Social Trinitarianism, A Building Built On A Foundation of Misrepresentations.

Cult of Lies

As far as history is concerned Tritheistic Social Trinitarianism has always misrepresented itself and its enemies. It is the Cult of Lies.

Historically Proven Misrepresentations of Social Trinitarianism about itself:

1. The Athanasian Creed was written by Bishop Athanasius:

In modern times a forger will appropriate another's work and signed their name to it to deceive people that they themselves were the authors of said work. In ancient times, much of the time, it worked the other way around. A forger would write a doctrinal thesis that was heresy but in order to get it accepted would place an honorable person's name to it to pretend that the honorable person was the one who actually wrote it. Such is the case with the Athanasian creed.

Concerning Athanasius of Alexendria

A few words must be said concerning Bishop Athanasius who was the great champion of the homoousian creed of Nicæa. At the time of the council he was only a deacon under Bishop Alexander who had excommunicated Arius. It was this trouble that occasioned the Council of Nicæa in the first place. Alexander was an aged man and his deacon, Athanasius, represented him in the debates that ensued at Nicaea with Arius. After the Council and after Bishop Alexander died and the deacon Athanasius became bishop, the war between the two Christologies continued to rage. As the battle lines between Monarchianism and Subordinationism moved back and forth in the Empire, Athanasius found himself expelled from his see in Alexandria, Egypt on several occasions. At one point he was received into the sanctuary offered by the bishop of Rome, Julius, along with Marcellus, bishop of Ancyra, who was expelled from his see by the same forces that opposed Athanasius—headed up by Eusebius of Caesarea, a semi-Arian. Eusebius did sign the Creed of Nicæa, but was one, of the many, that was unhappy with the homoousius clause.

Athanasius died May 2nd, 373; eight years before his creed (Creed of Nicaea, the creed of the 381 bishops) underwent renovation and innovations at Constantinople in 381. Had he been alive, and could have given his voice to the debates, it is doubtful that the "Creed of Nicæa" would have been so violated.

Concerning the creed that bears Athanasius’ name: there is no evidence of the Athanasian Creed dating earlier than the late 8th century. Athanasius was the deacon of a strong and outspoken Monarchian bishop (Alexander), and has been identified as a Monarchian, himself. The creed that bears his name is a developed and polished statement of the Trinity that Athanasius would not have recognized.

This traditional attribution of the creed to Athanasius was first called into question in 1642 by Dutch Protestant theologian G.J. Voss, and it has since been widely accepted by modern scholars that the creed was not authored by Athanasius. According to authorities it is of Latin origin—Athanasius wrote in Greek.

Reasons commonly given for the rejection of Athanasius' authorship of the Athanasian Creed are:

1. The creed originally was most likely written in Latin, while Athanasius composed Greek.
2. Neither Athanasius nor his contemporaries ever mentioned the Creed.
3. It is not mentioned in any records of the ecumenical councils.
4. It appears to address theological concerns that developed after Athanasius died (including the filioque -- Third Council of Toledo late sixth century 589 ).
5. It was most widely circulated among Western Christians.
6. There is no written evidence of it before the late 8th century -- Athanasius died in the late 4th century -- a time span of some 400 years.

2. The Apostles Creed was written by the 12 apostles, each contributing a separate line, just before departing on their separate missions fields:

Apostles' Creed", Dictionary of the Christian Church, Oxford University Press, 2005, p. 90, ISBN 978-0192802903.

The tradition of assigning each article to one of the apostles specifically can be traced to the 6th century. In Western sacral art, Credo Apostolorum refers to the figurative representation of the twelve apostles each alongside one of the articles. This artistic tradition extends from the high medieval to the Baroque period.

The precise division of the text and the sequence of attribution to the apostles has never been entirely fixed. For example, Pelbartus Ladislaus of Temesvár, writing in the late 15th century, divides article 5 in two but combines articles 11 and 12 into one, with the following attributions: 1. Peter, 2. John, 3. James, son of Zebedee, 4. Andrew, 5a. Philip, 5b. Thomas, 6. Bartholomew, 7. Matthew, 8. James, son of Alphaeus, 9. Simon the Zealot, 10. Jude Thaddaeus, 11.–12. Matthias.

(Sermones Pomerii de Sanctis II. Pars aestivalis. Sermo XXVII.: Item in divisionis apostolorum festo. Hagenau 1499.)

"The earliest appearance of what we know as the Apostles' Creed was in the De singulis libris canonicis scarapsus (“Excerpt from Individual Canonical Books”) of St. Pirminius (Migne, Patrologia Latina 89, 1029 ff.), written between 710 and 714 (Kelly, JND (1972), Early Christian Creeds (third ed.), London: Longman, Green & Co, pp. 398–434.) The longer Creed seems to have arisen in what is now France and Spain. Charlemagne imposed it throughout his dominions. What is certain is that it could not be any earlier than the latter half of the 5th century.” (Godhead Theology, First Edition, Bp. J. L. Hayes, pg 130)

3. The Teaching of the Twelve Disciples (the Didache) is a first century document, in its entirety:

The Didache, or The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, though ancient (in part) is anything but the teachings of the apostles of our Lord. Though there is evidence of very early references to its use, it was not in its present form. True, a document called the “Didache” was in use among the churches in Syria as early as 100-110 A. D., but not the document discovered by Philotheos Bryennios in 1873 while in Istanbul, in the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulcher, and made public in 1883. It is demonstrated that this present document has been added to over the millennia. Just how much of the present document belongs to those earliest references is, most likely, impossible to tell. 

Question: Is the Didache a reliable document? 

Answer: There are some things in the Didache which teach directly opposite from the teachings of Jesus. An example is its teaching on the conduct of traveling preachers. Jesus taught to stay in one house (home) while in a particular town (Mark 6:10), but the Didache teaches otherwise (chapter 11). Therefore, it is most likely a document of some fringe Christian sect. In that the Didache contains both the single name formula for Water Baptism as well as that of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost (chapters 7 and 9 respectively), it is very likely that it is a revision of an original which may have been more reliable. 

Mark 6:10, Also He said to them, “In whatever place you enter a house, stay there till you depart from that place.”  

Didache ch 11:4-6 “Let every Apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord, 5 but let him not stay more than one day, or if need be a second as well; but if he stay three days, he is a false prophet. 6 And when an Apostle goes forth let him accept nothing but bread till he reach his night's lodging;”

Didache 7:1 “baptize, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, in running water;” 9:5 “But let none eat or drink of your Eucharist except those who have been baptized in the Lord's Name.” 

(Bishop’s Epistle, by Mar David Ignatius, May 7th, 2019)

The following summary on the Didache is gleaned from the following sources: Michael W. Holmes, J.B. Lightfoot, J.R. Harmer, Bruce M. Metzger, Robert A. Kraft, Jonathan A. Draper, Kurt Niederwimmer, Aaron Milavec, Clayton N. Jefford, Christopher Tuckett, Andrew Gregory, Willy Rordorf, Eusebius of Caesarea.

• Originated as a Jewish document that was reworked to fit Christians.
• The Didache, is a  compost document: Earliest portions may be dated to late 1st century. With other positions added in later periods.
• Latin version of the first five chapters was discovered in 1900 by J. Schlecht.
• The earliest sections are a second-generation Christian writing known as the Apostolic Fathers. 
• Didache was rediscovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, Metropolitan of Nicomedia,
• It is colored by Montanism. — Hilgenfeld
• Two water baptism formulas mentioned: one early and one late.
• Two Lord Suppers mentioned: one early and one late.
• Father-centric, not Christ-centric.
• Jesus is presented as the servant of God, not as God.
• Most likely originated among a Syrian group of believers that did not acknowledge Christ as God.
• Eusebius identifies it as a spurious writing (AD 324).
• Rejected by Nicephorus (AD 810), Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople: April 12, 806 - March 13, 815.
• Birds of a feather: Present Greek version discovered by Bryennios (1873;  composed in the 11th century), in the same codex with the long version of Ignatius’ letters which are proven to be forgeries.

4. The Nicene Creed was written by the 318 bishops present at Nicæa in AD 325; 

Not known to many are the major differences between the “Creed of Nicæa” and what is called the “Nicene Creed.” The latter is what is recited in churches each Sunday all over the world, the former is the actual Rule of Faith formulated at Nicæa in A.D. 325. 

The “Creed of Nicæa” (also called the “Creed of the 318” for the number of bishops who signed it at the Council of Nicæa — according to Athanasius) was formulated around the word, “homoousios,” which was the watchword of the Modalists. The purpose of the council was to formulate a common creed that would put the followers of Arius out of fellowship. The Modalist Monarchians’ watchword, “homoousios”, would do the trick, so to speak, in that if used of Jesus and the Father it would insist that they were the same substance (ousia), being, or essence. The word was most likely suggested by Hosius, Bishop of Cordova in what is now Spain. He was the Emperor's chaplain. (Contrary to legend, the Roman church had little to do with this council. The Roman bishop, Sylvester, was not in attendance and had no signatures on the rule of faith formulated there—he was represented by two deacons.) 

If the thinking of the time is understood and considered: namely, that the “Son” was the “thought” (Word) of the Father, which had eternality with the Father—for who can conceive of God without His thought—who (the Word) was indeed the same as the Father (homoousios), then the Creed of Nicæa is a Monarchian document, not Trinitarian. 

According to J. N. D. Kelly, the majority of the 318 bishops were uncomfortable with the Creed formulated at Nicæa (being, themselves Semi-Arians, or having sympathizes for the followers of Arius), but were forced to sign the Creed in that it was the only wording that the Arians could not sign, and was that which was favored by the Emperor, as advised by Hosius. 

Concerning the Council of Nicæa and the Creed it produced, this author does happen to have some very definite thoughts: 

1. I believe it was a council that was dominated by the Modalist
   bishops present, even though they may not have been the majority. The Creed produced there is not the document today called the “Nicene Creed.” Said clearly: The “Creed of Nicæa” is not the “Nicene Creed.” 
2. The “Creed of Nicæa” is also called the “Creed Of The 318” for the 318 bishops present, and who signed it. 
3. The Creed of Nicæa introduced the watchword of Modalism: “homoousia.” This affirmed the deity of the Son and the deity of the Father to be homo-ousia, or the same being. 
4. The president of the Council was most likely Hosius of Cordova Spain; it was he that convinced the Emperor to insist on the word “homoousia.” 
5. The Creed of the 318 contained an anathema for all who said that the Father and Son were different hypostases. (A later Creed anathematized all who said that the Father and the Son were the same hypostasis). 
6. The Creed of the 318 did not mention the Holy Spirit as having separate personhood from the Father. 
7. What is called the Nicene Creed was formulated at Constantinople [A.D. 381] and contains innovations that changed the true Creed of Nicæa completely: 
1. Introduces the eternally begotten Son; 
2. Removes the anathema; 
3. Introduces the Son and the Holy Spirit as separate
   individuals to be worshipped, along with the Father; 
4. Introduces Mary as a partner of the Incarnation; 
5. Places Jesus at the right hand of the Father (literally); 
6. Has the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father, later, “and
   from the Son” was added. Just when this change took place is in dispute: at first it was said to be at the First Council of Toledo in A.D. 400, but that is based on a forged canon; then it was commonly stated that it was added at the Third Council of Toledo, in A.D. 589; but what can be said in truth is that the first documented appearance in the Nicene Creed of the statement “from the Father and the Son” comes in the Twelfth Council of Toledo (A.D. 689). 

(“Godhead Theology” by Bishop Jerry L Hayes, pages 125-127)

5. 1 John 5:7, the "Three Are One" text is canon;

Supporters of Trinitarianism have very few passages in the Bible where all three titles, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, (or like terms) appear together; 1 John 5:7 is a most important one. When appealing to biblical support for their creedal statement “three in one,” this text is foundational. As uncomfortable as it is for this writer, doctrinal integrity compels me to look at the canonicity of this text. 

Given modern scholarship, it can no longer be said that the jury is out concerning 1 John 5:7. All but the most radical King James Version advocates seem to agree that 1 John 5:7 (called the Johannine Comma) is not found in any of the oldest Greek manuscripts of 1 John, and none of the very early church fathers include it when quoting or referencing 1 John 5:7-8. The presence of the Johannine Comma in Greek manuscripts is actually quite rare until the 15th century A.D.; it is primarily found in Latin manuscripts. The scholarly consensus is that that passage is a Latin corruption that entered the Greek manuscript tradition in subsequent copies. Thus, it is a forgone conclusion that the Johannine Comma is a spurious text.

(Adapted from “Godhead Theology” by Bishop Jerry L Hayes, 2015, page 478).

6. The long version of the 7 letters of Ignatius were his actual original letters:

The seven letters by Ignatius accepted as authentic are: Ephesians, Magnesians, Trallians, Romans, Philadelphians, Smyrnæans, and Polycarp. These epistles were written very close together in the same year (A.D. 107), during the trip from Antioch to Rome. Many other writings carry Ignatius’ name but have now been proven spurious; written to make Ignatius a voice on the side of much later church debates such as Arianism and Maryology. These seven letters exist in three recensions: Long, Middle, and Short. It is accepted that the middle recension is the Ignatius’ original. It is clear that the “long recension” seeks to remove references to the deity of Jesus at every opportunity. It is, therefore accepted that it was forged in support of the subordinationism of Arius and his followers. (“The Apostolic Orthodox Church” by Mar David Ignatius, 2015, Seventh Millennium Publication, page 19)

There were false letters claiming to be from Ignatius of Antioch. These forgeries are themselves ancient, so Catholics and Orthodox for centuries believed that Ignatius of Antioch had written 13 letters. Protestants, including Calvin, often rejected all 13, since they seemed too Catholic. Today, nearly everyone agrees that there are 7 letters (called the “Middle Recension”) which were altered in the late fourth century (creating what’s called the “Long Recension,” a blend of real and pseudo-Ignatius). So here is the threefold distinction:

1. Long Recension – These were the 13 letters attributed to Ignatius of Antioch. Copies of this Long Recension are found in both Greek and Latin. It includes both altered versions of Ignatius’ actual letters and entirely-spurious letters.
2. Middle Recension – These are the seven Ignatian letters now recognized, nearly-universally, as authentic.
3. Short Recension – There are Syriac collections with very abbreviated versions of Ignatius’ letters. These were likely just translations/summaries into Syriac.

Jaroslav Pelikan (1923-2006), in 1969, wrote a book called Development of Christian Doctrine: Some Historical Prolegomena. In it, he gives an honest and relatively-detailed history of the controversy over the letters of Ignatius. He shows how the discovery and confirmation of the seven authentic Ignatian letters owes a great deal to Protestant scholars willing to follow the evidence wherever it led, even when it undermined their own theology or views of Church history.

Theodor Zahn, an orthodox Lutheran, published his defense of the letters of the Bishop of Antioch in 1873. And from 1885 to 1889, Joseph B. Lightfoot, by then the Anglican bishop of Durham, wrote the definitive analysis of the evidence, together with a detailed history of the research into it.  Both Zahn and Lightfoot developed their literary, textual, and historical analysis with such careful attention to methodology and sound scholarship that there is now virtually unanimous acceptance of the seven epistles in their middle recension. The dispute was not settled by priori theories about doctrinal development on either side, but by philological history and honest historical research into the facts of the development.

7. Tertullian wrote in defense of Orthodoxy.

Although Tertullain is considered favorably by the modern Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant, churches, he left the orthodox church sometime before A.D. 210. 

“Sometime before 210 Tertullian left the orthodox church to join a new prophetic sectarian movement known as Montanism (founded by the 2nd-century Phrygian prophet Montanus), which had spread from Asia Minor to Africa. His own dissatisfaction with the laxity of contemporary Christians was congenial with the Montanist message of the imminent end of the world combined with a stringent and demanding moralism. Montanism stood in judgment on any compromise with the ways of the world, and Tertullian gave himself fully to the defense of the new movement as its most articulate spokesperson. Even the Montanists, however, were not rigorous enough for Tertullian. He eventually broke with them to found his own sect, a group that existed until the 5th century in Africa. According to tradition, he lived to be an old man. His last writings date from approximately 220, but the date of his death is unknown. … In antiquity most Christians never forgave him for his apostasy (rejection of his earlier faith) to Montanism. Later Christian writers mention him only infrequently and then mostly unfavourably. (Britannica, Robert L. Wilken)

When Tertullian writes Against Praxeas (A.D. 220 or 222), the Montanists have been condemned by the Bishop of Rome, courtesy of the same Praxeas, and Tertullian is not happy with either Praxeas or the Roman bishop. At this time Tertullain has long since broken with the orthodox church which looked to Rome for its leadership; in fact he excoriates the Roman church along with its bishop. The Bishop of Rome, and orthodoxy, remained Modalistic Monarchians at this time in history. 

8. Nestorius taught two Sons of God.

Given below is a late sixth century Christological formula of the Eastern (Nestorian) Church. You, dear reader, may see for yourself the truth of Nestorius’ Christology. 

Synod of Mar Sabrisho, A.D. 596 

“It seemed good to his fatherhood and to all the metropolitans and bishops to write this composition of the faith . . . which accurately and plainly teaches us the confession which is in one glorious nature of the Holy Trinity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and reveals and shows us the glorious mysteries of the dispensation of God the Word, which at the end of times he perfected and fulfilled in the nature of our humanity, the same by which the heathen are conquered who acknowledge a multitude of gods, ... and all heresy is convicted and condemned which denies the Godhead and manhood of our Life-giver, Jesus Christ, accepting it with the exact meaning of the holy fathers, which the illustrious among the orthodox, the blessed Theodore the Antiochian, bishop of the city of Mopsuestia, “the Interpreter” of the Divine Scriptures, explained, with which all the orthodox in all regions have agreed and do agree, as also all the venerable fathers who have governed this apostolic and patriarchal see of our administration have held, while we anathematize and alienate from all contact with us everyone who denies the nature of the Godhead and the nature of the manhood of our Lord Jesus Christ, whether through mixture and commingling, or compounding or confusing, introducing, with regard to the union of the Son of God, either suffering, or death, or any of the mean circumstances of humanity in any way, to the glorious nature of his Godhead, or considering as a mere man the Lordly temple of God the Word, which, in an inexplicable mystery and an incomprehensible union, he joined to himself in the womb of the holy Virgin in an eternal, indestructible, and indivisible union. Again, we also reject one who introduces a quaternity into the Holy Trinity, or one who calls the one Christ, the Son of God, two sons or two Christs, or one who does not say that the Word of God fulfilled the suffering of our salvation in the body of his manhood. Though he was in him, with him, and toward him in the belly, on the cross, in suffering, and for ever, inseparably, while the glorious nature of his Godhead did not participate in any sufferings, yet we strongly believe, according to the word and intent of the writings and traditions of the holy fathers, in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-begotten Son of God, who was begotten before the foundations of the world in his Godhead, spiritually, without a mother, and in the last times was born from the holy Virgin in a fleshly manner without the intercourse of a man through the power of the Holy Spirit. He is, in his eternal Godhead and in his manhood from Mary, one true Son of God, who in nature of his manhood accepted suffering and death for us, and by the power of his Godhead raised up his uncorrupted body after three days, and promised resurrection from the dead, ascension to heaven, and a new and indestructible and abiding world for ever.” (Synod of Mar Sabris ̊o, A.D. 596, bolding mine.) 

Written by Mar Odisho, Metropolitan of N’siwin and Armenia, A.D. 1298
“Qnuma in Greek is called hypostasis, namely, that which underlies the essence, by which the nature is known. And Parsoopa: the Greeks call prosopon: 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 which are the underlying properties of these (two) Natures, in one person of the Son of God.”  (Bolding mine.)

Historically Proven Misrepresentations About Modalism:

9. Modalism started with Sabellius:;

Noted Modalistic Monarchians before Sabellius were Ignatius (Virginia Corwin, who did her Ph.D. dissertation at Yale on Ignatius, stated: “If one term must be chosen to indicate the tendency of his thought, Ignatius must be said to be Monarchian.”), Praxeas (who came to Rome from Asia Minor during the time of the pastorate of either Eleuterus or Victor [A.D. 174-198]), and Noetus (A.D.130-200), Cleomenes, the head master of the Monarchian school at Rome supported by Pope Callistus. Sabellius flourished during the first half of the 3rd century, but most surely after either of the those mentioned.

10. Sabellius taught Sequential Modalism:

Some Trinitarian writers (I will not say scholars.) 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 Sabellius: both accusations are untrue as is demonstrated in point #9, above. 

These writers also postulate that Sabellius 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. (Adapted from “Godhead Theology” by Bishop Jerry L Hayes, 2015, Seventh Millennium Publications, page 87.)

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: ὥσπερ διαιρέσεις χαρισμάτων εἰσί, τὸ δὲ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ὁ αὐτός μέν ἐστι, πλατύνεται δὲ εἰς υἱὸν καὶ πνεῦμα.)  (“Godhead Theology” by Bishop Jerry L Hayes, 2015, Seventh Millennium Publications, page 27.)

Here, according to Athanasius, Sabellius draws a parallel between the Spirit of God and His several gifts manifested in His church. If reason holds, Sabellius would have not thought the manifestations of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit any more sequential than he thought the spiritual gifts as being sequential. 

11. That Sabellius was excommunicated by the bishop of Rome because of his modalistic teachings:

It is true that Sabellius was disfellowshipped by the Bishop of Rome, Pope Callistus (A.D. 220). This action by the Roman bishop could hardly have been because of Modalism because the bishop, himself, was a Modalistic Monarchain. J. N. D. Kelly (who recognizes Monarchianism to have been the faith of the apostles of our Lord), when writing about the Roman bishops Zephyrinus and Callistus (A. D. 198-222) stated that: “Zephyrinus and Callistus were... conservatives holding fast to a monarchian tradition which antedated the whole movement of thought inaugurated by the Apologists” (JND Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 2nd Ed., pg. 125). 

It is admitted that Sabellius is something of an enigma. No one really knows why he was disfellowshipped. We have already seen why the charge of Sequential Modalism is highly unlikely, if not impossible. If, on the other hand, he was caught up in the church politics of Rome, as some suppose, over a school he headed, in opposition to the older school overseen by Cleomenes, which was supported by the Bishop, then his excommunication is not to be considered valid at this point in history. The only other conceivable reason for Callistus cutting him off is for the peace of the church. The Roman church was split with Hippolytus as the anti-pope at the head of a schismatic group holding the logos-christology. Bishop Callistus would have seen it his duty to make an attempt to heal the schism, and bring the church back into one body. Placing himself on a middle ground in disfellowshipping both Hippolytus and Sabellius (which he did do), who were the ringleaders of the two parties, would have been a logical course of action, as an attempt to bring this healing about. (Adapted from “Godhead Theology” by Bishop Jerry L Hayes, 2015, Seventh Millennium Publications, page 89.)

12. That sequential modes is the teaching of Modalism, thus Modalist no longer worships the Father or the Son:

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. 

Sabellius was accused of Sequential Modalism; but, it has never been proven, nor can be, because everything we have of his teaching is filtered through the poisoned pens of his enemies. Even if we give the Pluralists and the Subordinationists 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, Pope Callistus (A.D. 220). We would agree that any such teaching as Sequential Modalism would be heresy. (“Godhead Theology” by Bishop Jerry L Hayes, 2015, Seventh Millennium Publications, page 88.)

Modalistic Monarchianism Affirms Simultaneous Modalism

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.

Conclusion

Absolutely none of the above 12 (dozens more could have been listed) Social Trinitarian’s accusations against Modalist Monarchainism are true. They are all misrepresentations that have been promoted by the Pluralists to make themselves look like the orthodox and to make Modalism look like the heresy. In fact the very opposite is true.

I do not make this charge in a corner. All historical evidence has revealed the 12 items above to have been misleading propaganda from the Pluralists.

Tritheistic Social Trinitarianism (as opposed to Modalistic Trinitarianism) is a Culture of Lies.

See:

Romans 1:25, Who changed the truth of God into a lie, ... Amen.

2 Th 2:10-12, And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, ...

2 Th 2:11, has τῷ ψεύδει, -- "the" lie.

"The" misinformation of the ages has been the tritheistic Social Trinity. God has permitted this great prevarication to exist, and endure,  in order to filter out the half hearted and insincere people; people that love to multiply gods and profane the Shema; people that are not worthy of His eternal kingdom.


Apostolically Speaking,

Mar David Ignatius