Bishop's Epistle: Modalism, Simultaneous or Sequential?

ON MODALISM

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 as a label for their faith. Or, they have accepted Trinitarian definitions of Modalism.

Some Trinitarian writers, I will not say scholars, claim that the Modalism of the early centuries of the Church taught a position of sequential modalism. This same group of writers want to postulate that the doctrine of Modalism was formulated by Sabellius. Both accusations are untrue.

These writers also postulate that Sabellius taught sequential modalism - that when God became the Son He was not the Father, 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 earlier Modalism, and we only have Sabellius' enemies for what he taught. I, for one, do not believe Sabellius taught such a doctrine.

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, while (at least some) Modalist of the second and third centuries seem to have been willing to call the incarnated Father the Son of God, 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. (Text: NKJVmg; RSVmg; NREV; ESV; NSAB; NIV (TNIV); NEBmg; NJBmg; NAB; NLT; HCSBmg.)

The simple biblical truth is this: One God-being has manifested Himself to His creation in three modes: As the Father in creation, in the Son in redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in emanation and sanctification. These modes exist simultaneously.

The three modes are not eternal; the mode of the Son did not manifest until Bethlehem and will end at some point in eternity future. Though the Holy Spirit has always been the "Power of the Highest," since Pentecost AD 30 the world has been in the dispensation of the Holy Spirit. Both the office of Son and Holy Spirit will be re-assumed into the one office of God at some point in the future and God will be what He was in the beginning - God: All in All.

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

Sabellius was accused of Sequential Modalism; but, it has never been proven, nor can be, because anything we have of his teaching is filtered through the poisoned pens of his enemies. Even if we give the Trinitarians the benefit of the doubt and allow that Sabellius did teach a Sequential Modalism, it is quickly pointed out that he was excommunicated by the Modalist Bishop of Rome, one Callixtus. We would agree that any such teaching as Sequential Modalism would be heresy.

All Modalist of the early centuries of Christianity - and since - believed/believe and taught/teach

Simultaneous Modalism. Modalism does not now. nor ever did, teach Sequential Modalism. This is a misnomer created by our opponents. Modalism has always believed in Simultaneous Modalism. When the Father was incarnate in 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. Just as h2o can exist in the mode of liquid, solid, and vapor without altering the underlying substance of h2o, so too God.

On Sabellianism and Sabellius:

Sabellius was a Modalist, yes, that is true. In the early centuries of the Church people had different ways of explaining Modalism, just like today people have different ways of explaining Trinitarianism. Because Sabellius was such a successful teacher of Modalism his name came to be applied to any and all positions of the Godhead that advocated Jesus as the one God in opposition to subordinationism. Consequently, then, "Sabellianism" became a catch word for all types of Christological concepts that acknowledged Jesus as the One True God. Therefore, it must be acknowledged that just because some weird and strange teaching is called Sabellianism does not imply that Sabellius, himself, taught it.

Sabellius attempted to take the teachings of older modalists and frame it in the scientific language of the then developing trinity. He even employed the word trinity to describe his theology; I think, because it was the buss-word of his day.

Both Sabellius and Tertullian were from North Africa. It is easy to get the Economical Trinity, of Tertullian, and the Modalism of Sabellius, mixed up. At first appearance, they sound very much alike.

Conclusion

There is much talk about the difference between Modalism and Oneness. I want 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.

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 title that has come to be associated with 20th century apostolic-ism (not to be confused with 1st century apostolic-ism) which is, itself, associated with such non-biblical practices as regulating the dress and personal appearances of both men and women as a test of salvation; the insistence on a belief in pre-millennialism for fellowship; and the 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), which moves us beyond the 20th century interlopers that wish to claim the title of "apostolic."

Peace to your houses.
☩ Jerry Hayes

If the Bishop's ministry is a blessing to you, we are sure you would want to have a part in providing this imformation to others. To support this ministry make a donation of any amount, click the link below.

Defense of 1 Timothy 3:16 (Answering Objections to Modalism)

http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/06/defense-of-first-timothy-316-answering.html

Godhead Theology is a study of Christian Godhead theology. ... Was He God or not? In Godhead Theology Bishop Jerry Hayes follows that debate through the first 300 years of the Church's history. Our book is in five sections: Section One ... demonstrates Modalistic Monarchianism as the original orthodoxy of the Chruch; Section Two introduces the Apostolic Creed ... ; Section Three is an affirmation of Modalistic Monarchianism; Section Four is Modalism's responses to objection from the pluralists Trinitarians, Binitarians, Arians and Semi-Arians. Included are two comprehensive indexes: Subject Index and Scripture Index. 613 pages.

Own this classic book today by ordering from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Godhead-Theology-Modalism-Original-Orthodoxy/dp/1516983521/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-4

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY

PURCHASING OUR BOOKS OF YOUR LIBRARY

Be sure to listen and subscribe to the Bishop's Podcast: Apostolic Bishop, at:

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-apostolicbishops-podcast/id1472262392?fbclid=IwAR2FlRYnNsw5Vu_Bz4PjyEdiAxFMawhtD2BFr_S7WysrpFcYjuQYSHGAlZ

5 comments:

Len ChandlerAugust 1, 2014 at 8:17 PM
Love your work Bishop Jerry, articulated and studied, your material is inspired by God and enjoyed by those yearning for the truth of God's holy Word...May God richly bless you always.
Mar David IgnatiusAugust 3, 2014 at 11:42 AM
Thank you my brother. Peace to your house, as always.
Dale RoyceFebruary 3, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Nicely done especially explaining the difference between simultaneous and sequential modalism. Please continue to point out that those that "define" modalists are/were (for the most part) those that don't even know the difference!
JayseJanuary 27, 2020 at 6:14 PM
"So now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had in your presence before the world existed"- John 17:5
The Son existed before the world in the presence of the Father, therefore the Son did not come into existence or "manifest" at Bethlehem, but has always existed.
"Before Abraham was, I Am"- John 8:58
"In the beginning (arkhe- beginning as for back as you can possibly go, implying eternality) was (already there) the Word, and the Word was with (greek is pros, meaning toward or in relationship with) God (clearly the Father, see John 1:18) and the Word was God (Greek: kai theos en ho logos, meaning and God was the Word, with theos coming before logos showing that the Word is all that makes God divine.)" John 1:1.

God Bless

Bishop's Epistle

Friday, January 17, 2014

Modalism, Simultaneous or Sequential?

5 comments:

Bishop, Abbot General