This essay is excerpted from the author's book entitled "Godhead Theology" which may be purchased from Amazon. Monotheism: Monotheism is the belief in one only God. The word“monotheism” is from two Greek words: μόνος (monos), meaning “single,” or “alone,” and θεός (theos) meaning “god.” One who believes in monotheism is called a monotheist. The world’s three great monotheistic religions are Judaism, Christianity and Islam. These faiths are known as the Abrahamic Religions because each looks to Abraham as the father of the faithful. All three of these religions are revealed religions. The adherents of a “revealed religion” believes that their God has directly communicated with mankind His existence and wishes through oracles (prophets) and, or, holy inspired (God-breathed) Scripture. Revealed religion stands in opposition to “natural religion” which provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. The monotheistic religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) each possess scripture, which is believed to be an authentic revelation of the character and expectations of their God, with detailed instructions in worship and lifestyle: for Judaism it is the Old Testament—the Torah in particular; for Christianity it is the complete Bible consisting of both Old and New Testaments; for Islam it is the Qur’an. While the Old and New Testaments are congruent concerning the deity of Jesus the Messiah, the Qur’an is incongruent to both the Old and New Testaments in this particular: the Qur’an denies any godhood to Christ at all. Our study of monotheism will be mostly confined to Christian monotheism as it is rooted in, and a reflection of, Hebraic monotheism.
We must introduce a caveat concerning the legitimacy of Islam as a true monotheistic religion.The monotheism of Islam is of a different genre from the monotheism of either the Hebrews or Christianity, in that Allah was not always the one God of the Arabs. Allah seems to be a reviving of the Arabic moon god Hubal as the first among equals. Hubal was associated with the black stone that continues to be revered in the Kaaba as associated with Allah. Through a series of military conquests and coercions carried out by his followers, Allah, having dropped the name “Hubal,” came to be the one god of Islam.
Terms for Different Godhead Paradigms Within Christian Monotheism
Modalism:more correctly Modalistic Monarchianism, is the belief that God is One Sentient Being, Who has revealed Himself in the three different modes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit, without altering His substance of deity in any way. 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 is called the Son; further, in reference to His presence in the lives of believers, is called the Holy Spirit. Father, Son and Holy Spirit are only different designations of the same subject—albeit, in different administrations.
The administrations of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are referenced as the “economy” of God. The present economy is not an eternal configuration of God, but serves as Yahweh’s economy to facilitate the redemption of a fallen creation. 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.
Oneness:the belief that God is one Sentient Being, manifested in three offices (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), and that Jesus is that one God-being in human form. There are no real differences between Oneness and Modalism.
Binitarianism:a belief in two sentient beings in one essence, “god family,” who are in perfect harmony/agreement with each other/one another, composed of the Father and the Son as two distinct god-persons, and the Holy Spirit as not a god, but rather as the living power of God that flows/emanates between both the Father and the Son.
Trinitarianism:The belief that God eternally exists as three sentient beings/individuals (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), each sharing one God nature/essence; each individual is fully God separate from the other two. In its modern form, Trinitarianism’s claim to monotheism is that of one God-nature. This one God-nature is, however, shared by three God-persons. Trinitarianism, in this view, has one “What” and three “Whos.” Having said that, it should be pointed out that, to many who hold this world view of the Godhead, the oneness is in the unity of the three persons. To this class of Trinitarianism, God is “One” in a compound sense. It is an evolved theology that did not reach any form of codification until the writing of the Athanasian Creed at some point in the seventh or eighth centuries. In some respects its form is still in flux, as is seen in those who claim monotheism from the one “nature” shared by the three god-persons (these confess that God is ONE ontologically), and those who claim monotheism from the total “unity” between the three god-persons.
Arianism:Named for Arius (A.D. 250 or 256–336), who was an ascetic North African Christian presbyter and priest in Alexandria, Egypt, of the church of Baucalis, and was of Libyan origins.Arius, who was tall, lean, learned, morally exemplar, a fine orator, and inclined to be disputatious, was educated in a theological school of Antioch under the distinguished scholar Lucian. This school was noted for its emphasis upon (1) the historical and inductive method of religious investigation, (2) the unity and transcendence of the Godhead. Combined with these was a tendency to regard Christ as a created being, subordinate to the Father, a view that affected Arius.
His teaching on the Godhead was the belief that God is One Sentient Being and that Jesus is His first creation; as such Jesus is His Son and may be called “God” in the second sense, and by association; mostly the Holy Spirit is viewed as the Spirit of God and not another person from Him. However, some Arians see Jesus as the archangel Michael, or even Gabriel. (Many groups who are Arians call themselves Unitarians.)
Arianism’s claim to monotheism is that the Father is the only true God, and, therefore, excludes Jesus of Nazareth from the Godhead in any real sense. In the Arian belief, Jesus is the first created being of God. (Modern institutionalized Arians are the Jehovah’s Witnesses, followers of Armstrongism, and the Way International.) However, they differ in their understanding of Christ’s relationship to the Father. The several distinct branches of Arianism which sometimes conflict with each other, as well as with the pro-Nicene homoousian creed (of the Monarchians), can be roughly broken down into the following classifications:
Homoiousianism: from ὅμοιος, hómoios, “similar” which maintains that the Son is “like in substance” but not necessarily to be identified with the essence of the Father;
Homoeanism: (also from hómoios) which declares that the Son is similar to God the Father, without reference to substance or essence. Some supporters of Homoian formulae also support one of the other descriptions. Other Homoians declare that God the Father is so incomparable and ineffably transcendent that even the ideas of likeness, similarity or identity in substance or essence with the subordinate Son and the Holy Spirit are heretical and not justified by the Gospels. They hold that the Father is like the Son in some sense, but that even to speak of ousia is impertinent speculation;
Heteroousianism: (includingAnomoeanism) which holds that God the Father and the Son were different in substance and/or attributes. A further word must be said concerning Anomoeanism: In 4th century Christianity, the Anomoeans, also spelled “Anomeans” and known also as Heterousians, Aëtians, or Eunomians, were a sect that upheld an extreme form of Arianism, which denied not only that Jesus Christ was of the same nature (consubstantial) as God the Father, but also that he was of like nature (homoiousian), as maintained by the semi-Arians.
The word “anomoean” comes from Greek ἀ(ν)- ‘not’ and ὅμοιος (homoios) ‘similar:’ “different; dissimilar.” In the 4th century, during the reign of Constantius II (337-361), this was the name by which the followers of Aëtius and Eunomius were distinguished as a theological party. The semi-Arians condemned the Anomoeans in the Council of Seleucia (Sept 27, 359). The Anomoeans, in turn, condemned the Semi-Arians in the councils of Antioch (341) and Constantinople (359), thereby, erasing the words “ousia” and “homoios” from the formula of Rimini and that of Constantinople. They wereadvocating that the Logos had not only a different substance, but also a different will from that of the Father. From that, they were to be called ἀνόμοιοι (anomoioi). In the 5th century, the Anomoean presbyter Philostorgius wrote an Anomoean Church history.
(The fourth century produced Arian creeds that attempted to replace the orthodox formula of Nicæa. The Arian creed produced at the Council of Constantinople (359) is given in both Greek and English in Addendum II, page 573 of this work.)
Semi-Arianismwas a middle-road position between the radical monotheism of Modalistic Monarchianism and the Subor-dinationism of the Arian party. Many at the first ecumenical council held at Nicæa (A.D. 325) denied being Arians, but were sympathetic to the man and his theology. It is acknowledged by historians that most at the council were unhappy with the Monarchian watchword “homoousios,” and would have much preferred “homoiousios.” (Homoousios means “same substance/essence” while homooiousios means “like or similar substance/essence.”) This larger group later rebelled and caused much trouble in the Church. Even the great champion of the Faith, Athanasius, was driven from his church on more that one occasion and replaced by Arian and Semi-Arian prelates. Eusebius of Caesarea was one of the leaders of the anti-homoousia group. Human nature being what it is, the middle-road won out in the end. Semi-Arianism, seeking to walk a middle-road between the monotheism of the Monarchians and the monotheism of the Arians, in time, produced a compromise position we now call Trinitarianism.
The Subordinationism of Arius can still be seen in Western Orthodoxy descendent from Rome, in the fact that they allow suffering in the person of God the Son, but cannot countenance suffering in the person of God the Father. Their charge of patri-passianism (the Father suffered) leveled at Modalism is proof that they do not quite see the Son as being as much God as they hold the Father to be. If this were not true, why would it make any difference whether it was the Father that suffered, or whether it was the Son? They call their doctrine Trinitarianism.
Likewise, the Subordinationism of Arius continues to be seen, and believed, in the Eastern Orthodox churches in the fact that the Eastern Orthodoxy views the Father as the proper and only fountainhead of deity. All deity flows from Father God. This is seen in their firm insistence that the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father. Now, that would not be a problem if they did not hold that the Son and the Holy Spirit were separate individuals from the Father—with their own centers of intellect, volition, and emotion.In this view, neither the Son nor the Holy Spirit is God quite the way the Father is God. They, also, call their doctrine Trinitar-ianism.
Unitarianism: Before we move from this chapter, a word must be said about Unitarianism. The label “Unitarian” can be con-fusing, because it is used to reference the adherents of Modalism/Oneness and Arianism. This is true because Unitarianism affirms the total unity of God as one sentient being: both Modalism and Arianism do that. (Unitarianism is in direct contrast to Trinitarianism that has re-defined “being” to mean “nature,” and affirms three sentient persons/entities/individuals within their one being or nature.) So, when reading material that is labeled “Unitarian,” or listening to a speaker who is speaking about “Unitarianism,” the reader, or the listener, should watch for qualifying statements to announce which type of Unitarianism the writer, or the speaker, is referencing. The Unitarian/Modalist will always affirm the full deity of Jesus Christ as being but another “mode” of the Father’s existence. The Unitarian/Arian will always deny the full deity of Jesus Christ, all together.
IN THE END, THEOLOGY IS THE HUMBLE PURSUIT OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOD.
The Jesus debate is a formal discussion on the person of Jesus Christ between the Modalist and Unitarian theologies. Modalism holds that God has manifested Himself in the economy of One triune being. The One Being existing in the different modes of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. While the Unitarian view holds that God is but one being Who is limited to the Father; that the Son is separate and distinct Being from the Father Who is not God, but the Son of God. Modalism (called Oneness in the twenty-first century) teaches the full deity of Jesus and His full humanity as well. the Arian view of Unitarianism represented by Willy Olmo in this book affirms the Father to be the only person of God and Jesus to be His Son.
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.
The Jesus Debate is a written debate between Bishop Jerry Hayes and Prof. Willy Olmo. This book contains all papers submitted between this two knowledgeable men. Bishop Hayes affirms and defends the Oneness of God; Prof. Olmo affirms and defends Arian Unitarianism.
The Hayes vs Mulbah Debate is a formal written debate on the subject of the Godhead, between Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Onenessarian) and Minister Andrew Mulbah (Trinitarian). This work contains the debate in its entirety plus other related material. Included are the two Creeds from which both disputants argue their respective views: The Apostolic Creed (the statement of faith for the Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian theology) and the Athanasian Creed (the official statement of faith for the Trinitarian theology).
the Jesus Debate: A Debate On The Person of Jesus, Between Modalism/Oneness and Arianism/Unitarianism
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.
The Jesus Debate is a written debate between Bishop Jerry Hayes and Prof. Willy Olmo. This book contains all papers submitted between this two knowledgeable men. Bishop Hayes affirms and defends the Oneness of God; Prof. Olmo affirms and defends Arian Unitarianism.
The Hayes vs Mulbah Debate is a formal written debate on the subject of the Godhead, between Bishop Jerry L Hayes (Onenessarian) and Minister Andrew Mulbah (Trinitarian). This work contains the debate in its entirety plus other related material. Included are the two Creeds from which both disputants argue their respective views: The Apostolic Creed (the statement of faith for the Oneness/Modalistic Monarchian theology) and the Athanasian Creed (the official statement of faith for the Trinitarian theology).
No comments:
Post a Comment