Back to Index: Oneness Pentecostals

 

 

 

Modalism and Church History

 

Also See: The Trinity and the Early Church: Debunking the Oneness Myth

 

 

    Technically termed: modalistic monarchianism 1  The first main proponent of modalism (that we know of) was Noetus of Smyrna (c. A.D. 190; cf. Hippolytus Against the Heresy of One Noetus 7, in ANF, vol. 5). Additionally, two noted leaders of the movement included Praxeas (cf. Tertullian Against Praxeas, in ANF, vol. 3), and a Libyan priest named Sabellius, who came to Rome toward the end of Zephyrinus’s reign (A.D. 198-217; cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 121). Hence, modalism was also called Sabellianism. Most of what we know of Sabellius is contained in the polemic writings of church Fathers. Sabellius was rightly condemned as a heretic (c. A.D. 220) by the Roman bishop, Callistus. And subsequently, Sabellius and his teachings were condemned by bishop Dionysius (c. A.D. in 263).2

    As seen, historically, there were two forms of monarchianism: modalistic 3  and the less popular form, dynamic. Dynamic monarchianism, also called (more appropriately) adoptionism, held to the idea that God merely “adopted” Jesus as His Son (at His baptism), after which He worked miracles without becoming divine. However, some later adoptionists did teach that He became deity (in some sense) at His baptism. Accordingly, the early Christian church quickly condemned dynamic monarchianism and the ones propagating it (e.g., Theodotus of Byzantine [c. A.D. 190; cf. Hippolytus “The Heresy of Theodotus,” in The Refutation of All Heresies 7.23, in ANF, vol. 5]; Paul of Samosata [c. A.D. 268; cf. Eusebius History of the Church, 7.27]). Because of this radical denial of the full deity of Christ, dynamic monarchianism never really gained popularity and eventually fizzled out. Regardless of theological variations, both systems, dynamic and modalistic, bred the same end-result: unitarianism.

    As noted above, modalistic monarchianism was also called Sabellianism. Sabellius’ arguments for modalism were much more sophisticated and convincing than that of his predecessors. By way of implication, some would accuse the early modalists of teaching that the Father suffered and died on the cross. For this reason, early modalism was also known called patripassianism, meaning in Latin, “father to suffer.” Hence, Tertullian (c. A.D. 213) says of Praxeas:

He maintains that there is one only Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world, in order that out of this doctrine of the unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the Virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, indeed was Himself Jesus Christ (Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in ANF, vol. 3.).

    In addition, early modalism (esp. Sabellius) held to what is known as successive modalism. That is, the modes were said to have been successive: starting with the mode of the Father for creation, then the Son for the task of redemption, and after, the Holy Spirit for regeneration. Patristic authority Philip Schaff explains:

Sabellius embraces the Holy Spirit in his speculation, and reaches a trinity, not a simultaneous trinity of essence, however, but only a successive trinity of revelation. He starts from a distinction of the monad and the triad in the divine nature. His fundamental thought is, that the unity of God, without distinction in itself, unfolds or extends itself in the course of the world’s development in three different forms and periods of revelation and, after the completion of redemption, returns into unity. The Father reveals himself in the giving of the law or the Old Testament economy (not in the creation also, which in his view precedes the trinitarian revelation); the Son, in the incarnation; the Holy Ghost, in inspiration. The revelation of the Son ends with the ascension; the revelation of the Spirit goes on in regeneration and sanctification. . . . (Philip Schaff, “The Development of Catholic Theology in Conflict with Heresy,” 12.152, in History of the Christian Church, vol. 2, 3rd ed. [1890; reprint, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1958]; emphasis added).

    Nevertheless, contrary to Sabellius and successive modalism is modern modalism. Today most, not all (e.g., The Way International) Oneness teachers believe that God can project all of His manifestations or modes simultaneously. For instance, at the baptism of Jesus (Matt. 3:13-17), we observe all three Persons of the Trinity involved in this occasion. Still, no matter how plain and natural the text is, Oneness teachers roll over and say, ‘God is omnipresent, hence, He can exist simultaneously.’ 

    However, if simultaneous modalism were true, why do we find verse after verse that clearly denotes distinction between the three Persons (e.g., Luke 10:21-22; John 1:1; 6:37-40; 2 Cor. 13:14)? Notwithstanding the name of their unitarian deity, whether the “Father” as in early modalism or “Jesus” as in modern Oneness, one point is firmly agreed among all Oneness believers: God is unipersonal and has not revealed Himself in three distinct coequal coeternal coexistent Persons or Selves.

   To reiterate, the modalistic God exists as a unipersonal deity (i.e., one Person). And this deity wears different masks in time according to his role. In other words, the unipersonal, unitarian deity of modalism was Father in creation; Son in redemption and Holy Spirit in regeneration. So according to modalism, there are not three distinct Persons in the Godhead, but rather one Person (named Jesus) that plays different roles. 

    Modalism rejects that nature of God the Father, the deity of Jesus Christ, and the personality of the Holy Spirit. The God of modalism is an invisible monad that only temporally appears to be the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit when in fact according to the modalist, there is really only one single Person behind the masks.

    Early modalism taught that the one Person behind the masks was the Father contrary to modern modalism, which teaches that the one Person behind the masks of Father Son and Holy Spirit is Jesus. Thus, Jesus is the "Father," "Son" and "Holy Spirit."


Modalism: Apostolic Doctrine?

    Oneness teachers assert that modalism was the teaching of the apostles from the start. However as demonstrated, in my other articles on Oneness theology, this assertion is clearly antithetical to what the apostles taught.

 

Question: If modalism was the doctrine the apostles, then why was it condemned
universally by early church Fathers and at ecclesiastical councils?

 

Example: Theodotus (the first known dynamic monarchianist;) was excommunicated by Victor the bishop of Rome in around A.D. 190. Noetus of Smyrna (the first known modalist) was condemned by Hippolytus (cf. nn. 2 and 22 above) and by the presbyters in Smyrna (cf. Eusebius History of the Church, 7.27). Praxeas was marked as a heretic by Tertullian. Paul of Samosata was condemned at the Third Council of Antioch (A.D. 268; cf. n. 3 above). Dionysius bishop of Alexandria (c. A.D. 261) vehemently condemned Sabellius and his unipersonal theology (cf. Athanasius De Sententia Dionysii, ed. Philip Schaff, in Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers [hereafter NPNF], vol. 4, 2nd series [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953]). Dionysius bishop of Rome (c. A.D. 262) condemned Sabellius and wrote a brilliant polemic against him and his theology (cf. Dionysius of Rome Against the Sabellians, in ANF, vol. 7). Gregory Thaumaturgus (c. A.D. 260) speaks out against Sabellius’ unipersonal idea of God explaining that

some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person]. . . . (Gregory Thaumaturgus A Sectional Confession of Faith 7, in ANF, vol. 6; emphasis added).

“We neither separate the Holy Trinity like some,” Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 348) asserts, “nor do we as Sabellius work confusion [into it]” (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 16.4, in NPNF, vol. 7, 2nd series). Since modalism views God as unipersonal, Basil the Great (c. A.D. 375) says that “Sabellianism is Judaism imported into the preaching of the Gospel under the guise of Christianity. . . .” (Basil the Great “To the notables of Neocaesarea,” in Letter 210, in NPNF; vol. 8, 2nd series). The early church, to be sure, envisaged God as Tri-Personal. Ignatius of Antioch (c. A.D. 107) differentiates between the Father and “God the Word, the only-begotten Son”:

Jesus Christ, who was with the Father before the beginning of time, and in the end was revealed. . . . He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever. . . . (Ignatius Letter to the Magnesians 6, in ANF, vol. 1; emphasis added).

Hence, the church Fathers saw modalism (and all forms of monarchianism) as a non-Christian doctrine that rejected Christ. Moreover, every important Christian council and creed throughout church history was implicitly or explicitly Trinitarian—not Oneness.

 

 

Church Fathers

    Attestation of early church Fathers give us enormous insight as to what the early church practiced and believed. It is not that their statements were theopneustos (i.e., God-breathed) nor did they think that they had apostolic authority. Example, Ignatius, bishop of Antioch (c. 105) writes: "I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments to you. They were apostles."4 

    However, on essential doctrines they held to the common rule of faith  of  the church. Many were martyred for the very doctrines that certainly not the premier attraction for the church today. The point is, the early church took seriously the teachings of the apostles of Jesus Christ. We should not be surprised then, we read how they refuted and fought valiantly against the men who attacked the very essence of God by misrepresenting Him.  

    Modalism denies the nature of God by asserting that God is a unipersonal monad. Modalism denies the deity of the Person Jesus Christ by asserting that Jesus' life had a beginning--hence, the Person of the Son was not eternal; thus "another" Jesus (cf. 2: Cor. 12:4ff). It also denies that the Person of the Father by asserting that Jesus IS the Father Himself ("another" Father). And it denies the Person of the Holy Spirit by asserting that He is merely a temporary manifestation of the unitarian deity named Jesus.5  So, of course this doctrine, that denies the very nature of God, was aggressively resisted as a "doctrine of demons" (cf. 1 Tim. 4:1) by the church Fathers. 

    The  citations below are but a few of the abundance of references of early church Fathers speaking out against the modalistic heresy:


Justin Martyr (c. A.D. 160):

Those persons who declare that the Son is the Father are proved neither to have become acquainted with the Father, nor to know that the Father of the universe has a Son.6


Hippolytus (c. A.D. 205):

If, again, Noetus alleges Christ's own words when he said, "I and the Father are one," let him attend to the fact and understand that He did not say, "I and the Father am one, but are one." For the word "are" is not said of one person. Rather, it refers to two persons, but one power. Christ has Himself made this clear, when He spoke to His Father concerning the disciples: "The glory which you gave me I have given them that they mat be one.7

There has appeared one Noetus by name; by birth, a native of Smyrna. This person introduce a heresy from the tenets of Heraclitus8

 

Tertullian (c. A.D. 213):

Jesus commands them to baptize into the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit- not into a unipersonal God9

"The devil has rivaled and resisted the truth in various ways…. Praxes maintains that there is only one Lord, the Almighty Creator of the world. He says this in order that out of this unity he may fabricate a heresy. He says that the Father Himself came down into the virgin, was Himself born of her, Himself suffered, and indeed was Himself Jesus Christ10

"The devil is himself a liar from the beginning, and so is whomever he instigates in his own way, such as Praxes. For Praxes was the first to import into Rome from Asia this kind of heretical depravity11

This heresy supposes itself to possess the pure truth, in thinking tat one cannot believe in only one God in any other way than by saying that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are the very selfsame Person12

 

Novatian (c. A.D. 235):

Why do they shrink from being associated with the boldness of Sabellius, who says that Christ is the Father?13

Because it is so very clear that Christ is declared in the Scriptures to be God, many heretics—moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity –exaggerate His honors above measure. And they have dared to declare or to think that He is not the Son, but the God the Father Himself14

 

Defending the Trinity, Gregory Thaumaturgus (the Wonder-worker; c. A.D. 260) speaks of the unipersonal God of Sabellius:  

But some treat the Holy Trinity in an awful manner, when they confidently assert that there are not three persons, and introduce (the idea of) a person devoid of subsistence. Wherefore we clear ourselves of Sabellius, who says that the Father and the Son are the same [Person] . . . We forswear this, because we believe that three persons-namely, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-are declared to possess the one Godhead: for the one divinity showing itself forth according to nature in the Trinity establishes the oneness of the nature. . . . (Gregory Thaumaturgus A Sectional Confession of Faith 7, in ANF, vol. 6; emphasis added).

 

Dionysius of Rome (c. A.D. 265): 

Sabellius . . . blasphemes in saying that the Son Himself is the Father and vice versa. 15

 

In a letter to Dionysius of Rome Dionysius of Alexandria expresses  precisely his views on the Trinity (which was solidly orthodox) and shows that he did not in any way separate the Persons of the Holy Trinity:

 

Neither, indeed, as though He had not brought forth these things, did God afterwards beget the Son, but because the Son has existence not flora Himself, but from the Father. . . . Being the brightness of the eternal Light, He Himself also is absolutely eternal. Since, therefore, the Father is eternal, the Son also is eternal, Light of Light. . . . But both are, and always are. . .  Moreover, the Son alone, always co-existing with the Father, and filled with Him who is, Himself also is, since He is of the Father. . . .

 

I have also proved the falsehood of the charge which they [the Sabellians] bring against me-to wit, that I do not maintain that Christ is consubstantial with God. For although I say that I have never either found or read this word [i.e., homoousios] in the sacred Scriptures, yet other reasonings, which I immediately subjoined, are in no wise discrepant from this view, because I brought forward as an illustration human offspring, which assuredly is of the same kind as the begetter; and I said that parents are absolutely distinguished from their children by the fact alone that they themselves are not their children, or that it would assuredly be a matter of necessity that there would neither be parents nor children. . . .

 

But they are ignorant that neither the Father, in that He is Father, can be separated from the Son, for that name is the evident ground of coherence and conjunction; nor can the Son be separated from the Father, for this word Father indicates association between them. And there is, moreover, evident a Spirit who can neither be disjoined from Him who sends, nor from Him who brings Him. How, then, should I who use such names think that these are absolutely divided and separated the one from the other?. . . 

 

Thus, indeed, we expand the indivisible Unity into a Trinity; and again we contract the Trinity, which cannot be diminished, into a Unity. . . .

 

In the beginning was the Word. But that was not the Word which produced the Word. For “the Word was with God.” The Lord is Wisdom; it was not therefore Wisdom that produced Wisdom; for “I was that” says He, “wherein He delighted Christ is truth; but “blessed,” says He, “is the God of truth” Life is begotten of life in the same way as the river has flowed forth from the spring, and the brilliant light is ignited from the inextinguishable light. . . . If, from the fact that there are three hypostases, they say that they are divided, there are three whether they like it or no, or else let them get rid of the divine Trinity altogether. . . . For on this account after the Unity there is also the most divine Trinity. . . .

In accordance with all these things, the: form, moreover, and rule being received from the elders who have lived before us, we also, with a voice in accordance with them, will both acquit ourselves of thanks to you, and of the letter which we are now writing. And to God the Father, and His Son our Lord Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit, be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen (Dionysius Epistle to the Bishop of Rome 4, “Extant Fragments,” in The Works of Dionysius, in ANF, vol. 6; emphasis added).

 

Methodius (c. A.D. 290):

They have gone astray with regard to one of thee three Persons of the Trinity. For example, some say, like Sabellius, that the Almighty Person of the Father Himself suffered16

 

Cyril of Jerusalem (c. A.D. 348), in his Catechetical Lectures, refers to the Trinitarian baptismal formula. After which explains that the Trinity is not three separate Gods (against Marcion) nor is the Trinity divided or confusion worked into it (against Sabellius):

 

For the Only-begotten Son of God said plainly to the Apostles, Go ye, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Our hope is in Father, and Son, and Holy Ghost. We preach not three Gods; let the Marcionites be silenced; but with the Holy Ghost through One Son, we preach One God. . . . We neither separate the Holy Trinity, like some; nor do we as Sabellius work confusion [into it] (Cyril of Jerusalem Catechetical Lectures 16.4, in NPNF; vol. 7, 2nd series; emphasis added).


    Of course, these above are only but a few of the overwhelming abundance of clear statements of church Fathers speaking out against the heresy of modalism; a doctrine that denied Christ as eternal God in the flesh. The early church did not quietly sit back supinely while heresy was being pervaded. They saw modalism as a heresy that attacked the very essence of God Himself. 


Church Councils

    We also find that modalism was universally condemned at various church councils:


    Taking a strong stance for Trinitarianism, in 1916 at the Assemblies of God General Council held in St. Louis, 156 AG ministers were expelled for holding to Oneness teaching. Whence modern Oneness movements begin.

    Today more that ever, Christian leaders must stand up against heresy. Why keep silent? We should not be afraid of what people think, only about what God thinks. Modalism attacks Jesus Christ.

    They say they glorify Him but how can they when modalism teaches that Jesus Christ is NOT eternal, His life started in Bethlehem.

    They say, they glorify Him but so do the Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses!  Modalism rips the heart out of Christianity it denies Christ by misrepresenting Him.

    To be sure, modalism is another Jesus, another Gospel, and another Spirit. There is only one true God. The Apostle John was very concern as to the beliefs and teachings of Jesus Christ; as he gives this warning:.  

Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also (John 2:2)

 

 

Notes

 

1, Monarchism comes from the Greek word: "single principle."

2, cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper Collins Publisher, San Francisco, CA), 119-126;  Robert Morey, The Trinity, Evidence and Issues (Word Bible Publishers, Iowa Falls, IA), 511.

3, Also called: Sabellianism named after Sabellius and patripassianism; due to the implication: the Father as the Son suffered on the cross.

4, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1:75.

5, Early modalism taught that the "Father" was the name of the unitarian deity, whereas modern modalism teaches it is "Jesus." Either way the doctrinal out come is the same: God does not exist in three distinct, coequal,  coeternal, and coexistent Persons. The modalistic God is a monad.

6, The Anti-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1.184.

7, Ibid., vol. 5.226; cf. Hippolytus, Against Noetus. 

8, Ibid., vol. 5.125; cf. Refutation of all Heresies. 

9, Ibid., vol. 3.623; cf. Tertullian, Against Praxeas.

10, Ibid., vol. 3.597, cf., Against Praxeas.

11, Ibid., vol. 3.597; cf., Against Praxeas..

12, Ibid., vol. 3.598; cf., Against Praxeas.

13, Ibid., vol. 5.622.

14, Ibid., vol. 5.634.

15, Ibid., vol. 6.365.

16, 6.338.

 17,Catechetical Lectures 16:4. 
   

copyright:©2003 Department of Christian Defense. all rights reserved

Back to the top