This post is a companion to the Heretics podcast found on the Podcast tab at the top of this page; and a continuation in our series of looks at the ancient heresies of the church and a refutation of them using good theology and hermeneutics.
The Identification
Since this is a more nebulous group, we do not have an exact person of blame, we in fact have several. From the writings of men like Hippolytus and Tertullian we can trace Modalism back into the early 2nd century. Teachers Heraclitus, Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius are named as the progenitors and teachers of the doctrine of Modalism.
Now this infamous heresy has very long tentacles. Throughout the history of the church, this idea has been present somewhere, in one form or another. Originally spreading from Greece to Rome, it has reared its’ ugly head in some renown teacher here and there. Michael Servetus of the Middle Ages (he of Genevan execution fame), was a Modalist. In the modern church, modalism caused a split amongst the ecstatic denominations in the early 20th century as the Oneness Pentecostals departed orthodox charismatic churches over their adherence to modalistic doctrine. And in most Evangelical churches, if we are not careful; the vast majority of our people would explain God in modalistic ways.
For example; the Triune Godhead is not like water. Yes, there are three members of the Trinity; and yes, water exists in three phases: solid, liquid, and gas; but the same water does not and cannot exist in all three phases at one time: the water analogy teaches Modalism. Likewise: the Trinitarian God of Scripture is not like a man who is a father, a son, and a husband. Yes, the man acts in three manners; but he is not a father to his wife to whom he is a husband. And similarly he is not a husband to his mother to whom he is a son. The man is all three, but never functioning in all three at the same time; this analogy teaches modalism.
So with that said, let’s actually define Modalism and explain why it is a heresy.
The Justification
In keeping with our definitions from previous articles, the confessional Modalist is a formal heretic; teaching in opposition to the orthodox understanding of the Scripture. Defined in his Refutation of All Heresies (Book 10, Chapter 23), Hippolytus gives us a concise understanding of the Modalist doctrine. He tells us that the Noetians (his name for Modalism) “…this Father Himself is called Son, and vice versa, in reference to the events which at their own proper periods happen to them severally.”
This means that, for the Modalist, God is one; which is a statement all Christians everywhere should give a hearty amen (Deuteronomy 6:4). However, the Modalist, denies that God has distinct persons within the one essence of God. This is bad, for several reasons. The first of which is it is a rejection of the clear teaching of Scripture. And I know what you are thinking, I can’t make sense of this, what do you mean the clear teaching?! What I mean is, the church has defined God as triune because that is how He is presented in Scripture. We don’t like it, but we are forced to define Him that way, because that is how He has shown Himself to us.
Matthew 3:13 – 17, gives us the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist; it is the kickoff of Jesus’ public ministry and the first affirmation to the public of Jesus’ deity in the Gospel of Matthew. In this small, simple event, we have Jesus (God the Son), being baptized while the a Voice (God the Father) commends Jesus, and the “like a dove” the Spirit of God (God the Spirit) descends and lights upon Jesus. Here we have all three members of the Godhead: Father, Son, and Spirit; acting simultaneously and independently. This is not possible in a modalistic system as God would only be truly present as one a time as he manifests Himself.
Similarly you have the Great Commission (Matthew 28:19 – 20), where the Apostles are called to preach the Gospel, make disciples, and baptize them. How should they do this? They should do this in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Again, we have all three members operating simultaneously. And this is not a New Testament phenomenon, as throughout the Old Testament you have the Triune work of God on display. Most clearly this work is shown at the coronation of the Son of Man before the throne of God (Daniel 7:9 – 14).
Here, the Ancient of Days (God the Father), takes His throne, as one like a Son of Man (the Messiah) is presented before God. The Messiah is given: dominion, glory, and a kingdom to be served by all nations. Since we know God does not share His glory (Isaiah 42:8), this passage is identifying both the Ancient of Days, and the Son of Man as God, as only God could wield such glory and power.
The rejection of these teachings, simply presented by Scripture, is why the Modalist is condemned as a heretic.
The Correction
Now, even though we’ve gotten some ability to argue against the Modalist by examining the above Scripture; we always want to be able to attack an argument at its source rather than its conclusion. The source of this particular argument centers upon the nature of Christ.
If you’d like a fuller understanding of the nature of Christ, I’d encourage you to read the church history section of the 3/20 & 4/20 Newsletter on the PTM website (as of this writing, the 4/20 newsletter will be published soon), and use that offering as a jumping off point to the historic declarations and creeds of the church. In short, we must understand the basic definitions of the Deity of Jesus.
Jesus is God; this is the simple declaration of Scripture, as well as the fulfillment of the entirety of the Sacrificial System. It is most clearly presented in the 1st chapter of the Gospel of John; especially verses 1 – 3. Herein we have the Word who is: eternal, creator, God.
The Jehovah’s Witnesses like to argue that the Greek does not include the definite article when saying “the Word was God” in verse 1. And they are correct; however, they are incorrect in assuming that means the Word was a god. The Greek predicate nominative always borrows the definite article from the preceding clause. In that sentence, the preceding clause was “the Word was with God”. Therefore, the predicate Word is equal to the defined God of creation in the sentence. John is not being unclear; he is being crystal clear: the Word (who is later identified as Jesus) is God.
This matters greatly because of the work that Jesus does; Hebrews 1:1 – 3, points to the identity of Jesus as the “final word” and “representative of the nature” when speaking about God. It is because of this representation and Divine nature that Jesus can represent us before the Father. He may sit and occupy the place of honor at the throne of God, because He is worthy of entering. Jesus must be both human and divine in order represent us and God.
Conversely, if Jesus is a manifestation of God, as the Modalist claims; to whom is He seated beside? Who else besides God is worthy of that throne.
And this is not nit-picking, this doctrine matters. Jesus has the power of God because He is God (Colossians 1:15 – 17). But Jesus is also a human being, born of a virgin; suffering and dying under Pontius Pilate, raised again on the third day as the firstborn from the dead; head of His church (Colossians 1:18). A god who is “manifested” as a man is no man at all. Instead we have the eternal second person of the Trinity, God the Son, taking on humanity to be our representative.
That is who Jesus is, and His identity matters because it relates directly to His work. Any change to, or rejection of His identity serves to destroy His atoning work for His people. This is why we must be diligent to understand God as He is, not as we think we can understand Him. We serve a God who is holy and beyond us; and that is good. We cannot comprehend Him, and that is good. We cannot fully explain Him, and that is good. We can fully worship and trust Him, and that too is good.