Author:Sangam Shrestha.
Facebook Facebook Page YouTube Twitter
Introduction to Modalism
Trinity is one of
he most important doctrines in the Bible. Our perception of who God is affects
our worship and relationship with Him. As a matter of fact, it is also one of
the hardest doctrines in the Bible. The teaching that God is three persons and
yet there is one God is hard to grasp. How are we to defend Christian
monotheism while simultaneously maintaining the distinctions between the
Father, Son and Holy Spirit? In the process of harmonizing these apparently
incompatible statements (there is only one God, and yet that the Father, Son
and Holy Spirit is God as a distinct person) many heresies have evolved in the
history of Christianity. Historically the church has been compelled to
repudiate three different errors repeatedly: (1) tritheism, which affirms that
there are three "Gods" – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (2) modalism,
which asserts the existence of only one God who manifests Himself in different
modes at different times but never can be two or more manifestations
simultaneously; and (3) subordinationism, which envisions Christ and the holy
Spirit as lesser gods than the Father, representing them as beings created by
the Father.[1]
It is very
unfortunate, but the heresy of modalism is rampant in Nepali churches. There are three reasons that contributed to
the widespread use of illustrations that perpetuate modalism when people teach
about Trinity in Nepal. The first reason can be attributed to the Hindus
concept of reincarnation wherein Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are one person in
different manifestations. Second, the
Nepali Christians are not aware that modalism had been condemned in the
history. Third, they do not understand
the biblical teaching about Trinity.
Thus, the purpose of this paper is to present the historical background
of modalism, why it was repudiated, the biblical teaching about the Trinity and
its theological analysis.
Historical
Development of Modalism
The knowledge in historical
doctrine can help identify and refute false doctrines. Moreover, it also helps
in gaining an appreciation for right doctrines. Most of the significant
doctrinal issues have already been dealt thoroughly, and the brightest minds of
the church have labored hard on them over the centuries. Thus, in dealing with
false doctrine, it is important to consider its historical development.
The term
"modalism" was introduced by the nineteenth-century German historian
Adolf von Harnack. However, in the
ancient literature this doctrine was called "monarchianism" or
"patripassianism" in the west and "sabellianism" in the
east.[2]
The first
prominent advocate of this heresy was Praxeas of Asia Minor, who taught this
doctrine in Rome around A. D. 200.[3]
According to him, it was the whole God who was present in Jesus. The names
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were merely different titles applied to the one
simple being. He taught that the Father and Son were one identical Person.[4]
This led to the charge of patripassianism, which became another label of
modalism. Patripassianism is the teaching that it was the Father who became
incarnate, was born of a virgin, and who suffered and died on the cross.[5] Of this kind of heresy, Tertullian
sarcastically charged, "Praxeas did a twofold service to the devil of
Rome: he drove away prophecy and brought in heresy; he put to flight the
Paraclete, and crucified the Father."[6] In support of his theory, Praxeas constantly
appeals to such passages as Isaiah 45:5 "I am the Lord and there is none
else, there is no God beside me.," John 10:30 "I and Father are
one.," John 14:9 "he that hath seen me, hath seen the Father.,"
John 14:11 "I am in the Father and the Father in me."[7]
Noetus of Smyrna taught the same view about A. D.
200, which was later brought to Rome. Appealing to biblical passages such as
Romans 9:5; Isaiah 45:14; and John 10:30, Noetus seemed to be defending both
devotion to Christ and traditional monotheism. He argued that if Christ was God
then he must be identical with the Father; otherwise he could not be God.
Consequently, if Christ suffered, the Father suffered, since there could be no
division in the Godhead. When he was criticized and condemned by the church,
Noetus replied, "what wrong have I done, glorifying one only God, Christ,
who was born, suffered and died?"[8]
Two of his disciples Epigonus and Cleomenes propagated this doctrine in Rome,
and were reported to have taught that Christ "confessed himself to be the
Son to those who saw him, while to those who could receive it, he did not hide
the fact that he was the Father."[9]
Callistus, a former
slave who became Bishop of Rome in 217[10],
confirmed and propagated the doctrine of Noetus. He declared that the Son was
merely the manifestation of the Father in human form; the Father animating the
Son, as the spirit animates the body, and suffering with him on cross.
"The Father," he said, "who was in the Son, took flesh and made
it God, uniting it with himself and made it one. Father and Son were,
therefore, the name of the one God, and this one person cannot be two; thus the
Father suffered with the Son." His followers were called
"Callistians."[11]
Hippolytus, who was the leading opponent and rival of
Callistus, charged him as an "unreasonable and treacherous man, who
brought together blasphemies from above and below only to speak against the
truth, and was not ashamed to fall now into the error of Sabellius, now into
that of Theodotius." Callistus
differed from the ditheistic separation of the Logos from God, but also from
the Sabellian confusion of the Father and the Son, and insisted on the mutual
identity of the divine persons; in other word, he sought the way from
modalistic Unitarianism to the Nicene trinitarianism; but he was not explicit
and consistent in his statements. He excommunicated both Sabellius and
Hippolytus; the Roman church sided with him, and made his name one of the most
prominent among the ancient popes. After the death of Callistus, who accepted
the papal chair between 218 and 223 or 224, patripassianism disappeared from
the Roman church.[12]
Beryllus, bishop of Bostra in Arabia, about 240, also
asserted that Christ did not pre-existed in a distinct form of being of his
own, and that he does not possess a divinity of His own, but only that of the
Father committed to Him in the incarnation. His view forms the stepping-stone
from Patripassianism to Sabellianism.[13]
At an Arabian synod in 244, where the presbyter Origen, then himself accused of
heresy, was called into consultation, Beryllus was convinced of his error by
that great teacher. He is said to have thanked Origen afterwards for his
instruction. Here we have one of the very few theological disputes that have
resulted in unity instead of greater division.[14]
A more sophisticated form of modalism was taught by
Sabellius in Rome early in the third century and was given the name
Sabellianism. Sabellius taught the existence of divine mode, which by process
of expansion projected itself successively in revelation as Father, Son, and
Holy Spirit. As the Father, it revealed itself as Creator and Lawgiver. As the
Son, it revealed itself as Redeemer. As the Spirit, it revealed itself as the
Giver of grace. These were three different modes revealing the same divine
person. He is traditionally said to be the last one who advocated modalistic
monarchianism.[15]
In dealing with heresies especially pertaining to
Trinity, it is significant to consider the Creeds formulated in the history by
the church fathers. Hodge has the
following to say:
When we
consider the incomprehensible nature of the Godhead, the mysterious character
of the doctrine of the Trinity, the exceeding complexity and difficulty of the
problem which the Church had to solve in presenting the doctrine that there are
three persons and one God, in such a manner as to meet the requirements of
Scripture and the conviction of believers, and yet avoid all contradiction, we
can hardly fail to refer the Church creeds on this subject, which have for ages
secured assent and consent, not to inspiration, strictly speaking, but to the
special guidance of the Holy Spirit.[16]
In order
to bring the church to an agreement as to the manner in which this fundamental
doctrine of Trinity should be stated, the Church Fathers met in 325 at the
council of Nicaea. The Creed reads as follows:
We
believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and
invisible; And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the
Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God,
light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one substance
with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and
things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down
and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day,
ascended to the heavens, and will come to judge the living and dead; And in the
Holy Spirit.[17]
Here it
was established that the Son is of the same substance with the Father. However,
the Nicene Creed did not mention the definite statement concerning Holy Spirit.
This is to be accounted for by the fact that the doctrine concerning the deity
of Christ was then the subject of controversy. The second Ecumenical Council,
which met in Constantinople in A. D. 381, added the following words to the
clause, "We believe in the Holy Spirit, " namely; "who is the
Lord and giver of life, who proceeded from the Father, who with the Father and
the Son together is worshipped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets."[18]
The
divinity of the Spirit was affirmed with equal explicitness. At this point in
the history of Christian faith, believers were given words in which to affirm
their belief in God as one, because the Father, the Son and the Spirit have the
same nature, as partakers of the single reality of divine being, they are fully
divine but only distinct in the sense that each is a different person within
that unitary nature.
This
distinction between the One and the Three is reflected in the subsequent
development of the so-called Athanasian Creed. That Creed reads as follows:
Whoever
would be saved, must first of all take care that he hold the Catholic faith,
which, except a man preserve whole and inviolate, he shall without doubt perish
eternally. But this is the Catholic faith, that we worship one god in trinity,
and trinity in unity. Neither confounding the persons not dividing the substance.
For the person of the Father is one of the Son, another; of the Holy Spirit,
another. But the divinity of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Spirit, is one, the glory equal, the majesty equal. Such as is the Father, such
also is the Son, and such the Holy Spirit. The Father is uncreated, the Son is
uncreated, the Holy Spirit is uncreated. The Father is infinite, the Son is
infinite, the Holy Spirit is infinite. The Father is eternal, the Son is
eternal, the Holy Spirit is eternal. And yet there are not three eternal
Beings, but one eternal Being. As also there are not three uncreated Beings,
not three infinite Beings, but one uncreated and one infinite Bring. In like
manner, the Father is omnipotent, the Son is omnipotent, and the Holy Spirit is
omnipotent. And yet, there are not three omnipotent beings, but one omnipotent
Being. Thus the Father is God, the Son, God, and the Holy Spirit, God. And yet
there are not three Lords, but one Lord only. For as we are compelled by
Christian truth to confess each person distinctively to be both God and Lord,
we are prohibited by the Catholic religion to say that there are three Gods, or
three Lords. The Father is made by none, nor created, nor begotten. The Son is
from the Father alone, not made, not crated, but begotten. the Holy Spirit is
not created by the Father and the Son, not begotten, but proceeds. Therefore,
there is one Father, not three Fathers; one Son, not three Sons; one Holy
Spirit, not three Holy Spirits. And in this Trinity there is nothing prior or
posterior, nothing greater or less, but all three persons are coeternal, and
coequal to themselves. So that through all, as was said above, both unity in
trinity, and trinity in unity is to be adored. Whoever would be saved, let him
thus think concerning the Trinity.[19]
The
doctrine of the Trinity as set forth in these ancient creeds-the Nicene, the
Constantinopolitan, and Athanasian (so-called), affirmed the unity and
plurality within the Godhead; unity in essence and distinct in person.
Exegetical Analysis, John 1:1
The
prologue to John's Gospel (vv.1-18) represents one of the most crucial passages
in the Bible and is, without doubt, the definitive exposition of the Person of
Christ. John 1:1 emphasizes the incarnate manifestation of God in Christ Jesus.
Jesus is called the "Word" (Logos in Greek) "In the
beginning was the Word." This unique name of Christ occurs only four times
in the New Testament as name (John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; Revelation 19:13) and
is utilized only by John the apostle.[20]
The verb in this statement is imperfect tense in Greek, which signifies the
continuing action in the past time. Literally then, John declares that in the
beginning Word existed. He already "was" when beginning took place.
He was pre-existent, involved in the act of creation, and therefore superior to
all created beings.[21]
The
preposition "with" (pros in Greek) in the phrase "the
Word was with God" indicates two important facts. First, this makes it
abundantly clear that the Word is separate and distinct from God the Father.
Second, the Word was enjoying communion and fellowship with another distinct
person, God the Father. One cannot identify Him as God the Father because He
was "with" God. Christ did not at some point in time come into
existence or began a relationship with the Father. In eternity past the Father
and the Son have always been in a loving communion with each other.[22]
John
concludes the verse with an emphatic statement, "and the Word was
God." In the Greek language the important word is placed at the beginning
of the sentence and it reads, "God was the Word." The subject and
predicate are reversed to underline the deity of the Word. This is a clear,
emphatic declaration that the Lord Jesus Christ is God.[23]
The omission of the article in this phrase makes this verse mean that the Word
had all the qualities of God but not all of God was in the Word. God often
function as a proper name, and when a proper name has been used once in a
context, it can be used other times without the definite article. Another
reason to omit the article is if the noun is functioning as a predicate
adjective, giving a quality of the subject. That is probably John's main reason
for not including here. That is, John is quite aware that the Word was not all
of God. The Father still existed separately after the Word became flesh (John
1:14). The Word's preexistence, distinctiveness, and deity are emphasized in
verse 1 of John's Gospel, Chapter 1.[24]
This
verse is only one of several verses indicating the fact that Jesus is divine
and is distinct from the Father. In verses 33 and 34 of the same chapter, John
testifies that he had seen the descent of the Spirit on Jesus and that He is
the Son of God. In John's Gospel the title "Son of God" is not
applied to believers. They are called "children" while
"Son" is used only of Jesus.[25]
John 5:19-43 states the fact that Father sends the Son, and Son obeys the
Father. He does not act independently apart from the Father's will and purpose.
Throughout this Gospel, Jesus continually asserted that His work was to do the
will of the Father (4:34; 5:30; 8:28; 12:50; 15:10). This relation reflects
distinct personality and the eternal relationship between Father and Son. John
presents Him as the perfect agent of the divine purpose and the complete
revelation of the divine nature.[26]
John 10:30 also underscore the equality of and agreement between the persons.
Likewise, in John 11:41-43, Jesus thanks the Father that he heard Him and then
goes on to speak of the Father's sending Him. This is part of an ongoing
dialogue between the Father and the Son. There is a constant discussion between
the Son and the Father, which makes them equal, but at the same time
distinguishes them. In the discourse of Christ, recorded in John 14-16, our
Lord speaks to and of the Father, and promises to send the Spirit to teach,
guide and comfort His disciples. In that discourse the personality and divinity
of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are recognized with equal clearness.[27]
The prayer of our Lord recorded in John 17 also clearly indicates the
distinction of the personality between Father and Son. If Jesus Himself is
Father, as modalists believe, it is pointless for Him to address His prayer to
the Father. Thus, the Father did not become incarnate in Jesus. This is the
thesis John states in His Gospel that Jesus is the eternal God of the ages, and
that Jesus and the Father are separate and distinct in personality. This is the
truth that John teaches.
Theological Analysis
The event
of Jesus' baptism recorded in Matthew 3:16, 17; Mark 1: 9-11; and Luke 3:21-22;
is crucial in theology especially in dealing with the heresies of modalism. The
presence of Jesus, the presence of Holy Spirit in the form of a dove, and the
presence of the voice of the Father from heaven during this event clearly
indicate the existence of three distinct persons who are of one essence – God.
Here one can observe the simultaneous appearance of each person of the Godhead.[28]
This event denies modalism. The idea of God appearing sometimes as one and then
the other is proved to be unscriptural.
The
trinitarian formula is clear in 1 Peter 1:2 relating to salvation. Salvation is
the result of the cooperative purpose and activity of God. The Father's
foreknowledge, effected by the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit (cf. 2
Thess. 2:13) and based upon the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (cf. Heb.
9:14), produces salvation in man.[29]
According
to 1 John 2:1, Jesus continues as our High Priest and Advocate before God the
Father. Hebrews 7:25 also states, that He always lives to make intercession for
the believers. Therefore, it is necessary that Christ be a person distinct from
the Father in order for Him to intercede for Christians before God the
Father. Furthermore, if modalism is
right, then it must say that all those instances where Jesus is praying to the
Father are an illusion.[30]
Christ's
promise to send the Holy Spirit after His ascension in John 16:17, also
indicate the fact that He is not the Holy Spirit. Following His resurrection, Jesus sent the
disciples to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy
Spirit” (Matt. 28:19) indicating that each person is distinct within the
Godhead. If modalism is correct, the doctrine of atonement is also at stake.
The idea that God sent His Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son
bore the wrath of God in our place (Isaiah 53:11), does not make any sense.[31]
Conclusion
In safe
guarding the unity of the Godhead, the proponents of modalism were led to
instigate that the one and only God present himself in different ways at
different times.
This heresy evolved to solve the tension between
maintaining monotheism and the deity of Christ.
However, it is clear in the Scripture that the members of the Trinity
are equal in nature but distinct in person.
The Father is God, and so are the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thus, each of
the Persons is equally powerful and glorious. Each one is worthy of worship,
thanksgiving and praise. Christians
should learn to nurture a growing relationship with each Persons of the
Trinity, being sensitive about their respective roles in their lives.
[1]W. A. Criswell, "Glossary," in Logos Library System: Believer's Study Bible, (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997).
[2]Graydon
F. Snyder, "Modalism," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity,
ed. Everett Ferguson, (New York: Garland publishing, Inc., 1990).
3]Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology: Volume One, (Grand Rapids, MI.: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1986), 452.
[4]Linwood Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought, Revised and Expanded Ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995), 58.
[5]J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, Revised Ed., (HarperSan Francisco: A Divisions of HarperCollins Publishers, 1978), 121.
[6]Linwood, A Short History of Christian Thought, 58.
[7]Schaff, History of the Christian Church: Volume One, (Garland, TX.: Galaxie Software, 1999) [CD-Rom].
[8]Ibid.,
[9]Snyder, "Monarchianism," in Encyclopedia of Early Christianity.
[10]Ferguson, Sinclair B. and David F. Wright, "Modalism" in New Dictionary of Theology, (Downers Grave, IL.: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
[11]Schaff, History of the Christian Church, [CD-ROM].
[12]Ibid.,
[13]E. H. Klotche, The History of Christian Doctrine, Reviesd Ed., (Grand Rapids, MI.: Baker Book House, 1979), 61.
[14]Schaff, History of the Christian Church, [CD-ROM]
[15]Klotsche, The History of Christian Doctrine, 61.
[16]Hodge, Systematic Theology: Volume One, 478.
[17]Urban, A Short History of Christian Thought, 64.
[18]Hodge, Systematic Theology, 457.
[19]Ibid., 458.
[20] Jerry Falwell, executive editor; Edward E. Hinson and Michael Kroll Woodrow, general editors, "The Gospel According to John,"KJV Bible commentary. CD-Rom, Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1997.
[21]D. A. Carson, "The Gospel of John," in Expositor's Bible Commentary with The New InternatinalVersion of the Holy Bible in Twelve Volumes, vol. 9, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984).
[22]Ibid.,
[23]Ronald E. Watters, Trinitarianism and Modern Theology: The Trinity 1, Class Notes.
[24]Kaiser Walter C., "John," in Hard Sayings of the Bible, (Downer's Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997).
[25]John F. Walvoord and Roy B. Zuck, "John" in The Bible Knowledge Commentary, (Wheaton, Illinois: Scripture Press Publications, 1985).
[26]D. A. Carson, "John" in Expositor's Bible Commentary.
[27]Ibid.,
[28]W. A. Criswell, Believer's Study Bible.
[29]Ibid.,
[30]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, (England: InterVarsity Press), 231-232.
[31]Ibid.,
242.
Reviewed by Sangam Shrestha
on
March 31, 2022
Rating:
.webp)
No comments: