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

[yeshuaslavejeff]

This came up before ,
and in Scripture it is written
that Yahweh is not a man,
Yahweh is not a person/ human.
Period.

(man's slang calls God a person; but His Word Says Clearly He is NOT a person/ not a human)

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.

 

[Loren T.]

A child can believe and be saved. I'm sure there will be people who had a bunch of stuff wrong in heaven. But also, once you have matured and considered these questions, you can't go back to being the child, you have to get your answers from the word, and grow in understanding. Only God knows who is a sincere seeker of truth and who is decieved.

 

[Loren T.]

A child can believe and be saved. I'm sure there will be people who had a bunch of stuff wrong in heaven. But also, once you have matured and considered these questions, you can't go back to being the child, you have to get your answers from the word, and grow in understanding. Only God knows who is a sincere seeker of truth and who is decieved.

 

[JoeP222w]

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

No.

If you do not believe in Jesus Christ of the Bible, you are not in Christ, and you do not have eternal life in Him.

Modalists have a created a "Jesus" to suit their needs, and that is an idol, and there is no salvation in idols.

 

[Not David]

If Modalism can be an exception, doesn't it means that Arianism can be one?

 

[dreadnought]

If Modalism can be an exception, doesn't it means that Arianism can be one?

Is everyone that disagrees with you a heretic?

 

[Not David]

Is everyone that disagrees with you a heretic?

Not related at all with my question. You should complain about the seven ecumenical councils tho.

 

[dreadnought]

Not related at all with my question. You should complain about the seven ecumenical councils tho.

It seems to me some people revel in accusing others of heresy, when maybe they themselves are the heretics, if the the truth were known. This isn't a statement pointed necessarily at you.

 

[hedrick]

I still haven't found (in anything I have) a really good account of the original modalism. However the Oxford Companion to the Trinity says that it was accompanied by the idea that God's spirit inhabited Jesus, who was not any real sense divine. They say the Christological implications are what killed it. But as I noted, you could certainly hold a modalist view of the Trinity with a full doctrine of the Incarnation.

Incidentally, it looks to me like Oneness Pentecostals hold this position, i.e. a real concept of the Incarnation, but a modalist concept of God.

 

[bcbsr]

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.

You're right, the relationship under modalism would be like between me, myself, and I, which really doesn't reflect the scriptural relationship within the Trinity.

 

[oldrunner]

A child can believe and be saved. I'm sure there will be people who had a bunch of stuff wrong in heaven. But also, once you have matured and considered these questions, you can't go back to being the child, you have to get your answers from the word, and grow in understanding. Only God knows who is a sincere seeker of truth and who is decieved.

This is where I stand. There are a lot of things we can't understand when we are first saved, but we grow and learn and are held accountable for what we believe and teach. I think the Creeds were hammered our for a reason- that most denominations agree to.

It's a mystery for sure, but Jesus' baptism shows three distinct characters in the text. (Mat 3:16-17). It's not rocket science. We also have God talking in the plural in Gen. 1:26, 3:22, 11:7. Dan. 7:13 shows the Son of Man coming before the Ancient of Days. Of course the big tamale, Hebrews 1:1-13. It's there if we look, otherwise there would not be such a fight, IMO.

 

[DamianWarS]

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

I think one could be saved so long as they serve and follow Christ but modalism to me presents problems when speaking of the passibility of Christ.

 

[JackRT]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

 

[hedrick]

I believe the "masks" is true in Latin but not Greek. But most of the discussion of the doctrine occurred in Greek.

The history is complex, but I think it started by the conviction that Christ is divine. That immediately raised the question of how that can be if there's only one God. There are other ways one could imagine it working out, but maybe not in the ancient culture within which Christianity developed. While the beginning of John could have been understood as poetic, in the context of a Church that experienced Christ as divine, combined with a culture in which anything real had to be expressed ontologically, the result is pretty obvious.

The understanding changed a number of times, but the final understanding in the West is largely due to Augustine. It sees God as primarily one, with just enough distinction to allow for what the Catholic Encyclopedia calls a three-fold experience within God. If Christ is really the Incarnation of God, so that to understand God we have to understand him, then there has to be something in God that is reflected in Jesus, which means that God has to experience life as both Father and Son. That doesn't mean there's more than one God, or even more than one divine will.

The NT could conceivably be read in different ways, but current NT scholarship (as well as early Roman accounts) suggest that the NT reflects worship of Christi. If you start out with Christ as God on earth, but also want to do justice to his humanity, you're going to end up with something like the Trinity. If he's a prophet, or God's agent, we wouldn't need it. Nor would we need it if he's a theophany, like the stories in the OT where God appeared in human form without being an actual human being.

You're right that the persons language was later, but you can see the thinking that eventually led there in the 2nd Cent apologists, and to some extent earlier (e.g. Clement, who died in 96).

In my opinion, to avoid the Trinity (or its moral equivalent) you pretty much have to say that the Church took a wrong turn from the very beginning, in how it related to the resurrected Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Modalism is no less heretical than Arianism or Socinianism.

Whether Modalists, Arians, Socinians (etc) are saved or not isn't our business. But Modalism is not somehow less bad, it is just as heretical and just as wrong as Arianism, Socinianism, Docetism, Adoptionism, and so on and so forth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

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...

One and Three.

There are three Divine Persons of one indivisible Essence. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Not three gods, but one God; because the Essence of the Father is one, the Essence of the Son is one, and the Essence of the Holy Spirit is one; because the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same Essence as the Father. There is only one God, and there are three Persons.

If one believes in Modalism, then deny any distinction between the Three, and instead say that Jesus is nothing more than God's hand puppet.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[oldrunner]

For many years I have struggled to understand the doctrine of the trinity. To say it is a mystery that we are not expected to comprehend simply doesn't cut it for me. Some time ago I discovered that in the original formulation of the trinity, the word in Greek which we traditionally have interpreted to mean "persons", as in "three persons in one God" is actually the same word used to designate the mask worn by actors in Greco-Roman theater. We cannot call this a "person" but we can certainly call it a "persona". This insight has put a totally new spin on the entire concept for me. We finite creatures cannot possibly hope to describe our transcendent God, but we can speak of the modes or roles or personae that assist our understanding. God as creator/father, God as spirit/sustainer, and the glimpse of God we obtain in the life and teaching of Jesus. In other words, trinity is not a description of God but is, rather, a description of the human experience of God in the language of fourth century Greek speaking Christianity.

The New Catholic Encyclopedia: "The formulation ‘one God in three persons’ was not solidly established, certainly not fully assimilated into Christian life and its profession of faith, prior to the end of the 4th century. But it is precisely this formula that has first claim to the title of the Trinitarian dogma. Among the Apostolic Fathers, there had been nothing even remotely approaching such a mentality or perspective." – (1967), Vol. XIV, p. 299.

I think it is pretty straightforward as far as the Scripture revelation of God as three distinct persons- as each being presented as different, and they have differnt jobs. How they work together as one God, is more of a mystery to me. But I kind of get it becuse They are all of the same essence. And also, will we see God the Father as He is when we get our new spiritual bodies? It seems so, becuse we will be "one" with Them, and have no sin anymore! (Rev 21-22) (but this don't mean we will become God)

But Jesus did reveal the Father fully to us in a human way we can understand. He said, "He who has seen Me has seen the Father." Jhn. 14:9 Also, 14:7, 5:37.

The Spirit is shown as a person too (Jhn. 14:17, 15:26, 16:13), and the distiction in between the Godhead. And Jesus lives inside us through the Spirit, as do They all! (Jhn. 17:21)

Got to love Johns writtings!

 

[frater_domus]

The whole issue about the trinity is that there is no clear biblical teaching about it. A lot is based on assumption. As such, this info was not deemed important by the Lord to include in the bible. As such, it probably has no bearing on our salvation. Jesus himself is the focal point, not the trinity.

Besides, as soon as words like "technically" and "heresy" come into play, we start entering the realm of legalism and worldly teachings. I wouldn't want to get hung up on details and instead focus on Jesus and his teachings

 

[Gell]

The Lord is our God, the Lord is One

 

[GodsGrace101]

One and Three.

There are three Divine Persons of one indivisible Essence. The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Not three gods, but one God; because the Essence of the Father is one, the Essence of the Son is one, and the Essence of the Holy Spirit is one; because the Son and the Holy Spirit are of the same Essence as the Father. There is only one God, and there are three Persons.

If one believes in Modalism, then deny any distinction between the Three, and instead say that Jesus is nothing more than God's hand puppet.

-CryptoLutheran

Speaking about the Trinity is not an easy task.
The above all sounds good to me.
There are indeed 3 persons in the ONE God; all are of the same essence.

But each one is also individual and has His own work to do and His own character although they each all share in the same work and share the same character.

This is the best image I could find of the Trinity.