Sabellianism and modalism (non-exhaustive)
Originally published March 1, 2011, edited on May 27, 2023.
February 25, 2011
On Sunday at the church related lunch, I was given a tract to examine by someone. It was from a local modalist church, I reasoned.
According to C. A. Blaising, monarchianism, also known as patripassianism and Sabellianism refers to a mainly Western concept of the third century which attempted to defend monotheism against tritheism by denying personal distinctions between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Blaising (1996: 727). Blaising notes the term monarchianism was first used by Tertullian to denote those that wished to protect the monarchy of the one God from wrong theology concerning the economy of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Blaising (1996: 727).
Blaising noted this first (dynamic monarchianism) view had proposed monotheistic God, as in the Father in relation to Jesus a mere man who was 'endowed with the Holy Spirit'. Blaising (1996: 727). This view was supported in Rome in around 190 by Thedotus of Byzantium and then by Artemon/Theodotus. This first view was refuted by Hippolytus. Blaising (1996: 727).
Paul of Samosata depersonalized the Logos as the inherent rationality of God, the 'homoousia' of God. Blaising (1996: 727). The substance of God. For this Paul, the Holy Spirit was not a separate being but the grace of the Father. Blaising (1996: 727). This Paul also denied the preincarnate Word of God, and his teaching was condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268.
This second view also became known as modalism. Blaising. (1996: 727). Sabellius was in Rome, Blaising (1996: 727), Turner (1999: 514). There is a possibility he may have been from Libya. Turner (1999: 514). He taught modalism in the third century and thus concepts developed the name Sabellianism. Turner explains sabellianism as an alternative denotation of modalism. Turner (1999: 514). Blaising states that Sabellius is often confused with Marcus of Ancyrra of the fourth century. He reasoned a divine monad named Huiopator projected itself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father as creator and lawgiver, the Son as redeemer the Spirit as grace giver. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Blaising (1996: 727).
Erickson notes that dynamic monarchianism seemed to deny the trinity. Erickson (1994: 334). He did examine modalism in his text in regard to the trinity. There is one God, variously designated as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but they do not stand for any real distinctions, but are simply useable at different times. Erickson (1994: 334). Erickson also points out the difficulty with patripassianism, in other words the Father suffering along with Christ as if the Father suffers identically with the Son under modalism. Erickson (1994: 334). Perhaps a difficulty, perhaps, not. As God is one of spiritual united nature. Would not God the Father understand all the sufferings of God of the Son? I would think so.
And an objection raised by trinitarians, and rightly so, is that the New Testament interactions between the Father and Son appear to be very real conversations and not based in modes. A reasonable point could be made that yes the human Jesus was interacting with the divine Father in sinless perfection but this was being done largely because in eternity, God the Son/Word had been interacting with God the Father in a similar way (John 1).
Concerning Hebrews 1, for example, it is demonstrated in the New Testament that the Father and Son are of the same substance and nature. The Holy Spirit in Acts 5, and in Matthew 28: 19 can be demonstrated as divine and I would therefore deduce have the same substance and nature.
Therefore it should be noted that triune persons are not three separate natures/Gods.
Further:
Jesus Christ did of course in the incarnation take a separate human nature.
The persons of the trinity could also be called distinctions, but they do personally interact according to the New Testament.
Hawthorne (1986: 1506). Click twice to enlarge.
University of Wales, Bangor
University of Wales, Lampeter/University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.
BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
Blaising noted this first (dynamic monarchianism) view had proposed monotheistic God, as in the Father in relation to Jesus a mere man who was 'endowed with the Holy Spirit'. Blaising (1996: 727). This view was supported in Rome in around 190 by Thedotus of Byzantium and then by Artemon/Theodotus. This first view was refuted by Hippolytus. Blaising (1996: 727).
Paul of Samosata depersonalized the Logos as the inherent rationality of God, the 'homoousia' of God. Blaising (1996: 727). The substance of God. For this Paul, the Holy Spirit was not a separate being but the grace of the Father. Blaising (1996: 727). This Paul also denied the preincarnate Word of God, and his teaching was condemned at the Synod of Antioch in 268.
This second view also became known as modalism. Blaising. (1996: 727). Sabellius was in Rome, Blaising (1996: 727), Turner (1999: 514). There is a possibility he may have been from Libya. Turner (1999: 514). He taught modalism in the third century and thus concepts developed the name Sabellianism. Turner explains sabellianism as an alternative denotation of modalism. Turner (1999: 514). Blaising states that Sabellius is often confused with Marcus of Ancyrra of the fourth century. He reasoned a divine monad named Huiopator projected itself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Father as creator and lawgiver, the Son as redeemer the Spirit as grace giver. These were three different modes revealing the same divine person. Blaising (1996: 727).
Erickson notes that dynamic monarchianism seemed to deny the trinity. Erickson (1994: 334). He did examine modalism in his text in regard to the trinity. There is one God, variously designated as Father, Son and Holy Spirit but they do not stand for any real distinctions, but are simply useable at different times. Erickson (1994: 334). Erickson also points out the difficulty with patripassianism, in other words the Father suffering along with Christ as if the Father suffers identically with the Son under modalism. Erickson (1994: 334). Perhaps a difficulty, perhaps, not. As God is one of spiritual united nature. Would not God the Father understand all the sufferings of God of the Son? I would think so.
And an objection raised by trinitarians, and rightly so, is that the New Testament interactions between the Father and Son appear to be very real conversations and not based in modes. A reasonable point could be made that yes the human Jesus was interacting with the divine Father in sinless perfection but this was being done largely because in eternity, God the Son/Word had been interacting with God the Father in a similar way (John 1).
Concerning Hebrews 1, for example, it is demonstrated in the New Testament that the Father and Son are of the same substance and nature. The Holy Spirit in Acts 5, and in Matthew 28: 19 can be demonstrated as divine and I would therefore deduce have the same substance and nature.
Therefore it should be noted that triune persons are not three separate natures/Gods.
Further:
Jesus Christ did of course in the incarnation take a separate human nature.
The persons of the trinity could also be called distinctions, but they do personally interact according to the New Testament.
Hawthorne (1986: 1506). Click twice to enlarge.
University of Wales, Bangor
University of Wales, Lampeter/University of Wales, Trinity Saint David.
BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Monarchianism' in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
BLAISING, C.A. (1996) ‘Nicea, Council of (325)’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
BOWMAN, ROBERT M. (1990) Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
BROM, ROBERT H. (1983) The Eternal Sonship of Christ, San Diego, CIC 827.
BROMILEY, G.W. (1996) ‘Trinity’ in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.
BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
FRANKE, JOHN R. (2005) The Character of Theology, Baker Academic, Grand Rapids.
HAWTHORNE, GERALD F. (1986) 'Hebrews', in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
TURNER, H. E. W. (1999) 'Sabellianism', in Alan Richardson and John Bowden (eds.), A New Dictionary of Christian Theology, Kent, SCM Press Limited.
On your latest post, I am understanding that the biggest difference between Christians and Modalists is the view of a monotheistic God having a trinitarian nature as opposed to a mode nature. I wonder if all other theological views match within these two Christian traditions.
ReplyDelete-Wondering Wanderer-
I agree modalism has obvious problems, like why God said let us create man in our image, Jesus' anguished cry to the Father on the cross, the Father's knowledge and Jesus' ignorance of the day of His second coming, etc.
ReplyDeleteYet I think these distinctions and modalist interpretations are not sufficient to say that a modalist cannot be a believer. I might even hesitate to call it heresy, though it goes against teaching of the church fathers, but to me it is simply easier to just believe in the trinity than to try to apply what seems to me a complicated and problematic modalist interpretation.
'On your latest post, I am understanding that the biggest difference between Christians and Modalists is the view of a monotheistic God having a trinitarian nature as opposed to a mode nature. I wonder if all other theological views match within these two Christian traditions.
ReplyDelete-Wondering Wanderer-'
WW, I am not so quick to state that modalists are not Christians, but I notice you corrected. If modalists hold to the deity of Christ, atoning work, resurrection and seconding coming, indeed they may be Biblical Christians, in my opinion despite a rejection of a traditional view of the trinity. Erickson appeared to agree from what I read on page 334. I am not however, dogmatic on this point.
Cheers.
'I agree modalism has obvious problems, like why God said let us create man in our image, Jesus' anguished cry to the Father on the cross, the Father's knowledge and Jesus' ignorance of the day of His second coming, etc.
ReplyDeleteYet I think these distinctions and modalist interpretations are not sufficient to say that a modalist cannot be a believer. I might even hesitate to call it heresy, though it goes against teaching of the church fathers, but to me it is simply easier to just believe in the trinity than to try to apply what seems to me a complicated and problematic modalist interpretation.'
From a traditional and Biblical perspective, modalism may be called heretical on that point.
Such churches could perhaps be tagged Christian cults because of that primary doctrine.
But they still may hold to several orthodox primary doctrines including the deity of Christ, atonement, resurrection, and second coming.
Therefore, I am not prepared to state that all modalist churches are non-Christian in a complete Biblical sense.
Thanks, Cardinal Chucklins.
Nice picture of my neighborhood with Stanford University.
ReplyDeleteI hope to a traditional view of the trinity, while not fussing over details such as the procession of the Holy Spirit.
Have you given much consideration to how far people can deviate from a trinitarian view and still genuinely accept Jesus as their savior? From what I read from the new testament, it seems that people who have no apparent notion of the trinity can be saved. But then there is the fact that a wrong notion is distinct from not having a notion. Not sure where to draw the line of Christian fellowship, yet in terms of proper instruction I would be quite fixated on a proper understanding being mandatory for a Christian teacher.
Romans 10:9-13 (New American Standard Bible)
ReplyDelete9that (A)if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and (B)believe in your heart that (C)God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved;
10for with the heart a person believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth he confesses, resulting in salvation.
11For the Scripture says, "(D)WHOEVER BELIEVES IN HIM WILL NOT BE DISAPPOINTED."
12For (E)there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is (F)Lord of (G)all, abounding in riches for all who call on Him;
13for "(H)WHOEVER WILL CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD WILL BE SAVED."
'Nice picture of my neighborhood with Stanford University.'
Cheers. I visited there in 1997, very impressive.
'I hope to a traditional view of the trinity, while not fussing over details such as the procession of the Holy Spirit.'
I hope for a Biblical view while paying attention to traditional scholarship and modern research.
'Have you given much consideration to how far people can deviate from a trinitarian view and still genuinely accept Jesus as their savior?'
Somewhat, as with the topic of modalists, for example.
'From what I read from the new testament, it seems that people who have no apparent notion of the trinity can be saved.'
Many of these people I gather would be shown grace by God and would be taught these concepts via preaching and via scripture at a later date.
'But then there is the fact that a wrong notion is distinct from not having a notion. Not sure where to draw the line of Christian fellowship, yet in terms of proper instruction I would be quite fixated on a proper understanding being mandatory for a Christian teacher.'
I am no judge of souls but I find it difficult to believe that someone that thinks that they can become a god/God through a church, faith and works anything like God the Father, for example, will inherit the Kingdom of God by Biblical standards. (LDS)
I also find it difficult to believe that someone through a church, faith and works that thinks Jesus is the archangel Michael and not God, will inherit the Kingdom of God by Biblical standards. (Watchtower)
These are non-Christian religious beliefs, for example.
There may be very well a few saved people within.
As noted, many modalist churches may hold to essentials such as the deity of Christ, the atonement, the resurrection and the second coming.
Thank you, Looney.
ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.
MARTIN, WALTER (1965)(1997) The Kingdom of The Cults, Minneapolis, Bethany House Publishers.
Thanks for reminding me that I should give more general consideration to saved, but to what purpose.
ReplyDeleteMuch appreciated, sir.
ReplyDeleteI have a heart for people in these groups. Even though they may not always appreciate my reviews.;) Often when I write about them there is a representative of some sort that emails me or leaves a blog comment within a day or two.
When I was younger I learned a lot of Bible and Theology by studying these types of groups. Kind of how I got my start.
loony LDS are not Christians and follow a different gospel as Gal 1:8-9 teaches. The Prophet JS was a false prophet as were/are all the LDS prophets to follow.
ReplyDeleteCheers, Rick.
ReplyDeleteHi Russ,
ReplyDeleteI liked how you explained it at the end of your post.. Makes a lot sense.. That triune persons are not 3 separate Gods but that the persons of the trinity could also be called distinctions..
Tammy :)
Cheers, Tamela.
ReplyDeleteI was assisted with that concept by my mentor/professor while at Columbia Bible College during my first teaching internship.
Though every cult and false religion either totally denies the Trinity or warps and distorts it, even within Christianity today, there are those who distort the Trinity. Oneness Pentecostalism (a grouping of denominations and believers within the Pentecostal churches) subscribe to the non-trinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness (Modalism). Oneness doctrine believers baptize in the name of Jesus Christ rather than using the Trinitarian formula. This has spread to some of the Charismatic churches, and some televangelists teach this as well. They teach that Jesus is the Father, for example. Of course, within some of the Charismatic churches, there are others who teach that Jesus was created by the Father (which is similar to what Jehovah's Witnesses believe). And as far as the Holy Spirit, some Charismatics stress the translation of 'spirit' as "breath" or "wind" and teach that the Holy Spirit is the breath of God, or an impersonal force (as JWs also believe), rather than the third Person of the Trinity. Of course, even in the apostle Paul's day, there were gnostics who taught false doctrine.
ReplyDeleteWith people, 1 person = 1 being. But God is not like man. God is unique in all the universe. With God, 3 Persons = 1 Being.
ReplyDeleteMen do not have gills and fins, but fish do. Men do not have feathers and fly, but birds do. Not all beings are exactly the same.
Just because man was created in God's image does not mean that man is exactly like God in every way. Man is not omnipotent, omnipresent, or omniscient. If man were created exactly like God, then man would not have flesh and bones.
A pencil drawing of a tree is made in the image of a tree, but the drawing is merely lines of graphite on paper, and is a one-dimensional image. A real, living tree is three-dimensional, and is far, far more complex than mere lines of graphite on a piece of paper.
Man is confined within a body which is made up of matter and takes up space, but God is not like that. So, just because every man is limited to being a single person does not mean that God is limited to being a single Person. Additionally, I believe we only refer to the Trinity as "Persons" as a limited, earthly way to attempt to understand the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, in the same way that referring to the "Father" and the "Son" are merely ways that we can understand them better, by relating human relational terms to God (i.e., Jesus is not a biological son of the Father).
A useful book I have:
ReplyDeleteBoyd
'With people, 1 person = 1 being. But God is not like man. God is unique in all the universe. With God, 3 Persons = 1 Being.'
ReplyDeleteTrue.
I like distinction (s) to explain but understand person (s) in historical and present theological context.
Cheers, Jeff.
Muslims see Christians as polytheists, because Muslims focus so much on monotheism, and they misunderstand the concept of the Trinity. They see the Trinity as three gods. Furthermore, Muslims think the Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary.
ReplyDeleteAnd, speaking of Muslims, I found multiple websites with this recent article:
"Egypt: 4000 Muslims chanting "Allahu akbar" torch church, attack Christian homes
"The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians."
Just think about that paragraph, in all its various parts, for awhile.
"Nearly 4000 Muslims Attack Christian Homes in Egypt, Torch Church," by Mary Abdelmassih for AINA, March 5 (thanks to Pamela Geller):
(AINA) -- A mob of nearly four thousand Muslims has attacked Coptic homes this evening in the village of Soul, Atfif in Helwan Governorate, 30 kilometers from Cairo, and torched the Church of St. Mina and St. George. There are conflicting reports about the whereabouts of the Church pastor Father Yosha and three deacons who were at church; some say they died in the fire and some say they are being held captive by the Muslims inside the church.
Witnesses report the mob prevented the fire brigade from entering the village. The army, which has been stationed for the last two days in the village of Bromil, 7 kilometers from Soul, initially refused to go into Soul, according to the officer in charge. When the army finally sent three tanks to the village, Muslim elders sent them away, saying that everything was "in order now."
A curfew has been imposed on the 12,000 Christians in the village.
This incident was triggered by a relationship between 40-year-old Copt Ashraf Iskander and a Muslim woman. Yesterday a "reconciliation" meeting was arranged between the relevant Coptic and Muslim families and together with the Muslim elders it was decided that Ashraf Iskander would have to leave the village because Muslims torched his house.
The father of the Muslim woman was killed by his cousin because he did not kill his daughter to preserve the family's honor, which led the woman's brother to avenge the death of his father by killing the cousin. The village Muslims blamed the Christians.
The Muslim mob attacked the church, exploding 5-6 gas cylinders inside the church, pulled down the cross and the domes and burnt everything inside. Activist Ramy Kamel of Katibatibia Coptic advocacy called US-based Coptic Hope Sat TV and sent an SOS on behalf of the Copts in Soul village, as they are presently being attacked by the mob. He also said that no one is able to contact the priest and the deacons inside the burning church and there is no answer from their mobile phones.
Coptic activist Wagih Yacoub reported the mob has broken into Coptic homes and has called on Copts to leave the village. "Terrorized Copts have fled and some hid in homes of Muslim neighbors," he added.
Witnesses said the mob chanted "Allahu Akbar" and vowed to conduct their morning prayers on the church plot after razing it.
Not that there's any Islamic tradition of conducting prayers on the cherished sites of conquered peoples, or anything like that."
From:
http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/03/egypt-4000-muslims-chanting-allahu-akbar-torch-church-attack-christian-homes.html
'Muslims see Christians as polytheists, because Muslims focus so much on monotheism, and they misunderstand the concept of the Trinity. They see the Trinity as three gods. Furthermore, Muslims think the Trinity is God, Jesus and Mary.'
ReplyDeleteSome serious misunderstanding.
I hope and pray a new government can assist in bringing some religious order to Egypt.
Blogs to check out:
ReplyDeleteEncouragement for Evangelism
Help, I'm Being Reproached!
Thanks, Mr. Jenkins.
ReplyDeleteSomething else you might find interesting (a friend emailed this to me):
ReplyDeleteThe Two Babylons
or The Papal Worship Proved to be
the Worship of Nimrod and His Wife
By the Late Rev. Alexander Hislop
First published as a pamphlet in 1853--greatly expanded in 1858
Thank you, it looks complicated but interesting.
ReplyDeleteBlogger had your comment delayed at the Dashboard so good thing I checked!
Thanks Russ, I hope someday you see Spain.
ReplyDeleteThe photo is on the road. Ü
Cool, thanks Meri.
ReplyDeleteNice blog! :) I love Canadá
ReplyDeleteCheers, Blanca.
ReplyDeleteThieves pull off real-life Italian Job.
ReplyDeleteMama and baby bear seen in Maple Ridge, B.C.
ReplyDeleteGreat pics of University of Wales, very old and very prestigious,
ReplyDeletehey imagine going there and being a student!
-Schools Pale to Wales-
GRAD PARTY RANT for our SMARTY PANTS!
ReplyDeleteCongrats DR. MURRAY see you at your PARTAY!
-Buff B. ThERE-
'Thieves snatch 100kg of gold worth £3million
ReplyDeleteStolen digger used to smash through depot walls
Roads blocked with stolen vehicles to foil police response'
I do not expect that much for a PhD graduation party present Cardinal Chucklins...
'Mama and baby bear seen in Maple Ridge, B.C.'
ReplyDeleteThe cub looks like a teddy bear.
'Great pics of University of Wales, very old and very prestigious,
ReplyDeletehey imagine going there and being a student!
-Schools Pale to Wales-'
It was an honour. Thanks.
It was nice when they found my thesis too...
It is an honour to have the degree.
Thanks.
'GRAD PARTY RANT for our SMARTY PANTS!
ReplyDeleteCongrats DR. MURRAY see you at your PARTAY!
-Buff B. ThERE-'
I may be roasted...
Blogger had your comment delayed at the Dashboard so good thing I checked!
ReplyDeleteBlogger has been a pain lately, sometimes going into an endless loop of having to sign in over and over, and not because of a mistyped password.
Here is a blog site you might possible want to try to exchange links with (I don't know her):
A Girl, A Blog & Life In-between!!!
Yes, it seems it takes at least two attempts to get into Blogger often...
ReplyDeleteThanks, Mr. Jenkins.