one time, and is not all three at the same time.

One event that destroys that theory is Jesus' baptism. He was present, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and the Father spoke from the sky.

 

[GodsGrace101]

Definition of modalism. plural -s. : the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself.

Seems to me that if one DOES NOT believe in Modalism, then he believes in more than one God.

Doesn't that break the first commandment?

It is NOT One in Three...
It is Three in One...

 

[GodsGrace101]

One event that destroys that theory is Jesus' baptism. He was present, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and the Father spoke from the sky.

God is always all three at all times,,,how He manifests Himself is a different story.

 

[Call me Nic]

One event that destroys that theory is Jesus' baptism. He was present, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and the Father spoke from the sky.

It descended upon him indeed, however Jesus was obviously born with the Spirit and of the Spirit (Matthew 1:20, Luke 1:35) and because the Father is called a Spirit by Christ himself in John 4:24 (the Father wouldn't be a different Spirit than the Holy Spirit, otherwise that would be blasphemous and polytheistic) because the Spirit of God is the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), it's obvious from scripture that Christ was the Spirit manifested in the flesh, which is the same Spirit that is the Father. Jesus Christ is God manifested in the flesh, in which the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily. God bears record as the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, but these are one. To say they are three and distinct is to believe contrary to scripture.

Therefore Christ is the Father as well as the Spirit as well as the Word. They're all one in the same while bearing individual testimony in heaven.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Maybe.
Often it is other beliefs associated with 'one belief named' that is more harmful and deadly than the 'one belief named'.

i.e. other things taught and/or practiced and/or believed may be more relevant to salvation or lack of salvation,
and the 'one belief named' is just like leaves on the tree, relatively unimportant to more vital root issues of LIFE IN JESUS.

For instance: WHOEVER TRUSTS THE SON, HAS LIFE. This is always TRUTH.

WHOEVER DOES NOT TRUST THE SON, HAS NOT LIFE. THIS is always TRUTH also.

I mean technically a person could still believe in The Lord Jesus Christ As Savior and God and be saved as a Modalist right ?

 

[Albion]

The Trinitarian concept of God resolves that apparent problem. And the Creeds take pains to explain it of course.

 

[Call me Nic]

There are forums for that POV. This one is "Christians only."

Oh, I thought this was "controversial Christian theology?"

 

[Albion]

It appears that you are right about that. Too many clicks in quick succession on my part apparently.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

There are forums for that POV. This one is "Christians only."

Is there a Modalism / Sabellianism / Oneness Pentecostal section on this forum ?

 

[Albion]

Is there a Modalism / Sabellianism / Oneness Pentecostal section on this forum ?

As you can see from the above posts, I was reading the same posters messages on two different forums and made that mistake about forums. However, if you want a more focused discussion of these topics, the rules say to put it in the "Controversial Theology forum" (which I assume means this one).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

If SPIRIT could be measured (it cannot), defined (hardly ever can be) , photographed (impossible) , described in one way for humans instead of the thousands of ways men have tried to describe SPIRIT,
there wouldn't be so many arguments and divisions and heresies about SPIRIT, would there ?


==========================================
QUOTE="GodsGrace101, post: 73045947, member: 408929"]Definition of modalism. plural -s. : the theological doctrine that the members of the Trinity are not three distinct persons but rather three modes or forms of activity (the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit) under which God manifests himself.

Seems to me that if one DOES NOT believe in Modalism, then he believes in more than one God.

Doesn't that break the first commandment?
[/QUOTE...
========================================
Out of a million people, how many care if all the commandments are broken,
even the first one ? (according to Yahweh's Word/ Scripture/ as written)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Look down the hall on the 14th floor, 3rd door on the left .....

Is there a Modalism / Sabellianism / Oneness Pentecostal section on this forum ?

 

[dreadnought]

I mean technically a person could still believe in The Lord Jesus Christ As Savior and God and be saved as a Modalist right ?

You people like to put labels on people who believe differently than you, but I believe someday you will discover that God is one person.

 

[hedrick]

One event that destroys that theory is Jesus' baptism. He was present, the Holy Spirit descended upon him, and the Father spoke from the sky.

Suppose you have modalism plus the Incarnation. That would let you say that when Jesus is speaking it's a human speaking. So the Father and the Holy Spirit are distinct from him.

Even without modalism you have to say that Jesus spoke as a human, at least some of the time. Otherwise not knowing when the 2nd coming would be is nonsense. Remember that the 6th (I think) ecumenical council said that Christ had a distinct human will that took distinct human actions.

Sabellianism was a very early theology, before the doctrine of the Incarnation had been formulated. It upset people because it seemed to say that Father himself died on the cross. With a proper account of the Incarnation that wouldn't be an issue. Indeed some versions of modalism said that the roles were sequential: that God was the Father during creation, the Son for redemption, and the Spirit for sustaining us.

I think with a proper doctrine of the Incarnation the real problem of modalism is that it doesn't have enough distinction between the persons to allow relations between them. At least in the West, that's how "God is love" is seen as being reflected in his nature. That wouldn't work if you deny that there's any distinction at all. In the East the relationship between the Persons is seen as a model of relationships among humans, and in fact we are thought to in some. These things wouldn't work without an actual distinction between the persons.

But because ancient modalism wasn't formulated in light of later thought, it's unlikely that anyone modern would simply accept what Sabellius taught. You'd instead be dealing a theology that has some resemblance to ancient modalism. Without looking at what it actually says you can't tell what problems, if any, it has.