# Modalism and Orthodoxy



## Skyler (Jun 26, 2011)

I can understand why the Jehovah's Witnesses' corruption of the Trinity is outside the pale of orthodoxy, as it denies the deity of Christ, which has an obvious impact on the Gospel.

I'm less clear on why modalism falls outside the pale of orthodoxy. I understand why it's wrong, but why is it heresy?


----------



## Not_Ashamed_219 (Jun 26, 2011)

Let us start by defining heresy.

her´e-si, her´ē̇-si (αἵρεσις, haı́resis, from verb αἱρέω, hairéō, “to choose”): The word has acquired an ecclesiastical meaning that has passed into common usage, containing elements not found in the term in the New Testament, except as implied in one passage. In classical Greek, it may be used either in a good or a bad sense, first, simply for “choice,” then, “a chosen course of procedure,” and afterward of various schools and tendencies. Polybius refers to those devoting themselves to the study of Greek literature as given to the Hellenikḗ haı́resiš. It was used not simply for a teaching or a course followed, but also for those devoting themselves to such pursuit, namely, a sect, or assembly of those advocating a particular doctrine or mode of life. Thus, in Acts, the word is used in the Greek, where the King James Version and the Revised Version (British and American) have “sect,” “sect of the Sadducees” (Act_5:17), “sect of the Nazarenes” (Act_24:5). In Act_26:5 the Pharisees are called “the straitest hairesis (sect).” The name was applied contemptuously to Christianity (Act_24:14; Act_28:22). Its application, with censure, is found in 1Co_11:19 margin; Gal_5:20 margin, where it is shown to interfere with that unity of faith and community of interests that belong to Christians. There being but one standard of truth, and one goal for all Christian life, any arbitrary choice varying from what was common to all believers, becomes an inconsistency and a sin to be warned against. Ellicott, on Gal_5:20, correctly defines “heresies” (King James Version, the English Revised Version) as “a more aggravated form of dichostası́a” (the American Standard Revised Version “parties”) “when the divisions have developed into distinct and organized parties”; so also 1Co_11:19, translated by the Revised Version (British and American) “factions.” In 2Pe_2:1, the transition toward the subsequent ecclesiastical sense can be traced. The “destructive heresies” (Revised Version margin, the English Revised Version margin “sects of perdition”) are those guilty of errors both of doctrine and of life very fully described throughout the entire chapter, and who, in such course, separated themselves from the fellowship of the church.
In the fixed ecclesiastical sense that it ultimately attained, it indicated not merely any doctrinal error, but “the open espousal of fundamental error” (Ellicott on Tit_3:10), or, more fully, the persistent, obstinate maintenance of an error with respect to the central doctrines of Christianity in the face of all better instruction, combined with aggressive attack upon the common faith of the church, and its defenders. Roman Catholics, regarding all professed Christians who are not in their communion as heretics, modify their doctrine on this point by distinguishing between Formal and terial Heresy, the former being unconscious and unintentional, and between different degrees of each of these classes (Cath. Encyclopedia, VII, 256ff). For the development of the ecclesiastical meaning, see Suicer's Thesaurus Ecclesiasticus, I, 119-23. (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia) 

Modalism seeks to distort and deny the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and thus making God a deified schizophrenic. To distort our high view of God for a watered down and reasonably acceptable summation of His Person is to have a false view of His nature. To err in our understanding of His Person is to ultimately err in all things.


----------



## Wayne (Jun 26, 2011)

Joshua:

Please fix your signature block just as soon as possible. See the link below under my name.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 26, 2011)

Because affirming the distinctness of the persons is as essential a part of affirming the true doctrine of God as affirming the unity of the essence. If the distinction is merely apparent or functional, you no longer have the Triune God.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 27, 2011)

Anything outside the Chacedonian Definition would be a candidate for heresy. The Definition defines what the Incarnation was not and thereby the process of elimination what it must be:

It is not:

1. a denial that Christ was truly God (*Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians*);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (_anomoios_) with the Father (*semi-Arianism*);
3. a denial that Christ had a genuine human soul (*Apollinarians*);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (*Dynamic Monarchianism*);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (*Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church*);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (*Eutychianism/Monophysitism*);
7. two distinct persons (*Nestorianism*);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (*docetism*);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (*kenoticism*);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (*Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper*); and
11. a view that Jesus existed independently as a human before God entered His body (*Adoptionism*).

AMR


----------



## Skyler (Jun 27, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Because affirming the distinctness of the persons is as essential a part of affirming the true doctrine of God as affirming the unity of the essence. If the distinction is merely apparent or functional, you no longer have the Triune God.



How do we decide which parts of the doctrine of God are essential and which parts there can be some disagreement on?


----------



## steadfast7 (Jun 27, 2011)

Skyler said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Because affirming the distinctness of the persons is as essential a part of affirming the true doctrine of God as affirming the unity of the essence. If the distinction is merely apparent or functional, you no longer have the Triune God.
> ...



Councils, creeds, and confessions.


----------



## CharlieJ (Jun 27, 2011)

How do councils, creeds, and confessions decide?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 27, 2011)

Skyler said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Because affirming the distinctness of the persons is as essential a part of affirming the true doctrine of God as affirming the unity of the essence. If the distinction is merely apparent or functional, you no longer have the Triune God.
> ...



Anything as foundational as whether God is One Person or Three Persons does not allow for disagreement.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 27, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> Anything as foundational as whether God is One Person or Three Persons does not allow for disagreement.



Okay, but my question is, what makes it that foundational?


----------



## MW (Jun 27, 2011)

Skyler said:


> I can understand why the Jehovah's Witnesses' corruption of the Trinity is outside the pale of orthodoxy, as it denies the deity of Christ, which has an obvious impact on the Gospel.
> 
> I'm less clear on why modalism falls outside the pale of orthodoxy. I understand why it's wrong, but why is it heresy?


 
JWs also deny the personhood of the Holy Spirit. Modalism denies the personhood of Son and Spirit.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 27, 2011)

E. Calvin Beisner did a study booklet on the Jesus Only churches and a book on the Trinity you would benefit from. Modalism is just plain heresy and he does a good job in the book showing its lineage and refutation. A study in the book of John from Chapters 14 -17 easily prove the doctrine of the Trinity as one being in three persons and the roles of the persons in the Godhead. Either one has the God of the Bible or he has some man made idol which is not God. If one does not have the Jesus of the Holy Scriptures they do not have the God of the Bible. Paul was concerned about this in 2 Corinthians.



> (2Co 11:3) But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.
> 
> (2Co 11:4) For if he that cometh preacheth another Jesus, whom we have not preached, or if ye receive another spirit, which ye have not received, or another gospel, which ye have not accepted, ye might well bear with him.




http://www.amazon.com/God-Three-Persons-Calvin-Beisner/dp/1592445454/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_6

http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Only-Churches-Calvin-Beisner/dp/0310488710/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_1


----------



## py3ak (Jun 27, 2011)

Skyler said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> > Because affirming the distinctness of the persons is as essential a part of affirming the true doctrine of God as affirming the unity of the essence. If the distinction is merely apparent or functional, you no longer have the Triune God.
> ...



Some things relate to the fact (_to hoti_) and some things relate to the manner (_to dioti_). We are often less clear on the manner than on the fact, as it is simpler to know and affirm that something is than to explain how it is. Suggestions relating to the manner that do not contradict the fact are areas where disagreement is less unacceptable than denials of the fact. For instance, that begetting and spirating differ is a fact; what the difference is, is far more difficult to determine. Thomas and Rijssen suggest different ways of understanding what the difference is, but neither one of them denies that there is a difference.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jun 28, 2011)

CharlieJ said:


> How do councils, creeds, and confessions decide?


 They are helpful in:
1. Showing us the historic controversies which took centre stage in the formative periods of the church
2. Revealing the positive affirmations of the faith
3. Challenging conclusions which are unorthodox

they don't "decide" anything per se, for only Scripture has that authority, but they serve as standards for right doctrine.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 28, 2011)

Can we say it's the difference between who God is and what He does?


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 28, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > Anything as foundational as whether God is One Person or Three Persons does not allow for disagreement.
> ...



We're worshipping a very different God to the modalists, and a different Christ. We're not talking about subtle distinctions but basic Truths which God the Holy Spirit illuminated to the Church and which in God's providence were laid down in the Catholic creeds.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 28, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Can we say it's the difference between who God is and what He does?



I am not sure I am understanding your question here. What difference are you asking about? Are you asking Ruben for clarification?


----------



## Skyler (Jun 28, 2011)

I'm trying to understand what differences of doctrine entail worship of a different God. Most of us wouldn't say that Arminians worship a different God than we do. Is the disagreement about who God is, as opposed to what God does, where the line is drawn?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 28, 2011)

Skyler said:


> I'm trying to understand what differences of doctrine entail worship of a different God. Most of us wouldn't say that Arminians worship a different God than we do. Is the disagreement about who God is, as opposed to what God does, where the line is drawn?


How do you distinguish who God _is_ from what God _does_? God _is_ his attributes.

AMR


----------



## Skyler (Jun 28, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> How do you distinguish who God _is_ from what God _does_? God _is_ his attributes.



I don't think you can separate the two, but I think you can distinguish between the two. You can't separate the heads from the tails of a coin, but you can still distinguish between the two.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jun 28, 2011)

As this relates to Oneness Pentecostalism and the initial question I would state that their idolatry and practice fall right in line with each other. It isn't even close to the semi-pelagianism of Arminians. I really recommend you get the books I suggested above.


----------



## Skyler (Jun 28, 2011)

I've added them to my wish list:

http://amzn.com/w/3M44ZWKWYTVKD

Feel free to help out a poor struggling college student.


----------



## py3ak (Jun 28, 2011)

No, distinguishing between who God is and what He does is not going to help you with the dividing line between differences of opinion and heresy with regard to the doctrine of God. For instance, creation is something God does, it is an external work; and yet to deny that God is the Creator is in effect to give your heart to a false God. A God who did not create, a God who did not divide the Red Sea, a God who did not become flesh is not the true and living God. Post 13 gives my best stab at what the dividing line is.


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jun 29, 2011)

If God is not 3 and yet 1 then He is not God. Anything other than the Trinitarian God of Scripture is an idol.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 29, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > How do you distinguish who God _is_ from what God _does_? God _is_ his attributes.
> ...


With respect, no, as this is a category error. There is nothing analogous between a physical object and God.

AMR


----------



## steadfast7 (Jun 29, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > I'm trying to understand what differences of doctrine entail worship of a different God. Most of us wouldn't say that Arminians worship a different God than we do. Is the disagreement about who God is, as opposed to what God does, where the line is drawn?
> ...


 His attributes are not exactly what God does, but his characteristics and traits. There is some necessity to distinguish God's actions from his being, especially when one considers God's sovereign decreeing of evil in the world, which does not accord indistinguishably with his benevolent essence.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 29, 2011)

*Dennis*


> His attributes are not exactly what God does, but his characteristics and traits. There is some necessity to distinguish God's actions from his being, especially when one considers God's sovereign decreeing of evil in the world, which does not accord indistinguishably with his benevolent essence.



All that God does accords with who He is. He does not act "out of character" when we understand what He is doing.

His sovereign decree that there should be evil accords with His wisdom, holiness, righteousness, goodness (including love) and truth.


----------



## steadfast7 (Jun 30, 2011)

Richard Tallach said:


> *Dennis*
> 
> 
> > His attributes are not exactly what God does, but his characteristics and traits. There is some necessity to distinguish God's actions from his being, especially when one considers God's sovereign decreeing of evil in the world, which does not accord indistinguishably with his benevolent essence.
> ...


 But we don't say that he is evil because he sovereignly decrees it. There is a major degree of separation between this particular action and his attributes. This puts the statement:


> How do you distinguish who God is from what God does?


 into question, does it not?


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 30, 2011)

py3ak said:


> Some things relate to the fact (to hoti) and some things relate to the manner (to dioti). We are often less clear on the manner than on the fact, as it is simpler to know and affirm that something is than to explain how it is. Suggestions relating to the manner that do not contradict the fact are areas where disagreement is less unacceptable than denials of the fact. For instance, that begetting and spirating differ is a fact; what the difference is, is far more difficult to determine. Thomas and Rijssen suggest different ways of understanding what the difference is, but neither one of them denies that there is a difference.


What about some of God's attributes? His omniscience, His justice, and His impassibility (which seems to be denied a lot these days)? What about His sovereignty? Would they relate to the fact, or can we say people can be wrong on those too (well, if they learn about them and then deny them)? Just wondering.


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2011)

Take God's justice, as an example: that God is just, is not deniable. Anyone who does deny God's justice has in fact denied, or expressed his hatred of, the God of Scripture. But it was a debate within the Reformed community whether vindicatory justice is natural and necessary to God; so not just within Christianity, but within orthodox English Puritanism there was agreement on the fact of God's justice, but disagreement about the manner. Someone who denies that God is just is an unbeliever; but two Reformed and orthodox theologians can hold different views on certain questions relating to God's justice. I think that illustrates again that denying the fact and disagreeing about the manner are rather far apart.
(Which is not meant to imply that there is no right or wrong in that debate, or that the question has no importance.)


----------



## Skyler (Jul 1, 2011)

I'd like to explore the distinction between the fact and the manner a bit more.

What is the difference between saying that God created the universe and saying that God predestined the elect?


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2011)

One may be stated more frequently than another, but ultimately both flow directly from the express statements of Scripture, and in that sense there is no difference. No one who believes the Bible can deny that God predestines, though they might be confused as to what that means or on what basis predestination proceeds. But there are confusions about the manner that do ultimately equate to a denial of the fact, which is why in post 13 I was careful to qualify that not all disagreements about the manner are irrelevant to the affirmation of the fact.


----------



## Skyler (Jul 1, 2011)

Okay. I think it's starting to make sense now.

Thanks Ruben! You've been very helpful. =)


----------



## py3ak (Jul 1, 2011)

It's a blessing to hear that, Jonathan: thank you!


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 1, 2011)

steadfast7 said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> > *Dennis*
> ...



But God can decree evil without being evil Himself because He has a holy, good, righteous and wise purpose in doing so, and because He has the power to legitimately do so i.e. omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience. 

I.e. He can decree evil, and control evil for proper ends. If He couldn't do the latter, it would be unrighteous of Him to do the former.


----------



## Afterthought (Jul 1, 2011)

py3ak said:


> But there are confusions about the manner that do ultimately equate to a denial of the fact, which is why in post 13 I was careful to qualify that not all disagreements about the manner are irrelevant to the affirmation of the fact.


I guess then for Arminians or other similar groups it depends on whether their denials ultimately equate to a denial of the fact. But that's another thread. Thank you too!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 1, 2011)

This is a new pubication a Pastor friend of mine did with Dr. Ryken. It is outstanding. The first Chapter alone proves doctrinally why the Trinity is so important for us. Oh yeah, and our beloved Todd Pedlar was consulted over a portion written in the book that had to do with Physics. 


View attachment 2113
Amazon.com: Our Triune God: Living in the Love of the Three-in-One (9781433519871): Philip Graham Ryken, Michael LeFebvre: Books


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 1, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



That isn't true. Throughout Scripture God gives anthropomorphic analogies between Himself and creation. He doesn't use a coin for those but you can't say there is "nothing analogous".


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 1, 2011)

Joseph Scibbe said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


My response was clearly stating "physical object", no? God's hands, eyes, breath, feet, sword, etc., are not analogous to that which we know as these objects. These physical objects are accommodations to our finitude.

AMR


----------



## Skyler (Jul 2, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> My response was clearly stating "physical object", no? God's hands, eyes, breath, feet, sword, etc., are not analogous to that which we know as these objects. These physical objects are accommodations to our finitude.
> 
> AMR



Psalms 84:11 
"For the LORD God is a sun and shield;the LORD bestows favor and honor. No good thing does he withhold from those who walk uprightly."

Isaiah 26:4 
"Trust in the LORD forever, for the LORD GOD is an everlasting rock."

Psalm 18:2
"The LORD is my rock and my fortress and my deliverer,
my God, my rock, in whom I take refuge,
my shield, and the horn of my salvation, my stronghold."

These are analogies, are they not?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 2, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > My response was clearly stating "physical object", no? God's hands, eyes, breath, feet, sword, etc., are not analogous to that which we know as these objects. These physical objects are accommodations to our finitude.
> ...


Brother, I am trying to be precise, as in "are not analogous to that which we know as these objects." Yes, they are anologies, but we know them for what they are, as I alluded to previously. This alone should help you come to understanding the distinction between "the fact and the manner" that you seek. The _facts_ lie behind these accommodations in Scripture, that should lead us to understanding the manner. All God's attributes inhere one another. We cannot separate them, nor give one preeminence over the other, when we speak of the essence of God. We must be careful to avoid separating the divine essence and the divine attributes. We must also guard against false conceptions of the relation in which these attributes stand with each other. 

For example, _unsettled theism (open theism) would have us believe that unless God acts then God is not this or that, e.g., loving or just_. Yet, when we consider the simplicity of God (that He is without constituent parts), we find that God and His attributes are a unified wholeness. God’s attributes are not so many parts that comprise the composition of God, as God is not composed of different parts (as are His creatures). Nor can God’s attributes be thought as something that is added to God’s being, for God is eternally perfect. God’s attributes are very real determinations of His Divine Being, that is, qualities that inhere in the being of God. _God’s perfections are God Himself as He has revealed Himself to mankind_. God’s attributes are not parts composing the Divine Essence. The whole essence is in each attribute, and the attribute in the essence. _We should not conceive of the divine essence as existing by itself, and prior to the attributes. God is not essence and attributes, but in attributes. Indeed, knowledge of the attributes carries with it knowledge of the essence_. 

AMR


----------



## Skyler (Jul 2, 2011)

I'm not grasping your distinction between analogies, sorry. I understand your comments about separating God's essence or His attributes. Are you saying that He is not analogous to anything we experience in that respect?


----------



## Joseph Scibbe (Jul 2, 2011)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> > Ask Mr. Religion said:
> ...



So, are you arguing that WE can't make analogies of God but that he can? I could see that but not that there are no analogies in human language to equate with God.


----------



## nwink (Jul 2, 2011)

Skyler said:


> Feel free to help out a poor struggling college student.



Try using the Interlibrary Loan system at your local library. I'm able to get virtually _any_ book I want through interlibrary loan at my public library if I'm willing to wait a week or so for it to come in.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 3, 2011)

Skyler said:


> I'm not grasping your distinction between analogies, sorry. I understand your comments about separating God's essence or His attributes. Are you saying that He is not analogous to anything we experience in that respect?


 


Joseph Scibbe said:


> Ask Mr. Religion said:
> 
> 
> > Skyler said:
> ...


I am only drawing the distinction between the notion of the use of physical analogies and God. We know that these physical analogies are clear accommodations. God is not a physical being.

When we move into the realm beyond the physical, as in God's love, wrath, holiness, etc., all we have from God in his special revelation is analogical knowledge. We can certainly understand the concept of God's love, for example, but we will never understand his love as he knows it, given the archetypal-ectypal distinction between the Creator and the created. So yes, we can have an appreciation of what that love or wrath of God may be like, for we all experience such things, but our experience is but an unprofitable glimmer of the infinite God's own perfect love or wrath.

My concern remains with the query that we can distinguish between what God _does_ and who God _is_, as if the actions of God are somehow separable from his being. They are not, and when we start to entertain these sort of notions, we are beginning down a slippery slope of creating an intellectual idol of God at our potential peril.

AMR


----------

