Bishop's Epistle: Modalistic Monarchianism

Modalism

As agreed with Pastor Mike Conn, I here begin the first of three articles on the subject of Modalism, or, more correctly, Modalistic Monarchianism. This first article will be kept to under 3,000 words, as will the next two offerings. Therefore, in this first piece we will be setting forth the subject in its barest form and attempting to flesh it all out in the succeeding writings.

I must say in the very beginning that when we men attempt to bring the infinite into our finite realm of understanding, we will, ultimately, stand disappointed at the results of our efforts, no matter how Herculean. I do not expect our struggle here to be any different. However, it is a noble pursuit, and although we may never rise fully to the challenge of explaining the Deity, we may, at least bask in the aura of His being as we peer into His economy.

First, then, I will state my intentions:

To give the definition of Modalistic Monarchianism;

To show Modalistic Monarchianism to be the original orthodoxy of the Lord’s Church;

To show Modalistic Monarchianism to be the proper biblical paradigm for Godhead

teachings.

I must warn our readers not to expect very many biblical references in this first article, as, here, we are introducing the historicity of the matter.

Modalistic Monarchianism Defined

Labels are given to distinguish like things apart. This is seen to happen in the second and third centuries of the Church. Labels begin to appear for this teaching, or for that teaching, in order to segregate one thought from the other. Not until the appearance of rival doctrines concerning Christ and God upon the landscape of Christianity, did the Christian Biblical Hebraic-Christology have, or for that matter need a name. The term Modalistic Monarchianism was first used by Tertullian (that great coiner of phrases) in his writings against the same. (As is shown from Tertullian’s writings, the orthodox had a long use of the term “monarchy” for their belief in one only God.) The Monarchian view of God was the dominant view up to, including, and beyond this time in history. (This is seen from statements made by both Origen and Tertullian.) The term “modalistic monarchianism” becomes visible at this time, not because it was a new teaching or an innovation to the Christian faith, but, because it was a label given to the orthodox faith now marked for eradication by those bringing in a new doctrine, couched in the logos-christology.

Since the Roman bishops “Zephyrinus and Callistus” (A.D. 198-222) “were… conservatives holding fast to a monarchy and tradition which ante-dated the whole movement of thought inaugurated by the Apologists” (J. N. D. Kelly), it is necessary to examine and define the original orthodoxy.

In religion a monarchian is one who believes in the monarchy of God. The word monarchian is taken from the two words mono, meaning one; and arc, meaning ruler. Thus, the monarchian is one who believes in one only ‘sentient’ Supreme Being. Monarchianism is the ONLY biblical monotheism. The term modal, which is the root of the word ‘modalistic’ or ‘modalist,’ simply means: mode. When expressing the Oneness view of God, one might say that they hold a Modalist view. This will tell us that they believe God is a one only sentient-being, existing in/with different administrations which are called modes: which the Christian faith calls Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

How can we maintain the Monarchian view of God presented in the Old Testament, and at the same time embrace the distinctions presented in the New Testament teaching of Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Enter the word “MODAL!” (From the word mode: a particular form or variety of something ; a form or manner of expression; a manifestation, form, or arrangement of being; a particular manifestation of an underlying substance. Modal: of or relating to structure as opposed to substance.) Therefore, we say that God is one only hypostasis (substance or being), who is manifested in and to His creation in different modes (ways of being), without altering His hypostasis (substance or being). Thus, God exists “modally” as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: with each mode (way of being) being homoousios: the same substance, essence or individual.

The three modes of Yahweh God’s existence are different in manifestation and administration, but it is the same one LORD God in each mode. The one God, Who, with references to the relations in which He stands and reacts to the world, is called Father; but in reference to His appearance in humanity (the Incarnation), is called the Son; further, in reference to His presence in the lives of believers and the Church is called the Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different designations of the same subject—albeit in different administrations, functioning and interacting simultaneously.

To Sabellius, a Monarchian of the third century, has been accredited the following profound creedal statement:

We believe in one God, who is:

The Father in creation;

The Son in redemption; and,

The Holy Spirit in emanation.

The administrations of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are referenced as the “economy” of God. The present configuration of the deity (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) serves as Yahweh’s economy to facilitate the redemption of a fallen creation. Each administration/office/mode has its particular function within the economy. Modalism is the original orthodoxy of the Christian faith, and is the ancient term for what has been called “Oneness,” from the twentieth century onward.

Hello friends, my name is Jerry Hayes, I am a full time biblical researcher. I rely on freewill love offerings (from those of you who benefit from my work) and book sales for my support. Would you please consider leaving a small donation at the link provided here? Thank you for your support.

https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4EXSWA2A47ARC

II. Modalistic Monarchianism, The Original Orthodoxy of the Lord’s Church;

Given here is Tertullian’s account of the numerical superiority of the Monarchians, and the steadfastness of their position at the turn from the 2nd to the 3rd centuries: “To be sure, plain people, not to call them ignorant and common – of whom the greater portion of believers is always comprised – in as much as the rule of faith withdraws them from the many gods of the heathen world to the one true God, shrink back from the economy” (the economical trinity) “they are constantly throwing out the accusation that we preach two gods and three gods… . We hold, they say, the monarchy” (Against Parxeas ch III).

It is further verified that Modalistic Monarchianism dominated the first, second and third centuries by such a venerated witness as the Most Eminent Cardinal John Henry Newman of England (1801-1890): “Noetus was in Asia Minor, Praxeas taught in Rome, Sabellius in Africa. ... their doctrine prevailed among the common people, then and at an earlier date, to a very great extent, ...” (Essays and Sketches, Vol I, Primitive Christianity 5:2).

Supporting the testimony of Cardinal Newman is the witness of The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, which also declares that Modalistic Monarchianism was in the majority in the 3rd and 4th centuries (Newman: “and at an earlier date”). It states, “Monarchianism, identified the Father, Son and Spirit so completely that they were thought of only as different aspects ... of the one Divine Person, called now Father, now Son, now Spirit, ... , almost succeeded in establishing itself in the 3rd century as the doctrine of the church at large…. In the early years of the 4th century, the Logos-Christology, in opposition to dominant Sabellian tendencies, ran to seed in what is known as Arianism….” (I.S.B.E., Heading “Trinity” section 22.) Notice that the I.S.B.E. acknowledges Sabellianism (which is Modalistic Monarchianism) as the DOMINANT theology in the 4th century. This would make Modalistic Monarchianism the orthodox theology at the time of the Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325).

The priority and preeminent position of Monarchianism is underlined by the writing of the renowned Professor Adolf von Harnack (1851-1930): “Modalism, as we now know from the Philosophumema [writings of Hippolytus], was ... the official theory in Rome. ... was embraced by the great majority of Christians, ... the sympathies of the vast majority of the Roman Christians, so far as they could take any part in the dispute, were on the side of the Monarchians, and even among the clergy only a minority supported Hippolytus. ... Bishop Zephyrine, advised by the prudent Callistus, was himself disposed, like Victor, his predecessor, to the Modalistic views; ...” (Harnack, History of Dogma Vol III)

III. Modalistic Monarchianism, A Biblical Paradigm

It has been my experience that those who say there is a difference between Oneness and Modalism theologies have little or no knowledge of Modalism; or, worse yet, have accepted Trinitarian definitions of Modalism.

Some Trinitarian writers claim that the Modalism of the early centuries of the Church taught Sequential Modalism. This same group of writers wants to postulate that the doctrine of Modalism was formulated by one Sabellius. Both accusations are untrue.

These writers also postulate that Sabellius, himself, taught Sequential Modalism—that when God became the Son, He was no longer the Father; and now that He is the Holy Spirit He is no longer the Father or the Son. What we know is that this was not the opinion of Modalists earlier than Sabellius; and we only have Sabellius’ enemies’ word for what he taught. This writer, for one, does not believe Sabellius taught the doctrine of Sequential Modalism.

To Sabellius, the Modalistic Monarchian of the third century, has been accredited the following profound creedal statement:

We believe in one God, who is:

The Father in creation;

The Son in redemption; and,

The Holy Spirit in emanation.

When we consider this statement, coming to us from the ancient Modalistic faith, we find it an exact paradigm for the Oneness faith of the 20th and 21st centuries,:

WE BELIEVE IN ONE GOD: “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God is one LORD” —Deuteronomy 6:4. “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” —1 Timothy 2:5.

FATHER IN CREATION: “Have we not all one father? Hath not one God created us?” —Malachi 2:10.

THE SON IN REDEMPTION: “In that day, saith the LORD (YHWH), ... They shall look upon me whom they have pierced ...” —Zechariah 12:4, 10. “the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him” —John 1:18 NASB. “… feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood” —Acts 20:28. “… Christ Jesus: Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: And being found in the fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross” —Philippians 2:5–8.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IN EMANATION: “But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:” ( John 15:26). “… The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:” —Luke 1:35.

Moreover, the following sentence is attributed to Sabellius by Athanasius: “As there are diversities of spiritual gifts, but the same spirit, so also the Father is the same, but unfolds himself in Son and Spirit” (Orat. c. Arian IV. 25).

Between modern Oneness and ancient Modalism, there may be a shade of difference in the understanding of the phrase “Son of God.” Modern Oneness theology has a tendency to view the Son as ONLY the humanity of Christ (this writer understands the term “Son of God” to be referencing the person of Jesus as He is: the God-man.), while the Modalists of the second and third centuries seemed to have been willing to call the incarnated God the Son of God (as does this author), because He was God that had undergone generation. This view is reflected in the Greek text (Greek New Testament) of John 1:18 where John calls Jesus “monogenēs theos;” English: “only begotten God.” The simple biblical truth is this: One God-being has manifested Himself to His creation in three modes: As the Father in creation, as the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in emanation and sanctification. These modes exist simultaneously!

The present economy of the Deity is not eternal; the mode (administration) of the Son did not manifest until Bethlehem, and will end at some point in eternity future (though the person of Jesus, the God-man, is eternal). Though the Holy Spirit has always been the “Power of the Highest,” since Pentecost A.D. 30 the world has been under the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. Both the office/administration/mode of the Son and the office/administration/mode of the Holy Spirit will be assumed into the locus of the Deity at some point in the future, and God will be what He was in the beginning—God: the All in All.

As a Modalist bishop, I want to lovingly correct the mistaken view that is current today concerning Modalism. Modalism NEVER has taught, and does not today teach, or believe in Sequential Modalism, as our enemies assert. This is ONLY the accusation of Pluralists and Subordinationists against Modalism. It is sad that so many Oneness persons have bought into the lie, and are shying away from using this most ancient term to classify their theology.

All Modalists of the early centuries of Christianity, and since, believed, and still believe, taught, and continue to teach, Simultaneous Modalism. When the Father was incarnate in, and as, the Son, He did not cease being the Father; now that God is also manifested as the Holy Spirit, He has not stopped being the Father and the Son.

Three ancient views found within Monarchianism that Modalistic Monarchians denounce are: 1. Dynamic Monarchianism, which, in its most common position, holds that Jesus was not God until His baptism (also called Adoptionism), and 2. Sequential Modalism that taught that when God became the Son, He was no longer the Father, and now that He is the Holy Spirit, He is no longer the Father or the Son (this position only existed in the minds of Pluralists), and 3. Apollinarianism, which taught that Jesus did not possess a human soul, thereby, denying the Dual Nature of Christ (This teaching shows up today in the poorer educated branches of Oneness Pentecostals called “Jesus Only.”).

Modalistic Monarchianism is unlikely to have been intended in the anathemas of the creeds; but if it was, it was overreach. This can be asserted with a certain amount of confidence, since Modalistic Monarchianism (called Sabellianism by many today) has been the rescuer of Orthodoxy from subordinationism at least three different times in history: first at Nicæa (A.D. 325), again in the 19th century, against Unitarianism in America, through Moses Stuart, then again in the 20th century by the Swiss theologian Karl Barth. It is the Modalistic understanding of the Trinity that keeps that doctrine from going over the precipice and into the abyss of tritheism.

Conclusion

There is much talk about the difference between Modalism and Oneness theologies. This writer wishes to go on record as stating there is no REAL difference. As in all theological paradigms different “laymen” have different ways of explaining their particular views; so, because of this, there may appear to be a difference when, in truth, there is none.

Many have asked why I favor and promote the term “Modalism” over the term “Oneness.” Well, I will tell you clearly: The term “Oneness” is a twentieth century term that has come to be associated with 20th century Pentecostalism (not to be confused with 1st century apostolicism), which has allowed itself to be associated with such non-biblical practices as: regulating the dress and personal appearances of both men and women as a test of salvation, removing the apostolic headcovering of the women (a Religious Article of Clothing [RAC]) and replacing it with long uncut hair which is a clear and present innovation to Church dogma, the insistence on a belief in pre-millennialism for ministerial fellowship, and their non-sacramental position on the Eucharist. Modalism, on the other hand, is a term that goes back to the early centuries of the Church (and is truly apostolic) and does not carry with it the stigma of the items mentioned. The cognomen of “Modalism” moves us beyond the 20th century Oneness Pentecostal movement, historically, to the apostolic age of the Church and is a step in the direction of reclaiming the historicity of our faith.

Second Position Paper by Bishop Hayes:

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/09/modalism-hayes-vs-conn-hayes-paper-2-of.html

Third and Final Position Paper by Bishop Hayes:

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/10/modalistic-monarchianism-by-bishop.html

Summation Paper by Bishop Hayes:

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/04/modalistic-monarchianism-summation-paper_1.html

Hayes vs Conn, Debate, Modalism: Truly the first of its kind. Both Bishop Jerry Hayes and Pastor Mike Conn are Oneness Pentecostal believers and, yet, they are at disagreement over the paradigm of Modalistic Monarchianism as being a proper structure for the Oneness Godhead theology. In this debate Bishop Hayes takes the affirmative position in behalf of Modalism, Pastor Conn the negative. The debate is structured thusly: Three Position Papers each of 3,000 words or less, for a total of six. Then there are 230 personal exchanges between the two further expounding on the Position Papers. After which there are two Summation Papers: one for the Affirmative and one for the Negative. The battleground of this discussion centers on two main points: 1. the proper definition of Modalism and 2. the proper understanding of the Dual Nature of Christ. Order your personal copy today, from the link provided here:

https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Conn-Debate-Modalism-Monarchianism/dp/1978371403/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Jerry+Hayes%2C+hayes+vs+Conn&qid=1554156962&s=books&sr=1-1-spell

Thank You For Your Support

By Purchasing Our Books For Your Library