Trinitarian versus Modalism

[Rescued One]

A lot of people don't associate Modalism with Oneness. They are the same. And I'm not as educated as many Christians who post here, but I know that Modalism is a heresy. I had to learn the difference as well as the Mormon concept of the Godhead which is a form of polytheism.

Modalism:

1. the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.
   Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary

1. : 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.
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modalism

 

[redleghunter]

The Irish twins explain it a bit.

 

[Jonaitis]

I agree, Modalism/Sabellianism is heresy. We affirm modus subsistendi (mode of subsisting) as the classical Trinitarian doctrine teaches. God is one in essence, three in distinct persons.

 

[redleghunter]

A lot of people don't associate Modalism with Oneness. They are the same. And I'm not as educated as many Christians who post here, but I know that Modalism is a heresy. I had to learn the difference as well as the Mormon concept of the Godhead which is a form of polytheism.

Modalism:

1. the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.
   Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary

1. : 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.
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modalism

You will usually find out that if a particular church gets the Trinity wrong their Christology is the source of their error.

Good article here:

Chalcedon: A Defining Moment for the Doctrine of Christ

 

[Jonaitis]

You will usually find out that if a particular church gets the Trinity wrong their Christology is the source of their error.

Good article here:

Chalcedon: A Defining Moment for the Doctrine of Christ

I was asked by a good friend of mine what defines heresy. I said, whatever touches Christology, whether that be the person or work of Jesus Christ and the application of his redemption to the believer. He is the center of controversy.

 

[Rescued One]

You will usually find out that if a particular church gets the Trinity wrong their Christology is the source of their error.

Good article here:

Chalcedon: A Defining Moment for the Doctrine of Christ

That is perfect! Thank you times one million!

 

[The Liturgist]

You will usually find out that if a particular church gets the Trinity wrong their Christology is the source of their error.

Good article here:

Chalcedon: A Defining Moment for the Doctrine of Christ

Imterestingly there are no Eutychians, at least not on a major scale. The last large quasi-Eutychian cult was converted by the Ethiopian Orthodox some centuries ago. Some people call the Church of the East Nestorian, and the Oriental Orthodox Eutychian, but it is not true, because the former uses a Christology developed around AD 500 by Mar Babai which is basically Chalcedonian, and the latter believes that Christ is from two natures, and that his humanity and divinity coexist without change, confusion, or separation, which is the same terminology used by Chalcedonians.

Unfortunately there is a lot of hate in the east between a minority of Eastern Orthodox, some members of the Assyrian Church of the East, and some Coptic and Ethiopian monks, who think Chalcedonians are Nestorian. Under the unpleasant leadership of Pope Shenouda, the Coptic Church rather spitefully blocked the Assyrians from joining. But before Mar Dinkha IV, who became Catholicos in 1974 when his predecessor was assasinated, the Assyrian Catholicoi for several centuries had been hereditary; the younger son of a particular family would suceed his uncle. This led to some corruption, and also to the Catholicosate moving to Chicago, away from its large flock in Iraq, Iran and Syria. Since Mar Dinkha IV reposed in 2014, the new Catholicos is once again based in Iraq, in Erbil.

 

[The Liturgist]

I was asked by a good friend of mine what defines heresy. I said, whatever touches Christology, whether that be the person or work of Jesus Christ and the application of his redemption to the believer. He is the center of controversy.

Almost, but this overlooks Macedonianism, the denial of the divinity and person of the Holy Spirit. Now you could say that this involves the work or application, but it doesn’t really, since adherents of this heresy deny the existence and nature of the Spirit as a separate ontological entity without denying that our Lord sent the Spirit to us. Then we have the Montanists, where Montanus claimed to be the Paraclete.

There are a lot of heresies and many of them are quite exotic. For example, there was a group that was otherwise normal, but which rejected completely everything written by John. And then in 18th century there were the Mutillators, who would seek to destroy their reproductive capability in an way that is not for the faint of heart or stomach to behold, as well as removing other things. Why? I have no idea, but they were religiously motivated.

Then there was a quasi-Unitarian group whose emigration from the Russian Empire to Canada was paid for by Leo Tolstoy. This group, the Doukhobors, it turns out were less sedate than the likes of William Ellery Channing, or Ralph Waldo Emerson, or Frank Lloyd Wright, and had a major beef with compulsory education. They figured the best way to protest it was to march au naturel through the Canadian townships, which at the time due to an oversight in colonial law that was in due course corrected, legal. Then a group of Doukhobor fundamentalists appeared and engaged in arson attacks until the 1950s! These people have moved on, but some of the more placid Doukhobors still reside in a town in British Columbia which is a popular tourist attraction, but fortunately without naked parades.

Now the Doukhobors admittedly do fall into your categories, but the main thing that makes them eggregious is their annoying behavior.

Groups which I think might not fit your categories would be the Quartodecimians and Ethnophyletists, to name two.

 

[Jonaitis]

Almost, but this overlooks Macedonianism, the denial of the divinity and person of the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, that's connected to the divine person of Christ. You cannot affirm what you stated without denying this.

 

[The Liturgist]

The Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father and the Son, that's connected to the divine person of Christ. You cannot affirm what you stated without denying this.

The Eastern churches, all of them, even the Eastern Catholics (excluding the Maronites)* and many Anglicans insist the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father only, and I agree with them, because the filioque was not in the revised Nicene Creed when it was adopted in Constantinople in 381. Rather it appeared much later at Toledo. Indeed, the Roman church wasn’t using it during the reign of Pope Gregory Diologos.

So if we reject double procession, and we can do that (even the CF.com statement of faith ecumenically puts it in brackets), Macedonianism becomes completely disconnected. But even if we do connect it, it still is not immediately Christologically irrelevant; the only thing in the Nicene Creed which a Macedonian would object to was “Whose kingdom shall have no end”, which they rejected due to a belief in Chiliasm (which the Apollinarians also had).

And that still leaves Quartodecimianism. It is a defined heresy, people were anathematized for it, but, I don’t see it fitting your model.

 

[Jonaitis]

The Eastern churches, all of them, even the Eastern Catholics (excluding the Maronites)* and many Anglicans insist the Holy Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father only, and I agree with them, because the filioque was not in the revised Nicene Creed when it was adopted in Constantinople in 381. Rather it appeared much later at Toledo. Indeed, the Roman church wasn’t using it during the reign of Pope Gregory Diologos..

It doesn't matter if it is found in the original Nicene Creed, but is it biblical?

 

[public hermit]

The Irish twins explain it a bit.

In my mind, every post after this was in the voice of the Irish twins, haha.

 

[The Liturgist]

It doesn't matter if it is found in the original Nicene Creed, but is it biblical?

I don’t think it is Biblical, and neither do a lot of people, because for us, the sending of the spirit is not the same as the eternal procession.

The filioque is one of those things which is subject to interpretation. In my opinion, the original creed got it right, as did the fathers at Ephesus and Chalcedon in prohibiting semantic changes to the creed in the canons of those councils.

It’s a bit like iconoclasm; to me its a heresy that denies the incarnation of Christ and to others it is a scriptural imperative. As long as they don’t go after my icons, altars, stained glass, organs and vestments, I believe I should make every effort to coexist with them.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

In my mind, every post after this was in the voice of the Irish twins, haha.

Love that they want the Trinity explained in an easy way but point out all the heresies and who started them and how they are wrong, especially with Voltron.

 

[public hermit]

Love that they want the Trinity explained in an easy way but point out all the heresies and who started them and how they are wrong, especially with Voltron.

Good point. The heresies are easier to explain because they satisfy the logical tension inherent in the orthodox position. I didn't get the part where they complain the sun analogy implies the Son and Spirit are created. I thought the problematic implication was emanation. But, maybe I misheard.

 

[Josheb]

A lot of people don't associate Modalism with Oneness. They are the same. And I'm not as educated as many Christians who post here, but I know that Modalism is a heresy. I had to learn the difference as well as the Mormon concept of the Godhead which is a form of polytheism.

Yep. One of the most obvious ways to understand the necessity of the Trinity is to face the reality of "God is love," and God is just. Love and justice are by nature, by definition, inherently relational conditions. Neither exists in a vacuum of one person absent all relationship.

The love the Bible asserts and describes requires an giver of affection, and object of that affection, a return of that affection and a witness of that reciprocity. Any God that exists and claims to be love must therefore necessarily be at least triune. Without the experience of giving and receiving God might have an intellectual knowledge of love but not an experiential knowledge. He'd have to create a relationship first. So all theologies that deny the inherently already-in-relationship ontology of God necessarily deny His omniscience (He has no experiential knowledge prior to creating).

 

[The Liturgist]

Yep. One of the most obvious ways to understand the necessity of the Trinity is to face the reality of "God is love," and God is just. Love and justice are by nature, by definition, inherently relational conditions. Neither exists in a vacuum of one person absent all relationship.

The love the Bible asserts and describes requires an giver of affection, and object of that affection, a return of that affection and a witness of that reciprocity. Any God that exists and claims to be love must therefore necessarily be at least triune. Without the experience of giving and receiving God might have an intellectual knowledge of love but not an experiential knowledge. He'd have to create a relationship first. So all theologies that deny the inherently already-in-relationship ontology of God necessarily deny His omniscience (He has no experiential knowledge prior to creating).

I agree with this sentiment absolutely. Also one of my favorite theologians says something like this; I have to remember who...

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I agree with this sentiment absolutely. Also one of my favorite theologians says something like this; I have to remember who...

I remember reading something that God has to be a Trinity. An absolute monad would have no reason to love. Even a duality (Father and Son) would not be capable of loving anything beyond each other as they would always be focused on each other. It takes a Trinity to form relationships (in other words, a plurality) based on love.

This is why Rublev's icon of the Hospitality of Abraham is so beautiful in my eyes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...g/800px-Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg

 

[The Liturgist]

I remember reading something that God has to be a Trinity. An absolute monad would have no reason to love. Even a duality (Father and Son) would not be capable of loving anything beyond each other as they would always be focused on each other. It takes a Trinity to form relationships (in other words, a plurality) based on love.

This is why Rublev's icon of the Hospitality of Abraham is so beautiful in my eyes.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...g/800px-Angelsatmamre-trinity-rublev-1410.jpg

I do love the iconography of Rublev.

 

[Marcial Taguic]

A lot of people don't associate Modalism with Oneness. They are the same. And I'm not as educated as many Christians who post here, but I know that Modalism is a heresy. I had to learn the difference as well as the Mormon concept of the Godhead which is a form of polytheism.

Modalism:

1. the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature.
   Dictionary.com Is The World’s Favorite Online Dictionary

1. : 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.
2. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/modalism

Permit me to elaborate the Oneness view in relation to Modalism, not all the time of non-distinction of the Godhead circle, during the Incarnation the Son becomes distinct from the Father as the humanity of Jesus distinct from the deity of the Father.