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.
