Bishop's Epistle

Monday, October 14, 2019

THE INTERMEDIATE STATE (Substance Dualism and Continuity of the Life of the Soul)

Excerpted from the book “Biblical Anthropology”

by Bishop Jerry L Hayes

Reading time: 3 minutes.

Propositional statement:

Be it resolved: The Scriptures teach that man is created with a material body and an immaterial soul (substance dualism). The body is mortal and returns to dust, the soul is immortal and continues to live after the death of the body; further, that the soul is conscious and active, though disembodied.

Affirmative Statement #2

The two biblical illustrations presented in this statement demonstrate the continuity of the life of the soul after the death of the body.

Sadducees and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: ~ Speaking directly to the continuity of the life of the soul is the story recorded in Luke’s gospel of the Sadducees, who did not believe in the afterlife or spirits. They came to Jesus with the hypothetical dilemma of a woman who was married to seven brothers during her natural life (Matthew 2:23-34//Mark 12:20-25//Luke 20:27-40 (1)). They ask Jesus who's wife she would be in the resurrection? Jesus responded by rehearsing the event surrounding the burning bush and Moses (Exodus ch 3). Yahweh spoke from the bush, Jesus said, and told Moses that He was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Jesus assures the Sadducees that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” So, then, Jesus's understanding of the state of a person’s soul after the death of the body was that it was alive. Jesus states, as a fact, that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob where alive at the time of Moses's encounter with Yahweh at the burning bush. This event took place hundreds of years after the death of the patriarchs and aprox. 1540 years before Christ made the statement.

The whole idea of “soul sleep” is anathema to all the Bible teaches about the state of the soul after the death of the body.

Moses and Elijah On The Mount of Transfiguration: ~ The appearance of Moses and Elijah with Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration (Luke 9:28-36(2)) demonstrates the continued activity of those who have died in faith. The loss of their bodies did not mean the cessation of life for the soul.

Some may attempt to defend "soul sleep" by appealing the Matthew's account of this event. "And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.” From this text they will insist that the apostles saw a "vision." By "vision" they mean that what the apostles saw was not real: Moses and Elijah were not really present - not really.

Only Matthew uses the word "horama" (vision) which has a primary meaning of 'something gazed upon", or "a spectacle." Not that a normal person, not looking for an escape, would not clearly understand Matthew, but one should consider Mark's rendering:

"And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead." Mark 9:9. A good thought to thought translation would help with Matthew reading: “Don’t tell anyone what you have seen, until the Son of Man has been raised from the dead.” NIV

Of course this event, and others like it, gives positive testimony of the consciousness and activity of the soul after the death of the body.

Moreover verse 31 of Luke’s account states “Who (Moses and Elijah) appeared in glory, and spake (with Jesus) of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.” (Parenthesis mine.) In the Greek text, which is the language in which Luke wrote, for the English “spake of his decease” we read: ἔλεγον τὴν ἔξοδον, literally: “spake of his exodus.” Here death is called a journey—an exodus.

For what is “death” a journey? The body? No, not the body. The body remains in the grave. Death is a journey for the soul.

The people of God have, in both Testaments, always acknowledged the continuation of life after the death of the body. Euphemisms for death in the Old Testament are:“gathered to his people”(3); “joined the fathers”(4). King David stated that he could not bring his dead son back from the dead, but he could go to him (2 Samuel 12:23). Paul spoke of his own death was a “departing” (2 Timothy 4:6-8).

Jesus, Himself, speaks of this journey in the account recorded by John, “Let not your heart be troubled: ye believe in God, believe also in me. In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also” (John 14:1-3). Here Jesus is comforting His disciples and preparing them for His upcoming death. He tells them that He is going away and they could not follow Him just yet, but that they all would in time. Jesus had already told the Jews that they could not follow him where He was going because of their unbelief (John 8:21(5)), but, here, in chapter 14, He is assuring His disciples that at the time of their death He would come for them(6) and escort them to the place He was now going away to prepare. So, for those who die in faith, death is an exodus, a journey, from this world to a better place where Jesus dwells. Paul had it right; there is no cause to doubt him: to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8(7)).

The body returns to the dust from whence it was. But the soul changes address. Hallelujah to the Lamb!

Apostolically Speaking,

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

End Notes

1. Luke 20:26-40, Then came to him certain of the Sadducees, which deny that there is any resurrection; and they asked him, 28 Saying, Master, Moses wrote unto us, If any man's brother die, having a wife, and he die without children, that his brother should take his wife, and raise up seed unto his brother. 29 There were therefore seven brethren: and the first took a wife, and died without children. 30 And the second took her to wife, and he died childless. 31 And the third took her; and in like manner the seven also: and they left no children, and died. 32 Last of all the woman died also. 33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife. 34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage: 36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection. 37 Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. 38 For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him. 39 Then certain of the scribes answering said, Master, thou hast well said. 40 And after that they durst not ask him any question at all. See, Matthew 22:23-34; Mark 12:20-25.

2. Luke 9:28-36, And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray. 29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering. 30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias: 31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem. 32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him. 33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said. 34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud. 35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him. 36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.

3. Genesis 25:8, 17; 35:29a; 49:29, 33.

4. Genesis 15:15, 47; 47:30;

5. John 8:21, Then Jesus said to them again, “I am going away, and you will seek Me, and will die in your sin. Where I go you cannot come.”

6. The “coming” Jesus speaks of here is an erchomai class coming and not the parousia. The word “erchomai” is the most common verb for “coming” in the New Testament Greek. According to James Strong it (in all of its forms: erchesthai, eleusis; see also Joseph Henry Thayer) is only used in the present and imperfect tenses (see Strong’s #NT2064), i.e. showing continued and incomplete action. According to Joseph Henry Thayer: “denotes motion, or progress generally.” Here it speaks “of His invisible advance in the earth of believers, by which He takes them to Himself into heaven” (Joseph Henry Thayer) upon their death.

7. 2 Corinthians 5:8, We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Read more epistles from the Bishop on the subject of The Intermediate State of the Soul at the links provided here:

The Intermediate State of the soul, Part One; An Examination of Soul Sleep, aka Christian Mortalism
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-intermediate-state-of-soul-part-one.html

Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/substance-dualism-and-immortal-soul.html

Intermediate State of the Soul (Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul #2)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-substance.html

Intermediate State of the Soul (Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul #3)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-substance_15.html

Intermediate State of the Soul (Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul #4) Jesus Preaches to Spirits in Prison
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-substance_16.html

Intermediate State of the Soul #5 (The Theology of Paul the Apostle)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-theology-of-paul.html

Intermediate State of the Soul #6 (The Rich Man Is Conscious In Hell)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/intermediate-state-of-soul-rich-man-is.html

This essay is excerpted from the Bishop's book "Biblical Anthropology."
Biblical Anthropology is a study in what the Bible teaches concerning the origin, nature (ontology), history and destiny of mankind. Reviewed in this work is the debate over whether or not the human being is bipartite—such as only body and soul, or tripartite—such as body, soul and spirit. Biblical Anthropology addresses the question of whether or not the soul is mortal or immortal; that is, does the soul have existence apart from the body. What, exactly happens at death? Will there be a resurrection of the body, and if so what nature will the resurrected body take? These are important questions addressed in this book. Bishop Jerry L Hayes presents a very orthodox view of Christian biblical anthropology which relies heavily on holy Scripture with a generous sprinkling of quotes from the ancient churchmen such as Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Augustine to name a few.
Order your personal copy of this classic work on biblical anthropology by clicking the link provided here:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1703392698/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+Hayes%2C+Biblical+anthropology&qid=1572374388&s=books&sr=1-1&fbclid=IwAR3TaRUBLqYEIj2lC1GYgNzYf_E5yAomZHRcaKnBmFj0zJfy9mURNCb_wbM

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Sunday, October 13, 2019

Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul

Estimated reading time: 3 min.
The orthodox Christian view of man is one of “substance dualism.” “Substance dualism” has been earlier defined as: comprised of dual substances — physical and nonphysical; body and soul respectively[1]. The soul, also called mind, is the locus of the individual identity, and is nonphysical. The body is the vehicle for the soul, and is physical. Earlier in this work man has been called a tripartite being; meaning, made up of three parts: body, soul and spirit. Biblically the terms soul and spirit have been, at times, used interchangeably. Technically, however, the two terms identify two different aspects of human reality. The “spirit” does not, strictly speaking, belong to man, but is the “god-spark” that all men possess and that returns to God upon death, regardless of the righteousness or unrighteousness of the person[2]. By the soul man has self-awareness and by the spirit man has God-awareness. The body and soul are proper properties of man and make up the “substance duality” in a primary sense, but the spirit of man, the “god-spark,” is also included in the nonphysical substance of man’s “substance duality;” in unregenerate man minimally[3], in regenerated man majorly[4].

Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul

First, we need to be very clear that the soul of man, according to Jesus, cannot be killed as can the body: “fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: …” (Matthew 10:28). This Jesus-saying supports the “substance dualism” of man by affirming that the body can be killed (dead) but the soul remain (alive).

Those who reject the idea of an immortal soul often cite 1 Timothy 6:15-16[5] where only God is said to have immortality. It is true that all life is of God and from God; He is the fountain of all life. He only possesses life in and of Himself. It follows, then, as the possessor of all life, He may give that live to whomever He will. He has willed that all men share in His immortality. This is part of what is meant by Adam being made in the likeness and the image of God[6]. No one should ever suggest that man is immortal in and of himself. Certainly not. The immortality of man is only an extension of God’s personal immortality.

Speaking of the eternality of his soul the apostle Paul writes that although the outward man (i.e. the body) is perishing the inner man (i.e. the soul) is being renewed day by day. The apostle references his body as that which is seen and is temporal, and his soul as not seen and is eternal (2 Corinthians 4:16-18[7]). Peter agrees, for in 1 Peter 3:4 the chief apostle references the qualities of the sanctified inner man as being imperishable[8]. The apostle John adds his voice to the fact of an immortal soul when he writes that though the physical world is passing away the one who does the will of God lives forever (1 John 2:17[9]). Jesus, Himself, bears witness to the eternal life of the believer in John 5:24[10] and 6:47[11]. Lastly, not to be overlooked is the single most popular texts of the entire Bible where Jesus states "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16).

Since it is true that those who are born again do not die, but have everlasting life, it follows, then, that that life can never be interrupted — not for a second. Only the reality of an immortal soul can assure eternal like. If, as some suggest, the soul is mortal and dies with the body, one may only speak of eternal life after the creation of an eternal body. But that is not the proposition of holy Scripture. Holy Scripture promises eternal life in this life, to the one who believes and confesses Christ, in this life. (See, John 5:24, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” And John 6:47, “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.”) If the life received upon believing is interrupted at the death of the body it was not eternal life, and the Bible’s promises are not yea and amen[12]. It is important that we remember when the Bible speaks of death it is referencing “separation” and not “extinction.” And when the Bible speaks of “eternal life” it is making a proclamation of the perpetual presence of the Creator. So, when Jesus said “He that believeth on me hath everlasting life” what He assured was: The souls of believers would never be separated from His glorious presence.

Continuity of the Life of the Soul

The continuity of the life of the soul is assured in holy Scripture. The heretical teachings of such groups as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh-day Adventist and followers of Herbert W. Armstrong, argue for “soul sleep” in a manner that affirms “soul death” – even for the righteous. In their poor un-informed view, the soul has no existence apart from the body. When the body dies, they postulate, so does the soul. But fear not, they say, at the resurrection the soul will be re-created along with the body. The problem with that view is it makes our Lord and the holy apostles out to be liars. Why? Because our Lord Jesus Christ and His holy apostles have promised that the souls of believers would never die (2 Corinthians 4:16-18; 1 Peter 3:4; 1 John 2:17; John 5:24; 6:47).

Apostolically Speaking,

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes

End Notes
1. For the argument for “substance dualism” see page 36 this work.

2. Ecclesiastes. 12:7 …the spirit returns to God who gave it.

3. Because in unregenerate man the “spirit” (god-spark) lies dormant and exerts little or no influence upon the soul of the person.

4. Because in the regenerated man the spirit (god-spark) exerts much influence upon the soul, imprinting itself there.

5. 1 Timothy 6:15-16, Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords; 16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

6. Genesis 1:26-27, And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

7. 2 Corinthians 4:16-18, For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. 17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory; 18 While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.

8. 1 Peter 3:4, But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, …

9. 1 John 2:17, And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

10. John 5:24, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

11. John 6:47, Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

12. 2 Corinthians 1:20, For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.

Read more epistles from the Bishop on the subject of The Intermediate State of the Soul at the links provided here:

The Intermediate State of the soul, Part One; An Examination of Soul Sleep, aka Christian Mortalism
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-intermediate-state-of-soul-part-one.html

Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/substance-dualism-and-immortal-soul.html

Intermediate State of the Soul (Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul #2)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-substance.html

Intermediate State of the Soul (Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul #3)
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-substance_15.html

Intermediate State of the Soul (Substance Dualism and the Immortal Soul #4) Jesus Preaches to Spirits in Prison
http://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-substance_16.html

Intermediate State of the Soul #5 (The Theology of Paul the Apostle)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-intermediate-state-theology-of-paul.html

Intermediate State of the Soul #6 (The Rich Man Is Conscious In Hell)
https://bishopjerrylhayes.blogspot.com/2019/10/intermediate-state-of-soul-rich-man-is.html

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT BY PURCHASING MY BOOKS FOR YOUR LIBRARY. -JLH

Friday, October 4, 2019

Christian Monotheism

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: (including Anomoeanism) 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 were advocating 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.)

Notable opponents of Anomoeanism were Basil of Caesarea, bishop of Caesarea, and author of Against Eunomius, and Gregory of Nazianzus, archbishop of Constantinople, prolific writer and orator.

Semi-Arianism was 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.

Apostolically Speaking,

☩☩ Jerry L Hayes
(Mar David Ignatius)

Own this book today! Click on the link below.

the Jesus Debate: A Debate On The Person of Jesus, Between Modalism/Oneness and Arianism/Unitarianism

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.

Buy Now

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

Read other Essays from the pen of the Bishop on the subject of the Godhead:

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

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.

Own this classic debate by ordering from the link provided here:
https://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Debate-Modalism-Arianism-Unitarianism/dp/1484036670/ref=sr_1_6?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-6

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).

Own this remarkable debate today, by ordering it from the link provided here:https://www.amazon.com/Hayes-Mulbah-Debate-Oneness-Trinity/dp/1727358953/ref=sr_1_8?keywords=Bishop+Jerry+hayes&qid=1554244653&s=books&sr=1-8

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