Sunday, March 25, 2018

Revelation 1:1

1:1 The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; and he sent and signified it by his angel unto his servant John:

“The Revelation of Jesus Christ.” Dear disciple, in the opening verse you are informed that before you, nay, in your very hands is the Revelation of Jesus Christ.” The Greek word translated “revelation” is “apocalypse,” which means: the unveiling. Therefore, my fellow disciples, you are told, in these very first strokes of John’s quill that Jesus Christ of Nazareth (who, according to Paul, is the mystery of God the Father [Col 2:1-2
]) is about to be unveiled before you.

“Which God gave unto him, to shew unto his servants things which must shortly come to pass; The Son of God (i.e. the humanity of Christ) received this revelation from the Father (i.e. the Spirit, John 4:24) for the benefit of His “servants.” The servants mentioned here are, of course, all believers. Notice that the things concerning Jesus which are about to be revealed are to “shortly come to pass.” It is interesting, and important that both here and in the epilogue of this work the disciples are instructed to expect an imminent fulfillment of the Revelation’s predictions.

“And he sent and signified it by his angel.” The Revelation is to be “signified” to John by the angel of Christ. From this word “esēmana” (from sēma) comes our English “sign;” esēmana means: to give a sign, or to make known. We may expect, then, for the subsequent revelation to be given in signs or symbolic images and language (see Vital Data, Literary Form). The phrase “his angel” may reference any number of possibilities. The word “angel” is the Greek word “angelos” meaning: a messenger, or envoy of God. This word, along with its plural, appears over 70 times in the Revelation. The word may apply to created angelic beings (Gen 28:12, Ps 68:17), or, redeemed saints (see 17:1 cf 19:10; and 21:9 cf 22:9), or more likely, in this case, “his angel” has the “angel of the LORD” in view. This view may be held with confidence because of chapter 22 and vv6 and 16. In v6 John records “...and to show unto his servants the things which must shortly be done.” This verse is clearly a companion to the verse under consideration here (1:1).

It should be pointed out at this point that Jesus identified this angel of the LORD as His angel (22:16): “I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. ...”

A study of the Angel of the LORD (LORD=Yahweh) shows Him to be one and the same as Christ. The same statements made about the nature, character, mission, and activities of the angel of the LORD are also stated of Jesus.

Angel of the LORD      Activity or Attribute           Jesus
Genesis 16:7,13          Called “LORD” (YHWH)      John 20:28
Genesis 48:15-16                  Called-God                   Jude v25
Exodus 48:15-16                     “I am”                        John 8:58
Exodus 13:20-23                 Sent from God               John 5:30
Joshua 5:13-18           Capt. of the LORD’s Host      Isaiah 9:6
Isaiah 63:9                    Redeemed His own           Ephesians 5:25

Thursday, March 1, 2018

Biblical Testimony of Isaiah 9:6

Biblical Testimony of Isaiah 9:6

It is amazing that for all the powerful testimony of Isaiah 9:6 to the Massiah-hood of Jesus of Nazareth, the passage is never referenced by any New Testament writer. Some, including myself, have raise a concern over this fact. The Masoretic Hebrew text, from which our Old Testaments are translated does contain Isaiah 9:6 as it appears in our Bibles, so does the Septuagint as contained in the Alexandrian text, but not in the Vaticanus.

In the shadow of this question the Spirit lead me to record the biblical-ness of this wonderful christological text. What follows is a breakdown of each phrase of Isaiah’s prophecy.

Isaiah 9:6
For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.

for unto

unto us a son

the government

his name


the mighty God

Eternal Father
Micah 5:2 “... yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from ... .” 
Romans 9:5 “Theirs are the patriarchs, and from them is traced the human ancestry of Christ, who is ... .” (NIV). 
 Titus 2:13 “while we wait for the blessed hope—the glorious appearing of our great ... ,” (NIV) 
1 John 5:20 “We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true—even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true ... .” (NIV) 
Jude 25 “To the only wise God our ... .” 
John 20:28 “My Lord and my God.” 
Revelation 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega," says the Lord God, "who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty." 
John 14:9 “Jesus said unto him, Have I been so long a time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen ...
John 10:30 “I and the Father are ... ." 
Matthew 1:23 Emmanuel, “God with us.” 
Revelation 22:6, 16, 20  “Lord God Almighty of the holy prophets.” 

the Prince of Peace


Monday, February 26, 2018


The preaching of the Cross of Christ is the very life blood of our salvational message. To this I am sure we all agree. So, in this short article I would like to discuss the Cross as the symbol of our hope. More to the point: shouldn’t we as Oneness Pentecostals have a discussion on signing the Cross as an act of prayer and worship? Why should this most beautiful act of prayer be surrendered to those of the Roman Catholic persuasion? I might respond to my own question by saying: Signing the Cross is not the property of the RCC exclusively; Christians of all strips sign the Cross in their devotions to Christ. Only in the “low” Protestant churches is it absent. So, isn’t it time that someone raises his voice and asks the question, if not assert the affirmative, on signing the Cross?

I would like to begin by stating that for over 40 years I served as an evangelist and pastor in the Apostolic Pentecostal movement in the western hemisphere. Anointing the head with oil when praying for the sick and for general blessings is common among all Pentecostal groups, whether Oneness or Trinitarian. Common, also, among us is for the minister to make the sign of the Cross with the oil on the forehead of the one being prayer over. I learned this from my elders in the 60's of the last century and have continued the practice to the present time. Why should we not enlarge on this signing to include the upper body and/or in blessing the people of God? In that the enemy hates the preaching of the Cross, here, in the signing of the Cross, we have yet another weapon in our arsenal to battle and ultimately defeat the devil.

I am not speaking of an innovation here. Signing the Cross has been with the Christian church from ancient times. From the earliest days, when believers looked to the Cross as a symbol of their faith, the Cross has been traced on everything pertaining to our religion. Around AD 200 Tertullian stated that the Christians wore their foreheads out with the sign of the cross. To those who complain that it is of Roman Catholic origin, we would recognize that the custom is indeed catholic, but with a small "c": meaning, universal.

The Western churches seem to favor crossing themselves from the left to the right, while the Eastern churches cross themselves from the right to the left. There are various reasons given for the different methods that will not be discussed here. Because we are Apostolic Orthodox we follow the method from Jerusalem and Antioch: i.e. from right to left.

Peter of Damascus (12th century) stated: “Then we should also marvel how demons and various diseases are dispelled by the sign of the precious and life-giving Cross, which all can make without cost or effort.”

The three fingers and single hand with which it is made represent the economy of the One Deity: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The two fingers that rest on the palm of the one hand speak of our Lord
Jesus Christ crucified, and He is thereby acknowledged to exist in two natures and one hypostasis or person.

All manner of formulae have been spoken while tracing the Cross. When signing the Cross the believer may utter the following proscribed form of words: In The Name Of Our God And Savior, Christ Jesus. The fingers should touch the forehead on the word “God,“ the solar plexus on the word “Savior,” the right shoulder on the word “Christ,” and the left shoulder on the name “Jesus.” The movement of the hand will conclude by resting over the heart to demonstrate adoration for the Name just signed. 

The Cross

Many are troubled by the preaching of the Cross of Christ. They say it is a pagan symbol; I dispute that! But even if it were, Christ baptized it with His own blood, redeemed it and made it forever the emblem of victory for every person who has ever lived. I can, and do, speak as one who knows: In the darkest times of life, in the deepest dungeons of despair the vision of the Cross births hope in the midst of the ruins of defeat. This I know for certain, if one has a firm grip on the Cross, it matters not that the whole world sweeps from beneath his feet -- he remains safe in the sureness of Calvary.

The armies of heaven line up behind the Cross and march into battle against the enemies of God’s Kingdom. Demons flee from its power and Satan hides his blood shot eyes from the brightness of its glory. The Light of the World was hung on the Cross thereby casting its shadow of influence around the globe -- world without end.

The Cross is no idol. Christians do not worship it as though the rough lumber has intrinsic power. No. It is not that. It is the Person of the Cross: He who is Deaths Conqueror transfixed on a spear; He who is the Creator wedded to His creation; it is the personification of Love that brought Heaven down to sinful mankind. From Glory to gory,  He came; from the Throne Room of Heaven to bloody straw, He came; from Angelic hails to the murderous nails of sinners, He came. So, then, it is the message the emblem of the Cross declares which is the Christian’s shield in battle and the standard to which he rallies. 

Dear friend, read, carefully, the following texts and answer for yourself why we sign the cross and encourages all Christians to do the same.

John 3:14
Just as Moses lifted up the snake in the wilderness, so the Son of Man must be lifted up. NIV 

And being found in appearance as a human being, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death – even death on a cross! NIV

"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself." NIV

"He himself bore our sins" in his body on the cross, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; "by his wounds you have been healed." NIV

For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with, that we should no longer be slaves to sin – NIV

Having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the crossNIV

For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. NIV

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. NIV

And through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the crossNIV

And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

Brothers and sisters, if I am still preaching circumcision, why am I still being persecuted? In that case the offense of the cross has been abolished. NIV

Those who want to impress others by means of the flesh are trying to compel you to be circumcised. The only reason they do this is to avoid being persecuted for the cross of Christ. NIV

For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel – not with wisdom and eloquence, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power. NIV

And in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. NIV

For, as I have often told you before and now tell you again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ.NIV

May I never boast except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world. NIV

Apostolically Yours

Mar David Ignatius

Sunday, October 1, 2017

Modalistic Monarchianism, Hayes vs Conn

Modalistic Monarchianism
Bishop Jerry L. Hayes
(Third and Final Affirmative on Modalism as the Proper Paradigm for Oneness Theology)

Read all six position papers exchanged between Bishop Hayes and Bishop Conn on the subject of Modalism in the "Files" section, at:
Dear friends, I greet you in the lovely name of Jesus. 

In the dateless past, when man lifted his face to the night sky and was amazed by the awesomeness of his stelar canopy he knew there was a Creator, and when he took himself to the shore and viewed the deafening waves crashing onto the rocks he sensed the presence of the Almighty. Since that time, from before any can remember, man has grappled with coming to know that Being which was so obvious all around him. Then it happened, the Creator of the universe stepped into man’s world through the matrix of a woman’s womb, and the mystery of the ages was made transparent through the Incarnation.
So, we come before you for the third and final installment of our affirmative of the revelation of the mystery of the economy of the Deity - which we call Modalistic Monarchianism. 
My friend and opponent in this discussion is Bishop Mike Conn, who has taken the negative position against Modalism. This is an ongoing exploration of the Incarnation of the Mighty God in Christ. Both Bishop Conn and myself are Oneness believers that are seeking to bring the Jesus of holy Scriptures into sharper focus.
While this is the last position paper of this discussion, my opponent and I will continue our exchanges on the social medium of FaceBook for a limited period of time. These exchanges will be published (in book form) with the position papers, at some point in the near future.

To Begin:
My friend has been mistaken in his understanding of Modalism. The previous papers demonstrate that in living color. His misunderstanding is understandable, because he has been misinformed. Sadly, we live in a time that is characterized by “Fake News.” One can hardly place faith in what is read on news outlets or in what is viewed on the evening newscasts. Sadly, the 21st century does not have the corner on false information. At the turn of the 19th to the 20th centuries, when Pentecostalism was sprouting in America, Arian groups had put out an avalanche of misinformation relating to historical theological positions of orthodox Christianity. It is unfortunate that the 20th century Pentecostal church fathers bought into that misinformation. But they did. Attacked particularly by the Arians was the Trinity and Modalism. Both positions advocated the full deity of Jesus Christ, which Arian scholars loathed. Early Oneness Pentecostal leaders consumed the anti-trinitarian writings of the Arians’ to fill the need for historical rebuttal to Trinitarianism, since they lacked historical scholars of their own. The Arians hated the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325) because it canonized the full deity of Jesus; they were/are guilty of teaching falsely that the Trinity was established at that time. (Actually the Council was dominated by Modalistic Monarchianism, as my book “Godhead Theology” establishes.) Thus, Oneness Pentecostals, ever since, have falsely denounced Nicæa as being a Trinitarian council. Unfortunately, Bishop Conn has injected John Paterson (a Oneness writer of this time period) into our discussion as an authority on Modalism.
Paterson, like so many of his era, was just coming out of Trinitarianism and was too gullible in receiving, as valid, the lying propaganda of the enemies of truth, whether they were Pluralists or Subordinationists. Paterson taught falsely concerning Modalism. What follows will prove my accusation against Paterson correct.
Paterson stated, concerning Modalism (see Conn’s 3rd Paper, paragraph 2): “While admitting that Jesus had a real body of flesh and blood, these men taught that it was activated, not by a human spirit, human mind, and human will, but solely and directly by the indwelling Spirit of God. The effect of such teaching is to reduce Christ to a mere body of clay pushed around by the Eternal Spirit.” Paterson had drunk the cool-aid of the enemies of truth (as has Brother Conn) and was here accusing Modalism of Apollinarianism (as does Brother Conn). 
Given here is the teaching of two well known Modalistic Monarchians of the early and mid 2nd century. Their statements will show that they believed and taught the humanity, as well as the deity, of Christ.
Ignatius of Antioch (A.D. 107-110):
Ephesians 18:2 “For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary according to God’s plan, both from the seed of David and from the Holy Spirit. ...” 20:2 “... in Jesus Christ, who was of the seed of David according to the flesh, being both the Son of man and the Son of God, ...” 
When a distinction is made between Jesus and the Father, Bishop Ignatius qualifies it by emphasizing the humanity of Christ (Magnesians 13:2 cf 1 Timothy 2:5): Mag. 13:2 “Be obedient to the bishop and to one another, as Jesus Christ was to the Father [according to the flesh], ...” ∼ In this statement, both Paterson and Conn are refuted. The Modalistic Monarchian bishop of Antioch taught that Jesus was“obedient” to the Father. Thus, MMs of the early centuries of the Church taught that Jesus had a human mind and volition, separate from God, which could determine and will to obey.
Shepherd of Hermas (A.D. 100-150):
In the following passage, the Shepherd of Hermas identifies the Holy Spirit with Christ, and as the Creator (also, the term “flesh” is used for the whole human person - not just the body): “The preexistent Holy Spirit, which created all creation, God caused to dwell in the flesh which he wished.” According to the Shepherd of Hermas, it was the Holy Spirit that was incarnated in Jesus. Then he proceeds to speak of the flesh of Christ in a submissive role – showing the dual nature: “So this flesh, in which the Holy Spirit dwelled, served the Spirit well, living in reverence and purity, and did not defile the Spirit in any way.” (Shepherd of Hermas 59:5) ~ Again, in this statement, both Paterson and Conn are refuted. The Modalistic Monarchian Shepherd of Hermas taught that Jesus “served” the Holy Spirit and lived “in reverence and purity, and did not defile the Spirit in any way.”  Thus, MMs of the early centuries of the Church taught that Jesus had a human mind and volition, separate from God, which could determine and will to serve.
So, then, John Paterson was wrong about the Modalistic Monarchians, and as a consequence Bishop Mike Conn has been wrong for believing Paterson. 
We call on Bishop Conn to acknowledge his mistake and adopt Modalistic Monarchianism as the proper paradigm for Oneness theology.

Dual Nature Answers All
When the Negative presents the “Fatal Flaws” in his 3rd paper, they, each one, fail in the face of the biblical Dual Nature of Jesus.
It was inevitable that the battleground of this debate would be the Dual Nature of Christ. This was bound to be true because the crux of the core of the negative’s argument against Modalistic Monarchianism is that MM has one mode of God interceding to another mode of God. Since God cannot mediate to Himself, says my opponent, MM has no mediator. This is the core of Conn’s argument and the crux of it is the Dual Nature. When the Dual Nature is viewed correctly, biblically, it is the human nature that is the mediator (the Man Christ Jesus1 Timothy 2:5). The God nature, being distinct from the human nature, remains outside the administration of mediator. Therefore, it is the Incarnate Deity that is the Son of God mode. 
Of course, Bishop Conn has objected in the strongest terms.
Says Friend Conn, concerning myself: “Somehow, he claims that the Son of God is the “mode” and the Son of Man is the “mediator.” To quote his words exactly, he said, Jesus is “The Son of God when we speak of the divine origin, and ... Son of Man when we speak of his human origin.” Jerry does not substantiate any of this by scripture, nor are we given a quote from a secular source that indicates any other Modalists have this same resolve. Yet, we are expected to believe it without scriptural proof.”
First, I dealt with the Dual Nature (Son of God and Son of Man) in my 2nd paper (paragraphs 18-25) and will not use up word currency again on that particular.
Second, however, to the Negative’s challenge to produce a source other than myself for the Son of God and the Son of Man paradigm, I offer the following with which my friend should be  familiar:


... when God came in flesh, deity and humanity were joined together in the one person of Jesus Christ. Christ was the Word become flesh (John 1:14). He was “conceived” by a virgin (Luke 1:31; 2:21), gestated in her womb (Luke 2:5-6), and born of her (Luke 1:35; 2:7; Matthew 1:16-25). 
Jesus was both the Son of God and the Son of man (Son of humanity). God’s Spirit caused a virgin to conceive; therefore, the holy child to whom she gave birth is the Son of God (Luke 1:35)[,] [b]ecause “that holy thing” which was born of her was God manifest in the flesh[.] He is also the Son of man. 
“Son of” also means “having the nature or character of,” as in “sons of thunder,” “sons of Belial,” and “son of consolation.” Jesus had the very character of God as well as that of perfect humanity, for no one can be like God in every way, be equal with God, or have God’s complete character without being the one God Himself. (See Isaiah 46:9; 48:11; John 5:18.) The identification of Jesus as the unique Son of God signifies that He is God in flesh. 
Although we can recognize both deity and humanity, it is impossible to separate the two in Christ. It is apparent that Jesus was human in every way, but it is equally apparent that in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily. 
the International Articles of Faith of the United Pentecostal Church International, ... state, “Jesus on His Father’s side was divine, on His mother’s side, human; thus, He was known as the Son of God and also the Son of man, ... .” 
(All bolding and underlining in the above Position Paper of the UPCI is mine, for emphasis.)

Bishop Conn was wrong to object to the Son of God and the Son of Man paradigm of the Dual Nature. 
We call on Bishop Conn to acknowledge his mistake and adopt Modalistic Monarchianism as the proper paradigm for Oneness theology.

The Holy Spirit as a Mode of God and also a Mediator to God
Moreover, when the Negative mentions the Holy Spirit as a mediator (Romans 8:26-27), he would do well to recall his own view (which we hold as well) that the Holy Spirit  is a composite of the human spirit of Jesus and the divine Spirit of God. It is the Spirit of the Son that indwells believers (Galatians 4:6) Therefore the mediation of the Holy Spirit is not without the human element of Christ. It is the human Christ that is the Mediator: flesh of our flesh, bone of our bone, soul of our soul, spirit of our spirit. So, then, the Holy Spirit (as is the Son) is the Father in a different way of being—with the human element added.  Therefore, the Holy Spirit is the Mediator, as is the Son of God, in a different way of being. 
So, then, we call on Bishop Conn to acknowledge his mistake and adopt Modalistic Monarchianism as the proper paradigm for Oneness theology.

Jesus is God, the Father
In a FaceBook exchange, my friend was asked: “Bro Mike is Jesus not God? Or, not the Father.” To which he answered: “I prefer to define Him like God, angels and the Apostles defined Him. Jesus is the SON OF GOD.” This, in my view, is Bishop Conn’s weakness; he has a problem confessing Jesus to be God the Father. This weakness is revealed in the last paragraph of his first paper. There Mike juxtaposes the three views: Trinitarianism, Arianism and Oneness. When defining Oneness he writes: “True Oneness sees the Son as a glorified human being. He is a MAN not a mode. He has a human mind that understands our difficulties and He mediates between us and God.” The sad thing about Mike's position is that that is ALL he seems to see Jesus being: i.e. “a glorified human being.” (If this is all one says about Jesus, he is telling only a half truth.) Then in his 3rd and final paper, in his closing remarks, where he could have, should have, assured us all of his fidelity to the Oneness faith by acclaiming the full deity of Jesus, he does no such thing. But he does double down on his position that Jesus is nothing more than a “glorified human being.” And he does so in a manner that causes us concern for my friends Oneness orthodoxy.
In explaining his view of the Oneness doctrine, Bishop Conn draws a parallel between Moses and Jesus. 
Conn: “Moses became a “god to Pharaoh” (Exodus 7:1). Does Bishop Conn mean that Jesus was god in the same sense as was Moses? It seems so. But I hope not. We may never know.
Conn: God did many signs and wonders through Moses. God revealed Himself to Moses in “ways” that no other man had ever known (Numbers 12:6-8 and Psalm 103:7)” Is Bishop Conn saying that the miracles of Jesus were not His own? It seems so. But I hope not. We may never know.
Conn: “God took Moses[’] human “spirit” and placed it on seventy selected men in Israel (Numbers 11:25). When the “spirit” of Moses came upon them, they prophesied and had supernatural ability.” Is Bishop Conn saying that the Holy Spirit that came at Pentecost was only the “human” spirit of Jesus (the spirit of “a glorified man”)? As the rest of the Bishop’s paralleling demonstrates -  It is certainly so! 
Here, is demonstrated how the spirit of false doctrine will blind those caught up in its spell: The Bible does NOT say that “God took Moses[’] human “spirit” and placed it on seventy selected men in Israel...” as Brother Conn has, mistakenly, stated. Here is what the Bible actually states: And the Lord came down in a cloud, and spake unto him, and took of the spirit that was upon him, and gave it unto the seventy elders:...” (Underlining mine.) The “spirit that was upon him” ( this v25 is a result of v12) was NOT the human spirit of Moses, but the Spirit of YHWH. I ask my Friend, Were you not aware of this and made a mistake? Or, did you know what the Scripture states and chose to misrepresent it anyway? I prefer to believe the former of you and not the latter. 
The Negative’s paralleling of Jesus with Moses, as to both being god, leaves us puzzled as to just how he understands Jesus being deity - especially after he has so challenged our explanation of the Dual Nature. And even more so, now that he has misrepresented Numbers 11:12, 25, where it is clearly the Spirit of Father God (that was upon Moses to govern), and not Moses’ human spirit that was shared with the elders of Israel.
Conn: Did God and Moses’ body and spirit constitute a Trinity of Divine Persons? Absolutely not! It was a picture of the future Incarnation of God in Christ Jesus and what one God, and one man can do when that man is totally one with God.” If one ever doubted Bishop Mike Conn’s view of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, he has cleared it up for us in the final words of his final position paper denying Modalism. In his Moses/Jesus parallel, Moses and YHWH are one God and one man. This one man had a man body and a man spirit. Conn likens this three-ness to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but assures us this does not make a Trinity. This one God, and one man body, and one man spirit, which we see in Moses and YHWH, in Bishop Mike Conn’s theology, demonstrates the one Father, one human body of Christ, and one human spirit of Christ. Again, we are assured that this does not make a Trinity. So. here we have Bishop Conn’s concept of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: it is God (Conn’s Father), “a glorified human being” (Conn’s Son), and the human spirit of the “glorified human being”(Conn’s Holy Spirit).  I do not know any Oneness scholar anywhere, nor at any time, that would consider this to be Oneness orthodoxy. 
So, then, We call on Bishop Conn to acknowledge his mistake and adopt Modalistic Monarchianism as the proper paradigm for Oneness theology.

Modalism as a Biblical Term
We do recognize distinctives within the Deity. This position is articulated by Paul to the Corinthians in 1 Corinthians 12:5-6. 
Truly, God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit. One must admit that these are three separate and distinct ... somethings: but not persons—at least in the modern understanding of that word.  What to call these distinctions has been a point of debate: Augustine says: “three somewhats;” Anselm, “three I know not what;” Barth, “three ways of being” or “three modes;” Moses Stuart and Sabellius say “distinctions.” Karl Barth, considered by many in academia to have been the greatest theologian since Paul, felt that “mode” was the best and most biblical term to use. He cited Hebrews 1:3 as Scriptural support for his championing of “mode.”
Heb. 1:3 already called the Son χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως θεοῦ i.e., in His mode of being an "impress" or countertype of the mode of being of God the "Father." —Karl Barth (Church Dogmatics, Vol 1.1, pg 360)

“who being the brightness of the glory, and the impress of His subsistence, bearing up also the all things by the saying of his might -- through himself having made a cleansing of our sins, sat down at the right hand of the greatness in the highest,”

Apostolically Speaking
☩ David Ignatius