Culture of Speech

I took my place in the aisle seat on a flight from Chicago’s O'Hare to Buffalo New York. Between me and the window there were two other seats occupied the two lovely Catholic nuns. As we waited for the plane to begin its taxi to the runway, we introduced ourselves and engaged in small talk. We were less than five minutes into our light conversation, when the lady in the window seat leaned over and looked at me and said, "Jerry what part of West Tennessee are you from?" Now, I had not mentioned that I was from West Tennessee. I had boarded the plane in Chicago and there was nothing about me which announced that I was a person from the mid South, West Tennessee particularly. I asked the lady why she assumed I was from West Tennessee. She informed me that she was a linguist and if she could listen to me a few minutes more she would be able pinpoint my birth place within a 50 mile radius. I was impressed. 

Speech is important; its idioms and colloquialisms reveal much about us. We learn as much from the Word of God: In Matthew 26:73 Peter is approach for the third time, this time by a group of bystanders and identified as a follower of Jesus by his manner of speech (also see Mark 14:70). Just as I was identified by a stranger as being from West Tennessee by the manner in which I spoke, and just as Peter was identified as a Galilean by the same fashion, we as Christians should be identified as disciples of Christ by our speech. Not just that our speech should be holy and righteous without the crude elements of common street vernacular, but also by the vocabulary of our theology which is the focus of this writing. 

The apostle Paul writes to Titus that he should be of "sound speech that cannot be condemned” (Titus 2:5).  In 1 Corinthians chapter 14, Paul stresses the importance of clear and precise speech by which the church is edified. Here are his words: 

“The one who prophesies speaks to people for edification, exhortation, and consolation. … the one who prophesies edifies the church. Now I wish that you all spoke in tongues, but rather that you would prophesy; and greater is the one who prophesies than the one who speaks in tongues, unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edification.

“But now, brothers and sisters, …  how will I benefit you unless I speak to you either by way of revelation, or of knowledge, or of prophecy, or of teaching? Yet even lifeless instruments, whether flute or harp, in producing a sound, if they do not produce a distinction in the tones, how will it be known what is played on the flute or on the harp? For if the trumpet produces an indistinct sound, who will prepare himself for battle? So you too, unless you produce intelligible speech by the tongue, how will it be known what is spoken? For you will just be talking to the air. There are, perhaps, a great many kinds of languages in the world, and none is incapable of meaning. So if I do not know the meaning of the language, I will be unintelligible to the one who speaks, and the one who speaks will be unintelligible to me. So you too, since you are eager to possess spiritual gifts, strive to excel for the edification of the church.

“Therefore, one who speaks in a tongue is to pray that he may interpret. …  For otherwise, if you bless God in the spirit only, how will the one who occupies the place of the outsider know to say the “Amen” at your giving of thanks, since he does not understand what you are saying? For you are giving thanks well enough, but the other person is not edified. I thank God, I speak in tongues more than you all; nevertheless, in church I prefer to speak five words with my mind so that I may instruct others also, rather than ten thousand words in a tongue.” (1 Corinthians 14:3-19)

Speech, within the body of Christ, should be dedicated to the edification of the Church.

As Peter was identified as a follower of Christ by his speech, so too, should the same be said of us; especially those of us who are the inheritors of the first-century Christology known as Monarchianism. The church world should be able to identify us by our speech. The purpose of this writing is to introduce, and define, a certain fashion of speech, in the form of words and phrases, that are particular to modern Monarchain (aka: Oneness, Modalist) believers. These words are, as they should be, the shibboleth of Truth.

Just as any culture is established and defined by its language, the same is true of the Christian culture. There should be a language that defines us, a language that is our shibboleth. A Culture of Speech that if one does not speak he does not pass over the Jordan. (Judges 12:4-6)

Shibboleths of Monotheism

Theology is a branch of science as is any other ology. As such, theology has the right to use words in a specialized manner and to attach meanings to them that are different from their popular uses. But such term should not, must not, depart from their root meaning to such an extent as to remove all recognition of the word from logic. 

Listed here, in alphabetical order is a list of words and phrases (with their definitions) that are an intricate part of the Modalistic Monarchian (also called Oneness) society. 

Autotheos: The Self Existent God. 

When Modalism speaks of the Autotheos it is the Father that is referenced.

The Father is the Autotheos whom we meet in the very first verse of the Bible: “In the beginning God …” Genesis 1:1

Even the Creeds recognize the Father as such:

1. The Creed of Nicea: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; …”
2. The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed: “We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, of all things visible and invisible, …
3. The Apostles’ Creed: “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth:”
4. The Apostolic Creed: “I believe in one God, solitary in being; Maker of Heaven and Earth, and all things therein: by His eternal Word. That is to say: By the breath of his mouth. Thereby, and because of creation, reasonably termed the Father.”

To those who would postulate that the Autotheos was not Father until He created, and only at creation did He manifest Himself as Father, I would point out that he was the Father before creation by virtue of creational potentiality that was uniquely His property.

Being: Living and Rational.

In the word “Being” we mean a living Being, an individual, or entity. Those who say that God is One Being but three rational persons reveal their propensity to multiply gods. Their One Being is not sentient, not rational; it is the One God Nature. The Social Trinity, unlike Modalism, has a One God Nature which stands behind their three god-persons; they like to say that God is one What and three Whos. Unlike Modalism (who's Autotheos is the Father), Social Trinitarianism’s Autotheos is the one non-sentient What of their Godhead paradigm. This is a fourth element to their three Whos. Thus, their Godhead model is a quaternity. The paradigm of three Persons in One Being is unscriptural and smacks of Pantheism, Polytheism and Tritheism rolled into one. The Apostolic Creed states: “I believe in one God, solitary in being; … reasonably termed the Father.”

Christ: The Anointed.

The title Christ only properly references Jesus as the God/man. In the person of Jesus there is deity and humanity united, but not commingled so as to make but one unique nature: Jesus is at once the Anointer and the anointed—two natures. Jesus’ one person is such that He is acknowledged as the Creator God the Father, and also the Son of David, that is the Son of man—two natures (Ro 1:3-4). However, one is not to think of Jesus as being two persons, or two Sons of God. In the term “Christ” Christianity has the correct term for the God/man that maintains His singleness of person. He can, and is, biblically spoken of, at different times, as both God and man. Yet, when the Bible references Jesus as the Christ, the deity and the man are being referenced together. The Autotheos assumed to Himself (in the womb of Mary) a human being complete with human flesh, soul and spirit; in this enfleshing of the Almighty, the human Jesus was anointed by the Holy Spirit of God the Father (Ac 10:38; He 1:9). Thus, in the one Jesus there is the Anointer and the anointed, the Assumer and the assumed: the Christ.

Conception: The Action of Conceiving A Child.

When we speak of the conception of Mary, we mean it in a very real sense. The sacred Scriptures are clear that virgin Mary experienced a real conception (Mt 1:20; Lk 1:31). We should not think of Mary’s experience as being any different than any other woman’s conception, other than the sire was the Holy Spirit. Thus, when we speak of the Incarnation it is not an implantation that we mean. But a real conception. If an implantation: Mary, through a miracle, produced in her body the human Jesus and God implanted Himself into the child. This is a form of Adoptionism that Modalism rejects completely.

Upon the moment of conception, two species (Deity and human) united in the womb of Mary: two separate and distinct hypostases/ousie joined. I say joined, because it was not as simple as the man Christ Jesus being formed and then God entering that man. No, the Incarnation was a unification of humanity and deity. Since Mary conceived (the Bible is clear on that point), the seed of the woman and the Word united in her womb, in the same sense that the DNA of two parents, in the natural process, would be united. Now, when a human fetus is formed in the female womb, the baby that is produced is a biological composite of both parents, in that twenty-three chromosomes from each parent merge to form one complete cell of forty-six chromosomes, from which comes the complete person. Because the Bible states that Mary had a real conception, we should not think any different of her experience.

Dual Nature: Possessing two different and distinct ontological essences (ousie).

Concerning the Godhead, the Bible has made two very important pronouncements: First, that there is but One God; and second, that Jesus is God. Examples of these pronouncements are the texts from Isaiah 43:3, 11; 44:6, 8; 45:5, 18, 21, 22; 46:5, 9 and 9:6 respectively. Now, concerning Jesus, the Bible has made two very important announcements: First, that He is God (Isa 9:6; 1 Tim 3:16 and a multitude of other texts); and second, that He is a human being (Ro 1:3-4; 1 Tim 2:5 and a multitude of other texts).

As a Christian, my conscience has been taken captive by the Word of God—the Bible; so, I believe all the above are true. Namely, that there is but One Only God, and that that One God is Jesus; and, that Jesus is also a man while being God. The biblical teaching is that Jesus is unique from any other being that has ever lived, or will ever live, in that He has two natures: God and Man. These two natures are separate and distinct within the One Person of Jesus. In effect, Jesus has existence on two separate planes—divine and human.

The earthly ministry of Jesus was, mostly, lived out in His humanity—on the human plane. However, there are times in holy Scripture when the curtain (so to speak) is drawn back, and we are permitted to view His deity. In the Gospels, at times Jesus acted and spoke as God (e.g. walking on the water [Mt 14:22-33], raising the dead [John 11:38-44], forgiving sins [Mt 9:2], raising Himself from the dead [John 2:19-21], etc.); most of the time, however, Jesus acted and spoke as a man.

Given, here, is a clear and comprehensive didactic statement of faith for the Dual Nature, from The Apostolic Creed. Concerning Jesus of Nazareth, the Creed states:

“Who, because of us sinners, and for our salvation, became manifested in flesh. Conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary. This Incarnation not lessening His deity, nor altering His humanity; fully God and fully man, consubstantiated. Therefore, the angel named Him Jesus – Yahweh-Savior. As to his deity, He is the same essence, nature and being (homoousios) as the Father. As to His humanity, He is a like essence, nature and being (homoiousios) with us men. Thereby, and because of generation and redemption, reasonably termed the Son of God.” —The Apostolic Creed

The dual nature of Jesus is so taught in Scripture that none would hardly attempt to refute it; but to accept its obvious conclusions is a matter left to the bolder souls of the scholars.

Economy: Management of resources.

The Holy Scripture lets us know that in the beginning God existed as the Autotheos, known to us, through the Scriptures, as the Father. After the fall, the Father self-reveled Himself unto His creation as the Son and Holy Spirit in order to facility redemption. The administrations of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are referenced as the “economy” of God.

Economical Trinity: The arranging to three “Somethings” for a desired end.

In the line above I mentioned “The arranging to three “Somethings”, because it is not proper to call the Father, Son and Holy Spirit persons, in the modern sense of that word.  Person (in modern thought) denotes a mind and will; to say that within the one God nature are three minds and three wills is to avow tritheism. Therefore, the Autotheos arranged Himself into the economy of three modes (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) in order to facilitate redemption.          

Father: Progenitor, nourisher, protector and upholder.

The idea of “FATHER” is one of progenitor, nourisher, protector and upholder. In the Old Testament the concept of Yahweh as Father is not as fully developed as in the New Testament; although, He is acknowledged as such by the Psalmist (68:5; 89:26), and the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah (see Isa 9:6; 63:16; 64:8 and Jer 3:19; 31:9 respectively). Moreover, the New Testament magnified His capacity as creator, nourisher, protector, and upholder of all things in heaven and earth, both visible and invisible (Col 1:16), by His eternal Word (see John 1:1-3 and Heb 11:3 respectively). God’s Fatherhood is abundantly demonstrated in both Testaments. 

This fact sets the deity of the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures apart from the deity of the Islamic Qur’an. Of the much touted names of Allah in the Qur’an, not one of them is Father. It is acknowledged that for God to be one’s Father implies relationship. Therefore, the God of the Bible is a God of relationship, unlike the god of the Qur’an, who is impersonal and un-relational. 

The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews writes of the Father-hood of God on this wise: “Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?” (Heb 12:9; cf Zech 12:1). The prophet Malachi acknowledges one Father, who is the one God that created us (Mal 2:10). Congruent with all this is Apostle Paul, who writes: “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things,...” (1 Cor 8:6). Therefore, The Apostolic Creed states correctly that because of His acts of creation, it is reasonable to term (call) the one solitary Autotheos, the Father. 

“The Father is He to whom all that exists owes its origin. He is in Christ; and through Christ, He is the source of all things. Moreover, His existence is existence in itself, and He does not derive His existence from anywhere else. Rather, from Himself, and in Himself, He possesses the actuality of His being. He is infinite because He, Himself, is not contained in something else, and all else is within Him. He is always beyond location, because He is not contained; always before the ages, because time comes from Him.... God, however, is present everywhere; and everywhere He is totally present. 

“Thus, He transcends the realm of understanding. Outside of Him there is nothing, and it is eternally His characteristic that He shall always exist. This is the truth of the mystery of God, And of the impenetrable nature which this name Father expresses; God is invisible, unutterable, and infinite. In His presence, let a word about to be spoken remain silent; let a mind attempting to investigate admit its weariness; let an understanding which attempts to comprehend admit its own limitation. Yet, He has, as we have said, in the word Father a name to indicate His nature; but He is Father as such. For He does not, as humans do, receive His Fatherhood from elsewhere. He Himself is unbegotten and eternal; and it is His property, eternally in Himself, that He shall always be.” (Hilary of Poitiers, A.D. 310-367) 

God: The Autotheos, i.e. the Almighty.

With the term God the Christian means: the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the Supreme Being. According to Holy Scripture there is but one such Being (Deuteronomy 6:4; Malachi 2:10). The one God of Scripture (the Autotheos) is rational and sentient—God is not a mere nature shared among other rational and sentient beings.

Homoousios: Same being.

Homoousios is the Greek term employed by the 318 bishops present at Nice, Asia Minor, in A.D. 325 (who gave us the Creed of Nicæa—not to be confused with the Nicene Creed) to state the relationship of the Son to the Father. It is a compound word: homo, being same, and ousia, meaning being. This word (long the watchword of the Monarchain’s), which declares Jesus to be the same Being as the Father, became the battle cry of the orthodox from the fourth century onward. It appears in the Creed of Nicæa in the statement: “ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί” - “of one being with the Father”. This word, alone, is reason enough for Modalistic Monarchian (Oneness) believers to embrace the first Council of Nicæa (A.D. 325), and its Creed, as their own.

The introduction of the Greek word “homoousios” to the Creed of Nicæa in A.D. 325, by the Monarchian bishops, saved orthodoxy from the subordinationism of the followers of Arius.  Homoousios is a compound word: homo, meaning same, and ousia meaning being (Greek), and substance, essence, nature (Latin). Thus, Jesus is the same Being as the Father—as to His deity. In The Apostolic Creed the phrase “He is the same essence, nature, and being as the Father” is taken from the word “homoousios.” We must emphasize that the word of importance is “homoousios” and not “homoiusios;” the only (but huge) difference is the letter “i.” This is the Greek letter iota. Homoousios (without the iota) means: same being; while, “homoiousios”  (with the iota) means: a “like”  or “similar” substance, essence, nature or being.  It is in the difference between these two Greek words that we get the saying: “There is not an iota of difference.” In cultural (pop) thought “iota” has come to mean something small; but in the beginning of the Godhead debate, it was the difference between Jesus being worshipped as the Almighty God, or simply relegated to a demi-god status. The fact is: between these two words, the iota makes all the difference between being the same Deity, or being another deity that is “like” or “similar” to THE Deity. Jesus is not “like” or “similar” to the Father (homoi) in His deity, He is the “same” (homo). The creedal statement from the Creed of Nicæa “Light of Light” and “very God of very God” is a restating of homoousios, and is, therefore, a double affirmation of the oneness of the Godhead. “Light of Light” is not to be thought of as one would light one torch from another torch (as suggested by Gregory of Nyssa), producing multiple torches, therefore, multiple lights. Such a view would suggest multiple gods proceeding from an original God. To safeguard from such a suggestion, the Creed of Nicæa says in the same breath, “very God of very God;” thus, intimating that the Light is the same, not another, Light—such as the God Jesus Christ is the “very” God the Father—and, not another god. Light from Light should not be thought of as one would light one torch from another torch, but as the sunlight proceeds from the sun. One may point to the star in the daytime sky and announce: “There is the sun.” The same one may reference the rays coming through the clouds, or a window pane, and with truth announce: “I see the sun shining through the clouds, and/or through the window pane.” And yet, while feeling the warm sun rays on one’s skin one may announce: “I feel the sun on my skin.” These different “modes” of the sun are all of the selfsame sun—not another. So should we think of the Logos (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit, as being the emanating forth of Yahweh into His created universe. “Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; ...” (John 8:42).

Hypostasis: That which is the core reality of existence (ousia).

Hypostasis is used in Christian theology to indicate the primary essence: The underlining essential part of an individual that has its own self-existence. Thus, God is but one hypostasis. We, then take the meaning as understood by the 318 bishops present at the Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325. We, then, are in agreement with the Creed of the 318 bishops when they said: “... But as for those who ... assert that the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or being, or created, or is subject to alteration or change - these the catholic and apostolic Church anathematizes.” The Greek text is “ἑτέρας ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσιάς” — “different hypostasis or ousia”; thus, showing the bishops’ understanding of the two words: to the bishops they were synonymous.

Hypostatic Union: The uniting of the divine and human natures in the one person of Christ.

Making up the unique person of Christ are two distinct natures: God and man. These two natures are not ontologically the same, or even similar. They are two different hypostases, or ousie: two species. The union of these two ousie in one person is called the Hypostatic Union: two hypostases united into one being.

Incarnation: Literally, enfleshing.

In Christianity the doctrine of the incarnation states that God, personally, became united with humanity in the person of Christ Jesus (John 1:14). This enfleshing of Yahweh took place in the act of the virgin Mary’s conception (Mt 1:20,23; Lk 1:30-33; Ro 1:3-4)—not at the baptism of Jesus, nor at His resurrection. 

The results of the incarnation is stated succinctly in The Apostolic Creed: “This Incarnation not lessening His deity, nor altering His humanity; fully God and fully man, consubstantiated. Therefore, the angel named Him Jesus— Yahweh Savior. As to His deity, He is the same essence, nature, and being as the Father. As to His humanity, He is a like essence, nature, and being with us men. Thereby, and because of generation and redemption, reasonably termed the Son of God.” 

Mystical Union: Hypostatic Union.

Mystical Union, in Godhead Theology, is another way of saying “Hypostatic Union.” This term may be used by those who are uncomfortable or uncertain concerning the complexities of the uniting of God and man in the incarnation, but, yet, believe it is true. So, instead of using a term which addresses the plural hypostases, it is preferred to state that the union is a mystery. Thus, we have the term: Mystical Union.

Modal/ist/ism/istic: the existence of a substance in different forms which leaves the said substance unchanged.

The term modal (which is the root of the word modalist, modalism and modalistic) simply means mode. Mode is a particular form or manifestation of an underlying substance. Therefore, in Godhead theology we say that God is only one hypostasis, or ousia (Being, Substance, Essence, Nature). Thus, the Godhead paradigm of Modalism teaches God to be but one rational and sentient Being that exists simultaneously in three different modes: the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Modalistic Trinitarianism: Three modal expressions of one God.

Modalistic Trinitarianism is the expression of God as one sentient Being (the Autotheos) in three different modes: Father, Son and Holy Spirit. This is biblical trinitarianism. The evidence of Holy Scripture is that God has revealed Himself as three somethings. Certainly, not persons, in the modern understanding of that term, which demands individual self-awareness, which, in turn, demands separate minds within God. In that Modalism recognizes the distinctions of Father, Son and Holy Spirit within the Godhead, certainly, then, there is a trinity of something there. Modalism confesses all three of these somethings to be God, yet not each other: the Father is not the Son or the Holy Spirit, nor is the Son the Father or the Holy Spirit, and neither is the Holy Spirit the Son or the Father, as to the administration’s and offices, though the self same rational and sentient Autotheos. Thus, Modalism says that the trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different ways of being (or modes) of the Autotheos.

Monarchian/ism: One only ruler.

A Monarchian is one that believes in a monarchy. The word monarch is taken from two words: mono, meaning one; and arch, meaning ruler. Thus, in Godhead theology a monarchian is one who believes in one only Supreme Sentient Being as God. Monarchianism is the belief system of the Monarchy of the Autotheos.

Monotheism: The belief in one only God.

Monotheism is a compound word: Mono, meaning one; and theism, meaning belief in God. Thus, monotheism is the belief in one only God. This position of the Christian faith receives its codification in the Shema (De 6:4), “Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:” (KJV). This creedal Scripture is the absolute Gatekeeper of the Christian Faith.

Oneness: The fact or state of being one in number.

In the terms employed in Godhead discussion, “Oneness” is often juxtaposed to “Trinity”. In this type of comparison the term “Oneness” sets forth the doctrinal thesis that God is a radical ONE rational and sentient Being, without peer or companion. The Oneness theology is that this ONE rational and sentient Being has manifested Himself to His creation as the Father in creation, as the Son in generation and redemption, and as the Holy Spirit in emanation and sanctification. It is the same subject in all three manifestations. As the term is juxtaposed to the word “Trinity” it is often pointed out that the Bible never identifies God as three, but everywhere and always God is said to be ONE.

Ontology/ical: The study of reality, especially of things pertaining to God.

The root of every philosophy, says  Tillich, is the ontological question: What is "being." What is "real." What is "ultimate reality beyond everything that seems to be real?” 

One hears a lot concerning ontological argument or proof as concerning God. These voices  contend that since our idea of God is that of a perfect being and since existence is part of perfection, our idea of God is an idea of a necessarily existent being. This argument, used by Anselm and Descrates is repeated by Thomas Aquinas.

In a study of the Godhead, the theoretical philosophy of ontology is employed to demonstrate that God is ontologically diverse from his creation, which includes mankind. Thus, it is said that God is ontologically one while man is ontologically another. This concept of philosophy comes into play when considering the person of Christ, Whom the Bible presents as both ontologically God and ontologically man. Christ, then, is the possessor of two realities. 

Orthodox/y: Possessing the accepted theological and philosophical views.

Among the Oneness/Modalist Christians, orthodox refers to the orthodoxy of the Lord’s apostles and the Church leading up to Nicæa (A.D. 325). Twenty-first century Oneness/Modalist orthodoxy does not consider the creeds to be orthodox when they depart from the New Testament teachings of the Lord’s apostles and their surrogates. Therefore the basis of true orthodoxy is the holy Bible and not the third testament of the creeds as touted by social trinitarianism. 

Monotheism orthodoxy confesses the four following things, without which one cannot be apostolically orthodox: 

1. God is one rational, and sentient, Being called the Father (Deu 6:4; 1 Cor 8:6); 
2. The Father was incarnated in Christ Jesus at His conception (Mt 1:23; Ias 9:6); 
3. The Hypostatic Union (two natures [God and man] in Christ) is a reality (Isa 9:6; Rom 1:3-4); 
4. The Son and the Holy Spirit are self revelations of the Father (John 12:45; 14:9; 14:16-18, 26; Col 1:26 respectively). 

Ousia: Being (Greek), substance, essence, nature (Latin).

The Greek οὐσία is analogous to the English participle being and the adjectival ontic used in contemporary philosophy. Ousia is often translated (sometimes incorrectly, sometimes not) to Latin as substantia and essentia, and to English as substance and essence. Martin Heidegger said that the original meaning of the word ousia was lost in its translation to the Latin, and, subsequently, in its translation to modern languages. For him, ousia means Being, not substance, that is, not some thing or some being that “stood” (-stance) “under” (sub-). Moreover, he also uses the bi-nomial parousia-apousia, denoting presence-absence, and hypostasis denoting existence. It is the original meaning, then, from the Greek, of “Being” that we wish to emphasize: as the term ‘Being” would relate to essence, nature or substance, and these terms understood within the confines of “Being,” and that “Being” sentient.

Person: Persona.

The English word “person” is from the Latin persona; which comes into the Latin from the Greek prosōpon. Prosōpon is a word from the Greek stage. It means mask or face; as one actor would use different faces or masks to represent different characters. It is interesting that the English dictionary does, indeed, give this definition for the word person; but by the way we use and understand the word, hardly anyone would know it.  In fact Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary states the following for the word person: “Latin, persona, actor’s mask, character in a play, person, ... ;” then definition #2. A character or part in or as in a play: GUISE; definition #3. one of the three modes of being in the Trinitarian Godhead as understood by Christians (underlining, mine). Then there is definition 5. The individual personality of a human being: SELF. Please note definition #3, from above: “one of the three modes of being... .”

Any theological study of the term “person,” as it relates to God, must come from the biblical use of the word prosōpon, rendered in our English Bibles as person. Joseph Henry Thayer says concerning prosōpon:  “Hebraistically, the appearance one presents by his wealth or poverty, his rank or low condition; outward circumstances, external condition; so used in expressions which denote to regard the person in one’s judgment and treatment of man... .”  Prosopon is rendered “person” in the following scriptures, which have the persona of power, wealth, and/or influence of an individual (or individuals) in view—not the physical being: 

• Matthew 22:16 “And they sent out unto him their disciples with the Herodians, saying, Master, we know that thou art true, and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest thou for any man: for thou regardest not the person of men.” 
• Mark 12:14 “...thou regardest not the person of men, ...” 
• Luke 20:21 “neither acceptest thou the person of any, ...” 
• 2 Corinthians 2:10 “To whom ye forgive any thing, I forgive also: for if I forgave any thing, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ;”  
• Galatians 2:6 “God accepteth no man's person.”  
• Jude v16 “These are murmurers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.” 

While the above list of Scriptures establishes our point, a text that sweeps all clouds from the sky is Matthew 16:2-3. Here, Jesus is rebuking the Pharisees and Sadducees for not recognizing the “signs of the times.” He says to them: “When it is evening, ye say, It will be fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, It will be foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowering. O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not discern the signs of the times?” Jesus referenced the appearance (persona) of the sky on any given occasion as the “πρόσωπον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ” “face of the sky.” The Greek “πρόσωπον” (prosōpon) is translated as “face.” The sky can have many different “faces” or “persons.” In this biblical sense, “person” has its basic and primary meaning of “mask.” One would do well to consider the words of Karl Barth: “It is obvious that the ancient concept of person, which is the only possible one here, has now become obsolete.” (He is speaking of the Trinity.) … At the point where earlier dogmatics and even modern Roman Catholic dogmatics speak of persons, we preferred to call the Father, Son and Spirit of God the three distinctive modes of being of the one God subsisting in their relationships one with another.” (Bolding, mine.)

We may add to the lists of scholars Anglican priest and theologian Alister McGrath: “The word ‘person’ has changed its meaning since the third century when it began to be used in connection with the ‘threefoldness of God’. When we talk about God as a person, we naturally think of God as being one person. But theologians such as Tertullian, writing in the third century, used the word ‘person’ with a different meaning. The word ‘person’ originally derives from the Latin word persona, meaning an actor’s face-mask—and, by extension, the role which he takes in a play. By stating that there were three persons but only one God, Tertullian was asserting that all three major roles in the great drama of human redemption are played by the one and the same God. The three great roles in this drama are all played by the same actor: God. Each of these roles may reveal God in a somewhat different way, but it is the same God in every case. So when we talk about God as one person, we mean one person in the modern sense of the word, and when we talk about God as three persons, we mean three persons in the ancient sense of the word. ... Confusing these two senses of the word ‘person’ inevitably leads to the idea that God is actually a committee” (Alister McGrath in Understanding the Trinity pages 130-131).

Pluralist: Plural, not single.

In Godhead theology a Pluralist is one who presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as plural selves, as does the Social Trinity; or, one who presents the Father and Son as plural selves, as does all forms of Arianism.

Rational: Self-aware.

In Godhead theology when we say that the One God Being is rational we mean that He is self-aware, with His own intellect, will and emotion. This is in opposition to the One God Nature of Social Trinitarianism that is not rational, is not self-aware.

Sentient: to have feelings.

When we say that the one Being of God is sentient we mean to say that He feels, has emotions; therefore, He is self-aware. This is in opposition to the one God nature of Social Trinitarianism which is non-sentient.

Social Trinitarianism: Three God-Persons in society.

Social Trinitarianism presents the Father, Son and Holy Spirit as three distinct God-Persons, each with His own center of intellect, will and emotion. Each self-aware and aware of the other two. Within this Godhead paradigm the three self-aware God-Persons have relationship with each other. Thus, they three form a society and relate to each other societally. 

Son of God: He Who has proceeded from the Father.

When we consider Jesus being the Son of God, because of His “generation,” we have the event of God Himself being birthed into our world through the matrix of a woman’s womb. The Greek New Testament renders John 1:18 thusly, “θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε: μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. Here John calls Jesus “monogenēs theos” English: “only (uniquely) begotten God.” In this case it is the Incarnated God that is called the Son—because of His having undergone generation. Therefore, in this sense, it is not the humanity of Christ alone, that the Scripture designates as the Son, but the God-man as He is in Himself. It is in this sense that the ancient Monarchians viewed the Son of God as God. This definition must be allowed because of the weight of manuscript evidence for John 1:18. To confirm this view, one is reminded of the use of the phrase “son of... .” One is said to be the “son of” whatever he exemplifies or manifests. One who dwells in the desert is said to be a “Son of the Desert.” Also, in this way the brothers James and John were surnamed Boanerges (“Sons of Thunder” Mark 3:17); and, Joses’ name was changed by the apostles to Barnabas (“Son of Consolation” Acts 4:36). Thus, these persons were understood to be the very nature, character, or essence of what they were the “sons” of. Understanding this helps us comprehend the encounter between Jesus and the Jews in John chapter 10, where Jesus had said that He and the Father were One. The Jews then took up stones to stone Him. Jesus asked them for what good work they were preparing to stone Him. They said clearly, “For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God” (John 10:33). Jesus, in His defense said, “You say I blaspheme because I said, I am the Son of God.” To the Jews, then, Jesus had called Himself God because He said He was the Son of God. As one is the “Son of the Desert”, or “Sons of Thunder”, or the “Son of Consolation,” Jesus was the Son of God. He embodied all that was God the Father (John 10:30ff; 1 Timothy 3:16; Colossians 2:9). This, then, makes Peter’s confession more powerful than we ever knew, when he proclaimed: “Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God” —Matthew 16:16.

One should not think it strange that the Father BECAME His own Son, when he accomplished the feat of Himself coming among His creation in a physical form through the Incarnation, as that Incarnation was accomplished through generation in a woman's womb. Therefore, we may say, straightforwardly, that by the Father undergoing generation He BECAME His own Son. Thus, we are brought into agreement with John 1:18 as that passage references Mary's baby as "The only (uniquely) begotten God.”

Nonetheless, it is not proper to say the Son is the Father, but it is proper to say: “He who became the Son is the Father.”

Son of Man: The human Christ.

Just as we should think of the title “Son of God” as referencing the Deity of Christ, so should we think of the title “Son of Man” as having reference to the humanity of Christ. The Apostle Paul highlights this in Romans 1:3, “Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;”

Third Testament: The ecumenical creeds.

Creeds are statements of faith. The word “ecumenical” has its origin in the Greek word oikoumenē: ‘the (inhabited) earth’. So, then, ecumenical creeds were meant to establish the orthodoxy of all Christian churches throughout the inhabited earth. Because, so much of what became Christian doctrine is not explicitly found in the Bible, creeds were formulated to articulate the tenants of faith that developed in the post apostolic age. Because these formulas of doctrine became authoritative in establishing post apostolic orthodoxy, they are considered a third testament which exercises authority over the first two (Old and New Testaments, i.e. the Bible). Apostolic Christians (Modalists) reject the creeds as authoritative over the holy Scripture which we call the Christian Bible. 

Trinitarianism: The system of philosophy that promotes the Trinity. There are basically two paradigms of the Trinity: the Social Trinity that is mostly propagated in the West (Roman Catholic and Protestant), and the Monarchian Trinity that is propagated in the East. (The Oneness/Modalist Godhead paradigm is, indeed, a Monarchian Trinity.)

Trinity: Means: tri-unity.

The biblical Christian may take the word "Trinity" in its generic meaning of "three in unity." Also, he would acknowledge that the Bible does present the Godhead as being three "somethings." Persons, we are agreed, is a poor (if not totally unmanageable) descriptor for the three distinctions in the Godhead. Augustine says: "three somewhats"; Anselm, "three I know not what"; Karl Barth, "three ways of being" or "three modes"; Professor Moses Stuart and Sabellius before him say "distinctions." It was John Calvin that articulated it clearly, but it was Watts that brought it to America, where Stuart took up the phrase and made it a pillar of New England Trinitarianism: "A threefold distinction in the Godhead." 

Tritheism: The belief in three Gods.

“The World Book Doctonary” (A Thorndike-Barnhart Dictionary), Copyright 1991, gives the following as the definition of tritheism: 

“n. the belief in three Gods, especially the doctrine that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost of the Christian Trinity are three distinct Gods. [< tri + Greek theós god + English -ism]”

It is interesting that a world-class dictionary such as "The World Book Dictionary" would single out the Social Trinity as it's only illustration of tritheism

Tritheist: An individual who believes in three Gods.

See the comments on “Tritheism”.

Apostolically Speaking

☩ Jerry L Hayes