Modalism and Orthodoxy

Status
Not open for further replies.

Skyler

Puritan Board Graduate
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?
 
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.
 
Last edited:
Joshua:

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

Councils, creeds, and confessions.
 
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?

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



 
Last edited:
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?

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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?

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

AMR
 
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
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.
 
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.
 
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.
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?
 
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.
 
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.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top