Bishop's Epistle: Modalistic Monarchianism (Summation Paper)

(Summation Paper on Modalism as the Proper Paradigm for Oneness Theology)

We come now to the very end of this particular discussion. Both Brother Mike Conn and myself have presented our cases, and it is now time to sum it all up. In my first Position Paper I presented my intentions. Those intentions were:

1. To give the definition of Modalistic
Monarchianism;

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

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

I. Concerning the Definition of Modalism

The historical Godhead system that best fits the 20th and 21st century Oneness paradigm is Modalistic Monarchianism. My Negative friend has chided me for appealing to history, and argued that the Bible should be our only source of information. The reader will agree that the tap root of our discussion runs through history as well as holy Scripture. The genesis of our debate was the fact that the Negative has spent years attacking Modalistic Monarchianism, charging that it is a false and unbiblical teaching. In our discussion we have responded to his attacks and attempted to prove his accusations false.

We have shown how the Monarchian is one who believes in one only ‘sentient’ Supreme Being. Historically, Monarchianism was the original Godhead theology of both the Old Testament and Christianity; therefore, it has proven itself to be the ONLY biblical monotheism. While this is very clear throughout the Old Testament, when one comes to the New Testament one is met with the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Since the NT is clear enough that Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are each fully God, the Bible student is challenged by these distinctions and how to harmonize them with the monotheism of the OT, which is clearly monarchian. This challenge is answered by the scientific means of Modalism.

One should not be put off by the term “scientific.” However, since many Oneness Christians spook at higher education, and are frightened by the term “science,” as children are of masks, it is necessary to explain our use of the term “scientific.” The word simply means: “related to or the use of science.” Science is simply “a systematically organized body of knowledge on a particular subject.” Here we are discussing the Biblical God. In that the Bible gives us a certain “body of knowledge” concerning the Deity, when we organize that knowledge into a system, that system, then, becomes science. So there is a “science” of the study of God which we call theology. Modalism, then, becomes a “scientific” term (within the science of theology) with which we understand the distinctions within the Godhead.

The Negative has been unnerved by the proper definition of Modalism and has tried to interject his own mutated definition into the discussion. The definition he offered was written by Pluralists and loaded with anti-Modalist biases. One would be foolish to accept the enemy's propaganda against one’s own belief. If Bishop Mike Conn wanted to disprove Modalistic Monarchianism as being the proper paradigm for Oneness theology he should have come to this debate and addressed OUR definitions of our own terminology. Instead, he was off, like Don Quixote, tilting at windmills.

Truly, his energy has been expended against a system of belief that exist only in his mind and nowhere else. His charge that Modalism has no Mediator (one mode of God could not mediate to another mode of God, BC, PP1) is a pretense that Modalism denies the humanity of Christ (see BC, PP2, ¶4, 26). Overlooked, in this charge is the Dual Nature of Jesus which allows for the humanity of Christ to be the human mediator between God and mankind. That this position of Modalism so rattled the Negative is evidence that he had not considered the God/Man aspect of the Dual Nature - which is the Dual Nature, in very fact. Which raises the question of whether or not Bishop Conn even believes in the Dual Nature of Jesus. Although, throughout our discussion he gives the concept lip service, he fails to account for the actualizing of alternate natures. (I might make mention, somewhat parenthetically, that there is a very real sense in which the Son of God as the God- man was/is the days-man of both heaven and earth, and in that sense was/is the two directional mediator. As the humanity of Jesus reached heavenward in behalf of all mankind, so did/does the the Deity of Jesus reach earthward in behalf of Heaven.) Similarly, when he chides that Modalism has one mode of God conversing with an alternate mode of God, and suggests, in derision, that we have two minds in God, he, again, fails in actualizing the Dual Nature (EN:51; BC, PP2, ¶13). The humanity of Christ possesses a human mind separate from the mind of His deity nature. So, then. the human Christ could converse with the Deity outside of the Incarnation (such as the prayers of Christ to the Father), and the Deity outside the Incarnation could speak of the human Christ (such as at Jesus’ water baptism). When I told Brother Conn (before we began the debate) that nowhere in Scripture do we have one mode of God conversing with another mode of God he told me I was full of Bull Sh_t. Now, of course the Good Pastor did not use those exact words, what he did write was that my comments were “Male Bovine Excrement.” I have known from that exchange my friend’s opinion of what I hold as Truth.

I might add one other item to this part of the summation: The Negative has accused Modalism of teaching Sequential Modalism (see EN:50). For years now (literally) I have challenged friend Conn to produce one shred of verifiable evidence of even one teacher of Modalism that teaches Sequential Modalism. He has yet to comply. His anecdotal stories of teachers in college class rooms employing illustrations to teach Christology that he “interprets” as Sequential Modalism is not VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. How can his anecdotal stories be verified? Moreover, how can one be certain friend Conn interpreted his teachers correctly? Or, better yet, how do we know that the instructors did not simply use a faulty allegory. As an example, I, myself, have employed the illustration of H2O: Solid (ice), Liquid (water), and Vapor (gas) to represent the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The form (mode) was different but the substance (H2O/God) was unchanged. Now, from the illustration I could be accused of teaching Sequential Modalism, because, strictly speaking, H2O could not be all three modes at the same time. But I do not believe that - not for one nano-second. I have only used an imperfect allegory.

II. Concerning Modalistic Monarchianism Being the Original Orthodoxy of the Lord’s Church

When we opened the discussion we were forward to introduce historical witnesses for the priority of MM (Modalistic Monarchainism) to all other forms of Godhead theology and Christology in particular. The witnesses that were produced for that segment of the affirmative were: JND Kelly, Tertullian, Cardinal John Henry Newman, Professor Adolf von Harnack and The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia. While the Negative complains about our references to Church history one would acknowledge its necessity in a discussion such as this.

When our affirmative arguments introduced the Dual Nature of Jesus, to rebut the Negative’s charges against Modalism, the titles “Son of God” and “Son of Man” were brought forward as distinguishing elements of the Dual Nature. As a result, the Negative was much exercised, and accused us of inventing the teaching “from thin air,” and changing our definition of MM. When Bishop Conn challenged our position to produce any other Modalist teachers or writers who held such a position, we produced the Position Paper from the United Pentecostal Church International (The True Humanity of Jesus, March 3, 2004) that identified the cognomen of “Son of God” as referencing the deity of Christ, and “Son of Man” as referencing the humanity of Christ. This was precisely our affirmative position: The Incarnate God (i.e. the Father) is called the “Son of God,” and the humanity is called the “Son of Man.” Further, that the conception of Jesus, in the womb of Mary, took place on two levels: human and divine. This fact does not imply that Mary had two conceptions, or that Mary conceived two Sons, one human and one divine, as my opponent attempted to assert: rather, that Jesus received His humanity from Mary and His divinity from Father God. In spite of Brother Conn’s attempts to indicate otherwise, the Affirmative has stated clearly throughout this discussion that the distinctions between the deity and humanity of Jesus did not produce two persons. We have sided with Ignatius, Alexander of Alexandria, Athanasius, Eustathius of Antioch, Marcellus of Ancyra, Hosius of Cordova, Nestorius, the Council of Chalcedon, and the Synod of Mar Sabrisho, A.D. 596. Moreover, a further witness is offered by Mar Odisho, Metropolitan of N’siwin and Armenia, A.D. 1298: “We Easterns, therefore, profess that M’shikha (Messiah) Our Lord is in two Natures in one person. But the question of the Godhead and humanity is brought into discussion in order so as to distinguish the natural properties of each Nature, then of necessity we are led to the discussion of Qnuma (the essence or underlying substance) by which the Nature is distinguished. These facts, therefore, lead us to the indisputable evidence of the existence of two Qnume (earlier, in this discussion, we introduced the Greek term “ousie”) which are the underlying properties of these (two) Natures, in one person of the Son of God.”

The teaching of the Apostolic Father, Ignatius of Antioch, is important in establishing MM, with its teaching of the Dual Nature, as the original orthodoxy of the Lord’s church. Ignatius was the Bishop of Antioch in Syria. He died the death of a martyr under the reign of Trajan in A.D.107 or 110. Papias, himself a disciple of John and pastor at Hierapolis in Phrygia, Asia Minor, informs us that Ignatius sat under the teachings of Peter, Paul and Barnabas. In the writings of Ignatius, the monotheism of the prophets and apostles is adhered to at every turn. If any label is to be placed on the Bishop of Syria it must be that of Modalistic Monarchian. The Modalism of Ignatius can easily be demonstrated in the following way:

1. Ignatius acknowledges that the one God is the Father (Magnesians 8:2 cf 1 Corinthians 8:6): Magnesians 8:2 “...there is one God who manifested Himself through Jesus Christ His Son, …”

2. Jesus is the one God incarnated in human form (Ephesians 7:2; 19:3 cf Isaiah 9:6; Matthew 1:23; John 1:1-3, 14): Ephesians 7:2 “There is one only physician, of flesh and of spirit, generate and ingenerate, God in man, true Life in death, Son of Mary and Son of God, first passible and then impassible, Jesus Christ our Lord.”

3. The Holy Spirit is, in fact, Jesus Christ (Magnesians 15:1 cf Matthew 3:11; John 14:17-18; Ephesians (NT) 4:5; John 7:29; 1 Corinthians 12:13; 2 Corinthians 3:17): Magnesians 15:1 “... The rest of the Churches, in honour of Jesus Christ, also salute you. Fare ye well in the harmony of God, ye who have obtained the inseparable Spirit, who is Jesus Christ.”

4. The Holy Spirit is, in fact, the Father of the Son (Ephesians 18:2 cf Luke 1:35; Matthew 1:18): 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. ...” Here Ignatius teaches that God was conceived and that the conception of Jesus is from two natures: human and divine.

5. Ignatius teaches the DN (Dual Nature) of Christ by drawing a sharp distinction between His deity and His humanity (Ephesians 7:2; 20:2; Smyræans 1:1; 3:3; Polycarp 3:2 cf Isaiah 9:6; Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3-4; 9:5): Ephesians 7:2 “There is one Physician who is possessed both of flesh and spirit; both made and not made; God existing in flesh; true life in death; both of Mary and of God; first passible and then impassible, even Jesus Christ our Lord.” 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, ...” (Notice the teaching of the Son of God and the Son of Man.) Smyræans 1:1 “...established in love through the blood of Christ, being fully persuaded with respect to our Lord, that He was truly of the seed of David according to the flesh, and the Son of God according to the will and power of God;...” 3:3 “And after his resurrection He did eat and drink with them, as being possessed of flesh, although spiritually He was united to the Father.” Polycarp 3:2 “Look for Him who is above all time, eternal and invisible, yet who became visible for our sakes; impalpable and impassible, yet who became passible on our account; and who in every kind of way suffered for our sakes.

6. When a distinction is made between Jesus and the Father the bishop 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], ...” Here Ignatius gave witness to the human mind and will of Christ.

7. The Modalistic views of Ignatius are seen in Magnesians 7:2, ”Everyone hasten to come together to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus Christ, who came forth from the one Father, abiding in the one, and returning to the one.” His Modalism is especially evident in his letter to Polycarp, where he expounded on the modal aspect of the existence of God: Polycarp 1:15, “... and expect Him, who is above all time, eternal, invisible, though for our sakes made visible; impalpable, and impassable, yet for us subject to sufferings; enduring all manner of ways for our salvation.”

Ignatius writes on the triad of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Godhead often. It is clear that he sees this triad as the economy of the deity, and not as a trinity of individuals. This is presented as colorfully as words can paint a picture, in his letter to the Ephesians, “ye are stones of a temple, which were prepared beforehand for a building of God the Father, being hoisted up to the heights through the engine of Jesus Christ, which is the Cross, and using for a rope the Holy Spirit; while your faith is your windlass, and love is the way that leadeth up to God” —Ephesians 9:1.

With this allegory, Ignatius portrays the economy of God working to facilitate the salvation of fallen man, and restore him to relationship with God. This is accomplished through the cross of the Son of God and the strength and power of the Holy Spirit of God, both of which are self-revelations of the Father necessary to build His building—the Church. The apostle Paul writes of God’s economy this way: “The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen” (2 Cor 13:14)

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

Dear friends, thousands of you read and benefit from our essays each month. If each of you invested only $1.00 each month, all of our financial needs would be met. Thank you for your support.

III. Concerning Modalistic Monarchianism Being the Proper Biblical Paradigm for Godhead Theology.

Any charge that my friend has made concerning the word “Modalism” not being a KJV Bible term (BC, PP3, ¶22), and therefore should be rejected, is a spurious and disingenuous charge. Why? Because the Negative has published a book entitled “Aspects of the Incarnations” in spite of the fact that “Incarnation” is not a KJV Bible term. Apart from being an insincere objection to the term “Modalism,” Bishop Conn’s charge is hypocritical, since he is condemning in others what he has allowed in himself.

While the term “mode” may not be a KJV term in relation to God, the word “form” (which is a synonym of mode) is, as is seen from Philippians 2:5-6. So, though not a Bible word, “mode” is a biblical word - as is “incarnation” - for “mode,” as “incarnation,” represents a biblical concept.

Modalism is from the word mode. Mode is 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. Modalism, then, relates to structure as opposed to substance. Therefore, we say that God is one Sentient Being, who is manifested in and to His creation in different modes (ways of being), without altering His substance. Thus, God exists “modally” as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit: with each mode (way of being) being the same substance, essence or individual. So, then any Christian who believes that God dwells outside the Incarnation as Spirit, but within the Incarnation in the “form” of man, is by definition a Modalist. That would include Mike Conn, if he believed Jesus to be God in human form (mode).

Conclusion

When Bishop Conn writes his Summation Paper it will be interesting to see how he attempts to self-correct his weak Oneness position. I am guessing he will most definitely attempt such a maneuver. My friend has spent his life as a minister in a denomination (United Pentecostal Church International) that holds the deity of Jesus in the highest regard. He owes his position and livelihood to said denomination, and in my humble opinion he cannot afford to not retrace his unorthodox steps and attempt to recast himself in a more Oneness light. If and when this happens, you, the reader, must judge his sincerity.

Permit me to close by stating: Oneness without Modalism, where Jesus is the Father in a different form (mode), is Arian Unitarianism.

Amen

Apostolically Speaking

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

(Mar David Ignatius)

First Position Paper by Bishop Hayes:

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2017/09/modalistic-monarchianism.html

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

Modalism, Simultaneous or Sequential?
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2014/01/modalism-biblical-and-historical.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