The Trinity

[Andrewn]

I frequented a Oneness church on and off for about 14 years. They weren't modalists and neither was I.

How are Oneness theology different from modalism?

 

[RickReads]

How are Oneness theology different from modalism?

Oneness correctly understood acknowledges the triune God just as Trinitarians acknowledge
One God. The controversy is foolish in my opinion.

Modalists tend to be Apostolic troublemakers who like to attack Trinitarians.

Thanks for the excellent question.

 

[RickReads]

How are Oneness theology different from modalism?

We believe the Theophany in the Old Testament was Jesus with the Father inside Him just as it was when He came in the flesh.

Modalism denies the father exists and invokes the spirit of the antichrist.

 

[ViaCrucis]

How are Oneness theology different from modalism?

Over the past couple decades when I have debated with Oneness folks there is a strong resentment against being called Modalist. And, strictly speaking, they aren't--though it is equally problematic.

The Oneness doctrine has a two-fold origin. The first occurred early in the Pentecostal Movement where certain Pentecostal ministers took the position that baptism in the three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is wrong and that "baptism in the name of Jesus" as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles is supposed to be the formula used for baptism. Thus many re-baptized themselves and others "in the name of the Lord Jesus".

This led to serious disputes within the Assemblies of God, and in these disputes certain ministers began to also claim to have received revelation; namely that they said that "the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. So that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

From this arguments such as that "Holy Spirit" refers to the Father since Jesus said "God is spirit", so the Holy Spirit is not a distinct Hypostasis from the Father and the Son, but is a description of the fact that God is both Holy and Spirit. Jesus, as the Son, does not refer to His eternal generation from the Father, but instead refers to His human nature. Jesus, then, is God the Father; and His human nature is the Son of God.

In discussions and debates with Oneness individuals I noticed that Oneness Christology is quite emphatically Nestorian. When I mentioned that, those Oneness persons who were generally more acquainted with Church history agreed that their view was very similar to Nestorian. So I don't feel too bad in saying that Oneness Christology is essentially Nestorian. As how the explain, for example, Jesus praying to the Father in the garden is that it was earthly human Jesus speaking with His divinity in heaven. As they, at least according to those who I have spoken to at length on the subject, believe that in the Incarnation the infinite Deity of God can't be contained in a human body, so God was on earth in the human Jesus and in heaven "the Father".

Even after a lot of debates and looking at Oneness literature, it is still hard for me to see how, with the exception of some specific details, it's not still basically a form of Modalism. Even if it isn't, strictly speaking, identical with ancient Sabellianism. In the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't strictly speaking Arian (not everything they teach is what the Arians themselves believed), but it is still basically a form of Arianism.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to add the "neo" prefix; that it is a kind of Neo-Modalism. To differentiate it from "Paleo"-Modalism, aka Sabellianism.

But, at the end of the day, regardless of how it is sliced and diced: There is a rejection of any real and meaningful distinction of the Persons; and it is therefore a rejection of what we confess in the Athanasian Creed: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Essence."

I have no desire to misrepresent Oneness doctrine--but as someone who flirted with Oneness theology when I was still in high school, and who spent a number of years even after that arguing that there "really isn't any difference" between Oneness and Trinitarianism; and only over time learning about the Trinity and having lengthy discussions and debates with Oneness advocates I feel like I have a working understanding of the doctrine and so am not misrepresenting. If I am, I would like to be corrected.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Oneness correctly understood acknowledges the triune God just as Trinitarians acknowledge
One God. The controversy is foolish in my opinion.

Modalists tend to be Apostolic troublemakers who like to attack Trinitarians.

Thanks for the excellent question.

Every Oneness theologian and advocate I have ever spoken with has been quite emphatic that their understanding and the Trinitarian understanding are irreconcilable.

I'm genuinely curious how these two diametrically opposite ideas could be reconciled together.

Either Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father, distinct from the Father in His eternal Divine Person; or Jesus is God the Father in human flesh. Jesus can't both be God the Father and not be God the Father at the same time.

I'm not seeking to provoke or to anger; but to sincerely inquire.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RickReads]

Over the past couple decades when I have debated with Oneness folks there is a strong resentment against being called Modalist. And, strictly speaking, they aren't--though it is equally problematic.

The Oneness doctrine has a two-fold origin. The first occurred early in the Pentecostal Movement where certain Pentecostal ministers took the position that baptism in the three-fold name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is wrong and that "baptism in the name of Jesus" as mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles is supposed to be the formula used for baptism. Thus many re-baptized themselves and others "in the name of the Lord Jesus".

This led to serious disputes within the Assemblies of God, and in these disputes certain ministers began to also claim to have received revelation; namely that they said that "the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit" in Matthew 28:19 is Jesus. So that Jesus is the name of the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit.

From this arguments such as that "Holy Spirit" refers to the Father since Jesus said "God is spirit", so the Holy Spirit is not a distinct Hypostasis from the Father and the Son, but is a description of the fact that God is both Holy and Spirit. Jesus, as the Son, does not refer to His eternal generation from the Father, but instead refers to His human nature. Jesus, then, is God the Father; and His human nature is the Son of God.

In discussions and debates with Oneness individuals I noticed that Oneness Christology is quite emphatically Nestorian. When I mentioned that, those Oneness persons who were generally more acquainted with Church history agreed that their view was very similar to Nestorian. So I don't feel too bad in saying that Oneness Christology is essentially Nestorian. As how the explain, for example, Jesus praying to the Father in the garden is that it was earthly human Jesus speaking with His divinity in heaven. As they, at least according to those who I have spoken to at length on the subject, believe that in the Incarnation the infinite Deity of God can't be contained in a human body, so God was on earth in the human Jesus and in heaven "the Father".

Even after a lot of debates and looking at Oneness literature, it is still hard for me to see how, with the exception of some specific details, it's not still basically a form of Modalism. Even if it isn't, strictly speaking, identical with ancient Sabellianism. In the same way that the Jehovah's Witnesses aren't strictly speaking Arian (not everything they teach is what the Arians themselves believed), but it is still basically a form of Arianism.

Perhaps it would be more accurate to add the "neo" prefix; that it is a kind of Neo-Modalism. To differentiate it from "Paleo"-Modalism, aka Sabellianism.

But, at the end of the day, regardless of how it is sliced and diced: There is a rejection of any real and meaningful distinction of the Persons; and it is therefore a rejection of what we confess in the Athanasian Creed: "We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity, neither confusing the Persons nor dividing the Essence."

I have no desire to misrepresent Oneness doctrine--but as someone who flirted with Oneness theology when I was still in high school, and who spent a number of years even after that arguing that there "really isn't any difference" between Oneness and Trinitarianism; and only over time learning about the Trinity and having lengthy discussions and debates with Oneness advocates I feel like I have a working understanding of the doctrine and so am not misrepresenting. If I am, I would like to be corrected.

-CryptoLutheran

You are definitely misrepresenting what I believe.

 

[RickReads]

Every Oneness theologian and advocate I have ever spoken with has been quite emphatic that their understanding and the Trinitarian understanding are irreconcilable.

I'm genuinely curious how these two diametrically opposite ideas could be reconciled together.

Either Jesus is the eternal Son of the Father, distinct from the Father in His eternal Divine Person; or Jesus is God the Father in human flesh. Jesus can't both be God the Father and not be God the Father at the same time.

I'm not seeking to provoke or to anger; but to sincerely inquire.

-CryptoLutheran

I believe Jesus is the theophany who comes forth from within God as Jesus Himself asserts in the book of John. All three have a will of their own which is comparable to the trinitarian viewpoint. I digress on the idea that they are equal. Jesus said the Father is the greater of the two and so I believe it. Jesus is absolutely not the Father though He is the physical manifestation of God.

Happy Crypto? You successfully outed me.

 

[ViaCrucis]

You are definitely misrepresenting what I believe.

But based on what you've said here on these forums you aren't Oneness at all. That is, the actual content of your beliefs simply don't look Oneness at all. Not as I've encountered and experienced Oneness teaching from Oneness believers themselves.

Here is an official statement from the United Pentecostal Church International (full link here), the opening paragraph is the following:

"Uncompromising monotheism is one of the clearest themes of Scripture. Simply stated, God is absolutely and indivisibly one. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). There are no essential distinctions in His eternal nature. All names and titles of the Deity—such as God (Elohim), Jehovah (Yahweh), Lord, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit—refer to one and the same being. Any plurality associated with God merely relates to attributes, titles, roles, manifestations, or aspects of God’s self-revelation to humans."

The thing is, the statement "there are no essential distinctions in His eternal nature" isn't problematic. What is problematic is this statement: "any plurality associated with God merely relates to attributes, titles, roles, manifestations, or aspects of God's self-revelation to humans."

That comes across as very Modalist-sounding. "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit" are called merely titles, or attributes, or roles, or manifestations, or aspects of God's self-revelation to humans. Rather than that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three co-eternal consubstantial Persons in a living eternal relationship with one another.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying this is what you believe. I'm saying this is what Oneness-believers believe in their own words.

And as I look at the statements of faith from other Oneness denominations, I see similar content, e.g.:

"We believe that in Jesus Christ, God’s divine attributes and human nature were combined in a perfect and incomprehensible form. We believe that the divine attributes and the human nature of God were incorporated in an incomprehensible yet perfect form in Christ Jesus. He is called the Son of Man because He was born of the Virgin Mary in whose womb He took the form of man, and thus acquired His human nature. He is called the Son of God because He was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus partook of the Divine nature. He was human through Mary, in whose womb He took the form of man. He was divine through the Holy Spirit who fathered Him in Mary. Thus, He is called the Son of God and Son of man. Therefore, we believe that Jesus Christ is God “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9) We also believe that the Bible makes known all His attributes. He is the everlasting Father and, at the same time, a child born unto us (Isaiah 9:6)." - What We Believe | Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus

"We believe that Jesus was both human and divine, and further that the Godhead be understood to mean all of the fullness of God (I Tim. 3:16; Col. 1:19, 2:9). We believe that Jesus was Mary's son and Mary's God, Creator and creature, God manifest in the flesh. The flesh of Jesus was the same as ours with the exception that it had no sin. Jesus is the Eternal Father made visible, apart from whom there is no God. At the final consummation of all things, there will only be one God, and that will be our Lord Jesus Christ (Zech. 14:9)." - https://www.pajci.org/what-we-believe

I wouldn't accuse you of believing these things.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[RickReads]

But based on what you've said here on these forums you aren't Oneness at all. That is, the actual content of your beliefs simply don't look Oneness at all. Not as I've encountered and experienced Oneness teaching from Oneness believers themselves.

Here is an official statement from the United Pentecostal Church International (full link here), the opening paragraph is the following:

"Uncompromising monotheism is one of the clearest themes of Scripture. Simply stated, God is absolutely and indivisibly one. “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord” (Deuteronomy 6:4). There are no essential distinctions in His eternal nature. All names and titles of the Deity—such as God (Elohim), Jehovah (Yahweh), Lord, Father, Word, and Holy Spirit—refer to one and the same being. Any plurality associated with God merely relates to attributes, titles, roles, manifestations, or aspects of God’s self-revelation to humans."

The thing is, the statement "there are no essential distinctions in His eternal nature" isn't problematic. What is problematic is this statement: "any plurality associated with God merely relates to attributes, titles, roles, manifestations, or aspects of God's self-revelation to humans."

That comes across as very Modalist-sounding. "Father, Word, and Holy Spirit" are called merely titles, or attributes, or roles, or manifestations, or aspects of God's self-revelation to humans. Rather than that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three co-eternal consubstantial Persons in a living eternal relationship with one another.

Let me be clear, I'm not saying this is what you believe. I'm saying this is what Oneness-believers believe in their own words.

And as I look at the statements of faith from other Oneness denominations, I see similar content, e.g.:

"We believe that in Jesus Christ, God’s divine attributes and human nature were combined in a perfect and incomprehensible form. We believe that the divine attributes and the human nature of God were incorporated in an incomprehensible yet perfect form in Christ Jesus. He is called the Son of Man because He was born of the Virgin Mary in whose womb He took the form of man, and thus acquired His human nature. He is called the Son of God because He was begotten of the Holy Spirit and thus partook of the Divine nature. He was human through Mary, in whose womb He took the form of man. He was divine through the Holy Spirit who fathered Him in Mary. Thus, He is called the Son of God and Son of man. Therefore, we believe that Jesus Christ is God “For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.” (Colossians 2:9) We also believe that the Bible makes known all His attributes. He is the everlasting Father and, at the same time, a child born unto us (Isaiah 9:6)." - What We Believe | Apostolic Assembly of the Faith in Christ Jesus

"We believe that Jesus was both human and divine, and further that the Godhead be understood to mean all of the fullness of God (I Tim. 3:16; Col. 1:19, 2:9). We believe that Jesus was Mary's son and Mary's God, Creator and creature, God manifest in the flesh. The flesh of Jesus was the same as ours with the exception that it had no sin. Jesus is the Eternal Father made visible, apart from whom there is no God. At the final consummation of all things, there will only be one God, and that will be our Lord Jesus Christ (Zech. 14:9)." - https://www.pajci.org/what-we-believe

I wouldn't accuse you of believing these things.

-CryptoLutheran

Crypto there are some things I would say about all that but it could be interpreted as a rule violation
I`m not interested in defending the UPC church. I have issues with their doctrine in several areas and they do not approve of my views either.

All I can tell you is that I know them, They believe the Father is inside of Jesus and I will say no more beyond that because I am not here to defend them.

The church I`ve affiliated with for the last 21 years is a trinitarian church. I have no issue with their view of the Godhead.

 

[Andrewn]

Modalism denies the father exists and invokes the spirit of the antichrist.

How does Modalism invoke the spirit of the antichrist?

All three have a will of their own which is comparable to the trinitarian viewpoint.

Trinitarians believe that the three persons share the same will.

 

[Andrewn]

I think the concept of "personhood" is dangerous, and that we should instead call each member "personalities" in the same sense that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are personalities of Brahman in Hindu thought. It does NOT reduce them into a mere aspect of God, as some think the Hindu Trimūrti teaches. All three personalities are God, but are distinct in their personal relations with each other and the world.

In some forms of Hinduism there is Brahman, Vishnu (or Krishna), and Atman. In Platonism there is the One, the Nous, and the world Soul. In Ancient Egypt there is Ptah, Amun, Ra.

I'm not saying that these concepts are similar. But I know that Clement of Alexandria, for example, took the Platonic example seriously. A discussion of the differences and similarities would be interesting.

Of course, in no other belief system did God take flesh and redeem the world.

 

[RickReads]

How does Modalism invoke the spirit of the antichrist?


Trinitarians believe that the three persons share the same will.

Hi, once again I appreciate the honest interest I see in your questions.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Per the scripture a modalist who doesn't believe in both the Father and The Son is antichrist. In my opinion, it is no more complicated than that. So anyone who wants to accept Oneness must take care to understand how the two operate together.

Maybe same will needs to be discussed at CF. It is shown in scripture that Jesus had to keep His own will in check and the Holy Spirit is shown speaking and enacting a plan in the book of Acts. I dont think you can refer to them as persons if they have no will of their own. Maybe you have a term for it. The irony here is amusing, you are the one who is supposed to be able to be accused of believing in three gods. If Brother Baxter was still alive he would not be happy with me right now

Matthew 26:39
And he went a little farther, and fell on his face, and prayed, saying, O my Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me: nevertheless not as I will, but as thou wilt.

Acts 13:2
2 As they ministered to the Lord, and fasted, the Holy Ghost said, Separate me Barnabas and Saul for the work whereunto I have called them.

 

[Andrewn]

Hi, once again I appreciate the honest interest I see in your questions.

1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

Per the scripture a modalist who doesn't believe in both the Father and The Son is antichrist. In my opinion, it is no more complicated than that. So anyone who wants to accept Oneness must take care to understand how the two operate together.

Thank you for the explanation.

Maybe same will needs to be discussed at CF. It is shown in scripture that Jesus had to keep His own will in check

Right. Jesus had 2 natures with 2 wills. His Divine will, however, is the same as the Father's.

and the Holy Spirit is shown speaking and enacting a plan in the book of Acts.

Sure, the Holy Spirit has a will. But, again, it is the same as the Father's.

I dont think you can refer to them as persons if they have no will of their own. Maybe you have a term for it. The irony here is amusing, you are the one who is supposed to be able to be accused of believing in three gods.

I don't believe in 3 gods and I don't think the word "person" in its modern usage is appropriate, either. The Trinity are not 3 separate persons.

 

[RickReads]

Thank you for the explanation.


Right. Jesus had 2 natures with 2 wills. His Divine will, however, is the same as the Father's.


Sure, the Holy Spirit has a will. But, again, it is the same as the Father's.


I don't believe in 3 gods and I don't think the word "person" in its modern usage is appropriate, either. The Trinity are not 3 separate persons.

Jesus is the Theophany, that is the meaning of Oneness including Trinitarian Oneness.

 

[Andrewn]

Jesus is the Theophany, that is the meaning of Oneness including Trinitarian Oneness.

I assume the term "Trinitarian Oneness" refers to One-self theories of the Trinity.

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

 

[RickReads]

I assume the term "Trinitarian Oneness" refers to One-self theories of the Trinity.

Trinity (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

1 John 5:7
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

[Jonaitis]

In some forms of Hinduism there is Brahman, Vishnu (or Krishna), and Atman. In Platonism there is the One, the Nous, and the world Soul. In Ancient Egypt there is Ptah, Amun, Ra.

I'm not saying that these concepts are similar. But I know that Clement of Alexandria, for example, took the Platonic example seriously. A discussion of the differences and similarities would be interesting.

Of course, in no other belief system did God take flesh and redeem the world.

In Vedanta thought, the 'Atman' is the witness-consciousness (often translated as "Self") residing in all living sentient beings, and is identified as Brahman, the ultimate principle of reality. Krishna is one of Vishnu's avatars, and is represented as the analogous incarnate Supreme Personality of the Atman/Brahman, similarly to Christ Jesus.

In Neoplatonic thought, the One emanates the Nous (Intellect), the Nous emanates the World Soul. This idea is strangely similar to Hindu thought, as it is understood the mind (intellect) is responsible for creating maya (illusion of the world and its diversity of various living creatures). The One is beyond the conception of a deity, in the same way Brahman is understood.

These two religious philosophies are more under the category of 'transtheism' (beyond the category of theism/atheism) than monotheism, although some will say they are naturally monotheistic.

 

[Andrewn]

1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

The question is 3 what? Perhaps the best answer is modus subsistendi ("modes of being") as @Jonaitis said or "subsistences" as @ViaCrucis said.

 

[Jonaitis]

The question is 3 what? Perhaps the best answer is modus subsistendi ("modes of being") as @Jonaitis said or "subsistences" as @ViaCrucis said.

I would just stick with the subsistences, because modus subsistendi is confusing to most people (probably why it is never used). It helps me understand, but everyone is different.

 

[RickReads]

The question is 3 what? Perhaps the best answer is modus subsistendi ("modes of being") as @Jonaitis said or "subsistences" as @ViaCrucis said.

That's never been a concern of mine. I don't think the Bible reveals what God consists of. Life perhaps.