Modalism vs Trinitarian

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
May 21, 2014
344
5
0
#1
I have notice there is always a debate between oneness and trinity beliefs that divides many believers on this subject. Both parties use the Sacred Word to support their doctrine or belief which I find very interesting and puzzling at the same time. That is why the GOD HEAD is a MYSTERY!!


  1. Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons.
    1. The Christian doctrine of the Trinity (from Latin trinitas "triad", from trinus "threefold") defines God as three consubstantial persons, expressions, or hypostases: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit; "one God in three persons".



      [h=1]Modalism[/h]Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person who has revealed himself in three forms or modes in contrast to theTrinitarian doctrine where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism, during the incarnation, Jesus was simply God acting in one mode or role, and the Holy Spirit at Pentecost was God acting in a different mode. Thus, God does not exist as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the basic distinctiveness and coexistence of the three persons of the Trinity.
      Modalism was condemned by Tertullian (c. 213, Tertullian Against Praxeas 1, in Ante Nicene Fathers, vol. 3). Also known as Sabellianism, it was condemned asheresy by Dionysius, bishop of Rome (c. 262).
      Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the natureof God (i.e., who God is). "Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus... modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." [1] Modalism - Theopedia, an encyclopedia of Biblical Christianity



      [h=1]Trinity[/h]The Trinity is the Christian doctrinethat deals with and describes the natureofGod. The doctrine asserts the following:


      [h=1]1 Corinthians 1 Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB)[/h][h=3]Divisions at Corinth[/h]10 Now I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, that there be no divisions among you, and that you be united with the same understanding and the same conviction. 11 For it has been reported to me about you, my brothers, by members of Chloe’s household, that there is rivalry among you. 12 What I am saying is this: Each of you says, “I’m with Paul,” or “I’m with Apollos,” or “I’m with Cephas,” or “I’m with Christ.” 13 Is Christ divided? Was it Paul who was crucified for you? Or were you baptized in Paul’s name? 14 I thank God[a][b] that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, 15 so that no one can say you were baptized in my name. 16 I did, in fact, baptize the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t know if I baptized anyone else. 17 For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to evangelize—not with clever words, so that the cross of Christ will not be emptied of its effect.








 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#2
By ending your post with 1Corinthians and beating the 'Unity' drum, are you implying that Trinitarians and Modalists should worship together as one body?
 
May 21, 2014
344
5
0
#3
By ending your post with 1Corinthians and beating the 'Unity' drum, are you implying that Trinitarians and Modalists should worship together as one body?
I do not have that authority only the Sacred Word(Holy Scriptures). You are debating with the Scriptures the Sacred Word of GOD. I am confuse about your response because I am using the Holy Bible.:confused: Have a bless beautiful day with joy of the LORD.:)
 

crossnote

Senior Member
Nov 24, 2012
30,704
3,649
113
#4
I do not have that authority only the Sacred Word(Holy Scriptures). You are debating with the Scriptures the Sacred Word of GOD. I am confuse about your response because I am using the Holy Bible.:confused: Have a bless beautiful day with joy of the LORD.:)
C'mon, be honest, are you implying that Trinitarians and Modalists should worship together as one body?
Scripture does not...

Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.
(1Jn 2:22-24)


Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.
(2Jn 1:9-11)


A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;
(Tit 3:10)

Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.
(Rom 16:17)


This is not one big love fest with those who teach error.
Now, who is debating with Scripture?
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#5
I don't believe in spiritual unity with those who teach such things as modalism. Not that we need their presence. But, actually, its usually the modalists, notably the "Oneness Pentecostals", who insist to be separate from those who do not adhere to their beliefs. In ancient times the error of sabellianism and similar views, such as those of Praxeas etc were seen as grave heresies. Noone taught such ideas before the 200s.
 

Zmouth

Senior Member
Nov 21, 2012
3,391
134
63
#6


Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father:


I and my Father are one. John 10:30

Now in Matthew 1:18 it is written that when as his mother Mary was married to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.

******
Thus a little later in John 10, verse 40 it is written, And went away again beyond Jordan into the place where John at first baptized; and there he abode.

And what happened at the baptism, And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

*******
Luke 4:1
And Jesus being full of the Holy Ghost returned from Jordan, and was led by the Spirit into the wilderness,

Yet in John 7:39, it is written,(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. John 14:26

******

If the Holy Ghost had not be given, then how could the Nazarite be born of the Holy Ghost before Jesus? Luke 1:15

For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb.

Matt 2:23
And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.
 
Last edited:
Jan 25, 2015
9,213
3,188
113
#7
To be blunt here we are not to judge but when we read the Bible there are many references that make sense for both parties. I was convinced for a very short time about the oneness of God but when I discuss this matter with a Hebrew Professor he explained to me that the modalism guys are basically following Kabala. Without knowledge of Hebrew and the deception of the church you will always argue about nonsense.
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#8
One could wonder how the new testament Christians survived, and saw the rapid growth of the church they did.
They didn't know such words as Modalism, and the word Trinitarianism is not in the Bible. They weren't privy to all the theological doctrines that have since come about, and had the opportunity to call people heretics who didn't agree with them.
Ad yet-despite them not having the benefit of all of these doctrines, the church flourished, and grew at a rate never seen since that time, and the power of the Holy Spirit was manifest to a greater degree than it has been at anytime since.
One could wonder why, the church saw its most rapid growth and power, before the scholar and theologian came along with all these doctrines, and not after
 
Jan 25, 2015
9,213
3,188
113
#9
One could wonder how the new testament Christians survived, and saw the rapid growth of the church they did.
They didn't know such words as Modalism, and the word Trinitarianism is not in the Bible. They weren't privy to all the theological doctrines that have since come about, and had the opportunity to call people heretics who didn't agree with them.
Ad yet-despite them not having the benefit of all of these doctrines, the church flourished, and grew at a rate never seen since that time, and the power of the Holy Spirit was manifest to a greater degree than it has been at anytime since.
One could wonder why, the church saw its most rapid growth and power, before the scholar and theologian came along with all these doctrines, and not after
You make a valid point
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#10
You make a valid point
Thank you

I like this verse:
At that time Jesus, full of joy through the Holy Spirit, said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this is what you were pleased to do Luke 10:21

Of course I would quote that, I am not that learned:(
 
Dec 26, 2014
3,757
19
0
#12
yahshua(yahweh's salvation, the messiah, savior, king, master) , taught the early ekklesia, apostles, disciples, and did call heresy heresy, plain and simple. not like today .

the doctrines that came later did not benefit anyone. they obfuscated the gospel of Jesus, and continue to today. the doctrines that came later introduced a lot of error - didn't protect against error - and it was on purpose, by leaders, to gain more power over the people, and many of the ERRORS introduced before and after 100a.d. are still prevalent and considered 'acceptable' and right today.

the 'scholar' and the 'theologians' , including most of the ecf (early 'chruch' fathers) were in error and propagate worse and worse error. not the other way around (they did not protect the flock from error, nor correct error, usually). this is still true today. (and that's much of the reason for so much arguing/ debates/ on this forum among the 'religious')

the truth is still just as simple as it was for the first disciples. as true, and as pure, and as rare. and only the pure in heart can see it, according to Jesus' own Word in Scripture.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#13
One could wonder how the new testament Christians survived, and saw the rapid growth of the church they did.
They didn't know such words as Modalism, and the word Trinitarianism is not in the Bible. They weren't privy to all the theological doctrines that have since come about, and had the opportunity to call people heretics who didn't agree with them.
Ad yet-despite them not having the benefit of all of these doctrines, the church flourished, and grew at a rate never seen since that time, and the power of the Holy Spirit was manifest to a greater degree than it has been at anytime since.
One could wonder why, the church saw its most rapid growth and power, before the scholar and theologian came along with all these doctrines, and not after
Maybe you are discussing something else. The question at hand here is if Christ and Father are actually one and the same person (which modalism erroneously believes) or if they are separate persons, as trinitarians affirm. To think that such a hugely important issue was of no importance for the early christians, who at least had been taught if not by the very apostles themselves so at least by men whom had walked with them, with the attitude of "doctrine doesn't matter" is just way off base.
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#14
Maybe you are discussing something else. The question at hand here is if Christ and Father are actually one and the same person (which modalism erroneously believes) or if they are separate persons, as trinitarians affirm. To think that such a hugely important issue was of no importance for the early christians, who at least had been taught if not by the very apostles themselves so at least by men whom had walked with them, with the attitude of "doctrine doesn't matter" is just way off base.
From my reading of the New Testament I understand a person was simply asked to believe Jesus was The only true(or begotten) son of God to inherit eternal life. Nothing more was required. Did Jesus and the Apostles err in not requiring more than that?
 
Jan 21, 2015
14
0
1
#15
From my reading of the New Testament I understand a person was simply asked to believe Jesus was The only true(or begotten) son of God to inherit eternal life. Nothing more was required. Did Jesus and the Apostles err in not requiring more than that?
Good question.
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#16
From my reading of the New Testament I understand a person was simply asked to believe Jesus was The only true(or begotten) son of God to inherit eternal life. Nothing more was required. Did Jesus and the Apostles err in not requiring more than that?
We are not talking about what they required. The question is what they had learned from the apostles and their successors and what they subsequently taught others. If you think they didn't care about such issues as whether Christ is God or whether He and the Father are actually one and the same person, then you're out in the blue buddy.
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#17
We are not talking about what they required. The question is what they had learned from the apostles and their successors and what they subsequently taught others. If you think they didn't care about such issues as whether Christ is God or whether He and the Father are actually one and the same person, then you're out in the blue buddy.
I repeat, did Christ and the disciples/Apostles err by only requiring a person to believe Jesus was The only true (or begotten) Son of God to inherit eternal life?
To suggest the bible does not plainly state what is required for salvation could be considered heretical:) in my view
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#18
I repeat, did Christ and the disciples/Apostles err by only requiring a person to believe Jesus was The only true (or begotten) Son of God to inherit eternal life?
To suggest the bible does not plainly state what is required for salvation could be considered heretical:) in my view
You are still discussing something else, pal. May I suggest some more reading on church history. Anyways, noone taught modalism prior to the 200s. Just read the apostolic letters already in the NT and see how doctrine mattered for the earliest christians. The deity of Christ and Christ and the Father as separate persons were important issues alike in which case someone dissented they would have been seen as heretics and not as someone to be associated with. Too many have a low view of how doctrine mattered for the earliest christians and believe myths that they were overly unified and without doctrinal disputes.
 
Feb 5, 2015
1,852
13
0
#19
You are still discussing something else, pal. May I suggest some more reading on church history. Anyways, noone taught modalism prior to the 200s. Just read the apostolic letters already in the NT and see how doctrine mattered for the earliest christians. The deity of Christ and Christ and the Father as separate persons were important issues alike in which case someone dissented they would have been seen as heretics and not as someone to be associated with. Too many have a low view of how doctrine mattered for the earliest christians and believe myths that they were overly unified and without doctrinal disputes.
I see you are not prepared to answer the question twice put, so I will leave it there. Possibly some believe they know MORE of what is most important than did Jesus and the authors of the NT
 

tribesman

Senior Member
Oct 13, 2011
4,612
274
83
#20
I see you are not prepared to answer the question twice put, so I will leave it there. Possibly some believe they know MORE of what is most important than did Jesus and the authors of the NT
Your question is close to off-topic. I will ask you something in return that is more on-topic: Do you think that the apostles and their followers would accept someone into church fellowship who for example denied the deity of Christ or believed that the Father and the Son are one and the same person?