Many Trinitarians are actually Modalists
Forum category
Another thread led me to a paper by Fred Sanders in which he writes:
One of the most difficult aspects of coming to terms with Oneness Pentecostalism is
that these churches are culturally and sociologically evangelical. They have a high view
of Scripture‟s authority, a heart for worship, a passion for evangelizing, and a
commitment to living lives marked by holiness. Though they struggle with legalism,
they are often marked by grace, and they certainly say all the right things about salvation
by God‟s unilateral action of unmerited mercy. They teach and preach and sing and give
and live like the sociological group we recognize as “evangelical Christians.” Yet
because of their serious doctrinal deviation, it is tempting to say that they are in the odd
position of being evangelical but not Christian. What do I mean by calling them non-
Christian? I mean that it is possible to look across the surface of the whole world and
back through two thousand years of Christian history and recognize, for all the
differences of opinion and practice, such a thing as “the Christian thing.” What C. S.
Lewis called “mere Christianity” is something real and recognizable.
My experience with this group has been limited, but it seems to me that they view US as objects FOR evangelism; I hardly believe that they hold to salvation by grace through faith alone.
But the problem I have is with Sanders view that accepting the doctrine of the Trinity is what makes one a Christian.
Don’t get me wrong: I think the doctrine of the Trinity is quite important — one of the fundamentals of the faith. What I am saying is that accepting the DEITY of Jesus Christ and trusting in His atoning work for our justification is what makes us Christian.
But it goes beyond this (here is my point, finally!): Many of our best lay-leaders (and even many pastors) claim to be Trinitarians but are actually Modal Monarchians (yet do not know it). Look at how our children are taught the Trinity. Some use the illustration of water, ice, and steam. This presents modalism, one God who is one Person but can take 3 forms. Or the circle divided in 3— this represents an idea that each Person of the Trinity is one-third of God.
When I explain the Trinity, I mention, “If you think you understand it, then you don’t have the right perspective.” But many people think they are a bit brighter than everyone else, so they have it down. But what they usually have is modalism. Many of us do not do good with a mystery.
What we really have in the doctrine of the Trinity are a set of parameters. One God Who is 3 Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit (NOT God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit, another error in teaching the Trinity). The Father is not the Son, and the Son is not the Spirit (and the Spirit is not only equal to the Father and Son, but He, too is a PERSON, not an “it”). When you have the Father, you do not have 1/3 of God, but you have God (He cannot be divided up).
So I guess what I am saying is that many (perhaps even most) of evangelicals who say they are Trinitarians are actually not Trinitarians in their conception of God. Yet there are some mighty fine Christians in the bunch! Some of the leaders in your church might be in this camp, and I would really be surprised if you had no Sunday School teachers in this category.
What are your thoughts about this?
- 307 views
I would not go so far as to categorize those using weak analogies as Modalists or even Modulists-light because the demarcation lies, not at a poor articulation but in the denial of their real persons and the assertion that they are forms or modes. But it does call attention to the necessity of always making use of exacting language so that our analogies, with their imperfections, do not become a substitute for clear definitions and confessional language. But, it might be upon reading your consideration a few just might find, though not intended to be so, they are using the language and analogies of a Modalist.
It behooves the Minister of God’s Word to craft his analogies, and certainly his definitions, so that they are elevated enough to secure proprietary distinction from erring views that contain some of the language or concepts of right doctrines but smidgens or handfuls of leaven.
I have never been compelled to feel obligated to provide an analogy for others when teaching the structure of the Trinity. Not that someone, somewhere has not found an effective one or that I claim no such analogy exists but because the mechanics of the Trinity are not revealed in Scripture, if I introduce a mechanical analogy I may be establishing in the minds of students a template that fails to, if not damages, the full appreciation of the Trinity that is wrought by our apprehension of its truth through faith in its majestic declaration without full-disclosure, in Scripture.
You have a good challenge though. Many teachers should review their teaching and ask themselves if they are introducing templates that actually communicate something moving away from Trinitariansim and the clear language of Scripture though they do not do it intentionally. As well, teachers must inquiry if, over time by not attending to the details of his thoughts on the matter, he, himself, has become influenced by poor analogies and not the language of Scripture and in a practical way through inattention, has allowed his duty as a doctrinal gatekeeper to keep company with interloping ideas.
It behooves the Minister of God’s Word to craft his analogies, and certainly his definitions, so that they are elevated enough to secure proprietary distinction from erring views that contain some of the language or concepts of right doctrines but smidgens or handfuls of leaven.
I have never been compelled to feel obligated to provide an analogy for others when teaching the structure of the Trinity. Not that someone, somewhere has not found an effective one or that I claim no such analogy exists but because the mechanics of the Trinity are not revealed in Scripture, if I introduce a mechanical analogy I may be establishing in the minds of students a template that fails to, if not damages, the full appreciation of the Trinity that is wrought by our apprehension of its truth through faith in its majestic declaration without full-disclosure, in Scripture.
You have a good challenge though. Many teachers should review their teaching and ask themselves if they are introducing templates that actually communicate something moving away from Trinitariansim and the clear language of Scripture though they do not do it intentionally. As well, teachers must inquiry if, over time by not attending to the details of his thoughts on the matter, he, himself, has become influenced by poor analogies and not the language of Scripture and in a practical way through inattention, has allowed his duty as a doctrinal gatekeeper to keep company with interloping ideas.
[Alex Guggenheim] I would not go so far as to categorize those using weak analogies as Modalists or even Modulists-light because the demarcation lies, not at a poor articulation but in the denial of their real persons and the assertion that they are forms or modes.But Alex, I don’t think many even understand the idea of 3 Persons. They might mouth the words, and we might be succinct and pointed in our teaching — but they often — very often — do not connect the dots. We THINK they do because they mouth the words and look alert when we are teaching.
Perhaps in your particular church or denomination, this is not a problem. Some groups, like Lutheran and Reformed evangelicals, put a lot of time and emphasis on teaching the Trinity. My experience is mostly with non-denom. Bible churches and Baptist churches. I am not saying that the pastors in these groups do not understand the parameters of the Trinity, or that their churches do not have a good doctrinal statement. And, if they have a strictly-filtered board of elders (or whatever their key board is called), they might be in line at that point. If, however, leaders are chosen by popular election and never passed through the grid work of I Tim. 3, who knows what you get on the board? But that’s another subject.
But, assuming the best at the board level, once we start heading downward, we have a lot of people who acquiesce to the Trinity but have no idea what we are saying; or, worse yet, they THINK they know what we are saying. We teach Trinitarianism and they hear Modalism.
Am I alone in this observation? Maybe it’s just central Indiana.
"The Midrash Detective"
Are there any good analogies? I have used one on a few occassions that I like, but I wouldn’t swear by it, since at some level every analogy breaks down. I will draw a complete circle and designate it both the Father and God. I then will draw a second circle completely superimposed over the first and designate it both the Son and God. I will do the same a third time designating it both the Spirit and God. Now looking at what I have drawn you will see only one circle, since all each successive circle was drawn exactly over the top of the previous one. In 2 dimensions you have 3 complete circles drawn all forming only one complete circle each of which is designated God, yet together they still form one. Of course this breaks down if you attempt to expand to the 3rd dimension whereby you can see 3 distinct circles layered on one another.
(Wow, that looks complicated written out) :) Still, perhaps much of the problem you see is due to the very complicated nature of the Trinity. It is so easy to state things in terms of a modalistic understanding even when you know better. I think much of this can be alleviated by clear, thoughtful teaching from the pulpit. We must not only explain in the clearest terms possible what the Trinity is, but also what it is not. Aside from this, I do not see what more could be done.
(Wow, that looks complicated written out) :) Still, perhaps much of the problem you see is due to the very complicated nature of the Trinity. It is so easy to state things in terms of a modalistic understanding even when you know better. I think much of this can be alleviated by clear, thoughtful teaching from the pulpit. We must not only explain in the clearest terms possible what the Trinity is, but also what it is not. Aside from this, I do not see what more could be done.
It’s interesting in Scripture that although there are many analogies/word pictures for theological concepts (the church is like a body, etc.) there is no analogy or word picture given for the Trinity.
For that matter, there isn’t even any systematic teaching regarding the doctrine of the Trinity!
For that matter, there isn’t even any systematic teaching regarding the doctrine of the Trinity!
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
[Greg Long] It’s interesting in Scripture that although there are many analogies/word pictures for theological concepts (the church is like a body, etc.) there is no analogy or word picture given for the Trinity.I think I have to agree. The teaching is certainly not systematic. I guess this is why we develop “systematic theology.” The thought pattern of Scripture seems to be “precept upon precept, here a little, there a little.” Or as the NIV puts it in Isaiah 28:10,
For that matter, there isn’t even any systematic teaching regarding the doctrine of the Trinity!
For it is: Do and do, do and do,
rule on rule, rule on rule ;
a little here, a little there.”
I don’t know why God chooses to give us bits and pieces of doctrines (of course books like Romans are somewhat an exception), but that is His method.
As far as SHoward’s illustration: I have used that for years with 3 circles on 3 overhead transparencies. I think this effectively teaches that each Person of the Godhead is fully God, and that One Person of the Trinity is as much God as all 3 Persons. It is one of the better illustrations. So is the man with 3 personalities, an illustration that comes closest, IMO.
But it is not just a matter of a good illustration. The “Trinity Scandal” is that perhaps most professing born-again believers confess the Trinity but, while using the term, envision a Modal Monarchial viewpoint: one God, one Person, 3 Forms.
Some of the problem is that many Christians have no idea what a PERSON is. They think a person is a “people.” I try to explain that person has intellect, emotions, will, and creativity.
Angels are persons (as are fallen angels), humans are persons, and God is 3 Persons. That helps.
I also think you will find that many Christians believe that being in the “image of God” means that we look like God. We need more theological teaching,but we need to monitor what is and is not getting through.
"The Midrash Detective"
Ed: But the problem I have is with Sanders view that accepting the doctrine of the Trinity is what makes one a Christian.
Don’t get me wrong: I think the doctrine of the Trinity is quite important — one of the fundamentals of the faith. What I am saying is that accepting the DEITY of Jesus Christ and trusting in His atoning work for our justification is what makes us Christian.
Ed, as a Baptist, I have immensely enjoyed much of what Bruce Ware has written on the relevance of the Trinity in soteriology. Do you have any of his writings?
Don’t get me wrong: I think the doctrine of the Trinity is quite important — one of the fundamentals of the faith. What I am saying is that accepting the DEITY of Jesus Christ and trusting in His atoning work for our justification is what makes us Christian.
Ed, as a Baptist, I have immensely enjoyed much of what Bruce Ware has written on the relevance of the Trinity in soteriology. Do you have any of his writings?
1. Nick’s wordpress blog rules the day for critique on the heresy concerning Oneness Pentecostalism - http://rdtwot.wordpress.com/
2. I listened to James White this spring in Salt Lake City. He worked American evangelicals over the coals for their sloppy modalism - targeting preachers to contemporary Christian bands like Phillips, Craig & Dean.
2. I listened to James White this spring in Salt Lake City. He worked American evangelicals over the coals for their sloppy modalism - targeting preachers to contemporary Christian bands like Phillips, Craig & Dean.
I did a paper a few months ago on Tertullian and I do remember when researching his pre-Nicene formulation of “one essence, three persons” in Against Praxeaus, that he bemoaned that virtually all the lay Christians were unknowingly Monarchian Modalists. I read about that in B.B. Warfield’s collection, volume 4 on Tertullian and Augustine.
But that brings up another question… many of the 2nd century Christians like Justin Martyr and early Tertullian held to the Logos Speculation. We can assume that most of the Apostles taught the Trinity during their founding and teaching in the early churches, but as far as we can tell there was a period between the apostolic times and Nicea where a mainstream understanding of the Trinity was lacking (for various reasons). Even after Nicea you had the Arian controversy go on for about 100 years. Perhaps the majority of Christians were not really Christians. But I do see that these were certainly struggling to understand the Godhead, from Tertullian and Novatian to Hipolytus, Athenasius and the three Greek fathers.
I suppose I said all that to say all this… between the apostle John and Athenasius were there any “trinitarians” that we know of? Of course there had to be, but I don’t know of their writings, unless you would grant Tertullian and Novatian to be trinitarians. I don’t think most consider them trinitarian in a Nicean/Chalcedonian sense, but close. The question then is how close do you have to be? I think I am echoing your statement Ed, where you said “accepting the DEITY of Jesus Christ and trusting in His atoning work for our justification is what makes us Christian”. These early Christians who didn’t exactly have the trinity figured out, or were subordinationists, most often were quite convinced of the Diety of Christ.
I would agree with the statement that many professing trinitarians in non-denom and baptist churches are really modalists… I was.
(BTW, I am a first year student so if I said something boneheaded please don’t pounce)
But that brings up another question… many of the 2nd century Christians like Justin Martyr and early Tertullian held to the Logos Speculation. We can assume that most of the Apostles taught the Trinity during their founding and teaching in the early churches, but as far as we can tell there was a period between the apostolic times and Nicea where a mainstream understanding of the Trinity was lacking (for various reasons). Even after Nicea you had the Arian controversy go on for about 100 years. Perhaps the majority of Christians were not really Christians. But I do see that these were certainly struggling to understand the Godhead, from Tertullian and Novatian to Hipolytus, Athenasius and the three Greek fathers.
I suppose I said all that to say all this… between the apostle John and Athenasius were there any “trinitarians” that we know of? Of course there had to be, but I don’t know of their writings, unless you would grant Tertullian and Novatian to be trinitarians. I don’t think most consider them trinitarian in a Nicean/Chalcedonian sense, but close. The question then is how close do you have to be? I think I am echoing your statement Ed, where you said “accepting the DEITY of Jesus Christ and trusting in His atoning work for our justification is what makes us Christian”. These early Christians who didn’t exactly have the trinity figured out, or were subordinationists, most often were quite convinced of the Diety of Christ.
I would agree with the statement that many professing trinitarians in non-denom and baptist churches are really modalists… I was.
(BTW, I am a first year student so if I said something boneheaded please don’t pounce)
Jason E. Schaitel MCP
co-founder FrancisSchaefferStudies.org
student at Veritas School of Theology
-------
Greg Long, Ed.D. (SBTS)
Pastor of Adult Ministries
Grace Church, Des Moines, IA
Adjunct Instructor
School of Divinity
Liberty University
So Ed, are you saying that if we have a faulty conception of the trinity, and I think we all have a faulty conception since it cannot be properly understood or adequately explained,that though you have come in repentance and faith and become a disciple and you love the Lord and are obeying Him that that faulty conception disqualifies you from being a child of God?
Richard Pajak
[Richard Pajak] So Ed, are you saying that if we have a faulty conception of the trinity, and I think we all have a faulty conception since it cannot be properly understood or adequately explained,that though you have come in repentance and faith and become a disciple and you love the Lord and are obeying Him that that faulty conception disqualifies you from being a child of God?No way am I saying that! I think there are many saved modalists, for example. I do not think you can be saved and deny the deity of Christ, but the Trinity is a separate issue.
"The Midrash Detective"
[Ed Vasicek]So Nicene Christianity is just one option? I have a hard time saying confirmed modalists are Christians. They’re not worshiping the same God. Contemporary Americans have a hard time admitting that someone can be disqualified from calling himself a Christian just because they hold a different abstract theology, but the rest of Christendom has had no such hesitation.
No way am I saying that! I think there are many saved modalists, for example. I do not think you can be saved and deny the deity of Christ, but the Trinity is a separate issue.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
So the same question I posed to Ed is then directed to you Charlie..do you think someone with a so called “faulty” conception of the trinity (bearing in mind that your own conception may be faulty) despite them having believed and repented and who love and obey the Lord, is a christian?
I have a hard time thinking that the Lord would reject them for a faulty conception of Himself.
I have a hard time thinking that the Lord would reject them for a faulty conception of Himself.
Richard Pajak
Greg,
Charlie,
I guess its a good thing they don’t know about the Athanasian Creed!
Really? No analogy or word picture for the Trinity? As in the Father the Son and the Holy Spirit? That Trinity? So the Son was biologically procreated by the Father?
It’s interesting in Scripture that although there are many analogies/word pictures for theological concepts (the church is like a body, etc.) there is no analogy or word picture given for the Trinity.
Charlie,
I guess its a good thing they don’t know about the Athanasian Creed!
[Richard Pajak] So the same question I posed to Ed is then directed to you Charlie..do you think someone with a so called “faulty” conception of the trinity (bearing in mind that your own conception may be faulty) despite them having believed and repented and who love and obey the Lord, is a christian?Richard, you poison the question. I deny that the Nicene conception of the Trinity is faulty; it is limited by human rationality. There is a difference. I also distinguish between, on the one hand, occasional confusion in thought and expression and, on the other, firm adherence to a heterodox theological position. Christian faith is the doctrine of BOTH the Father AND the Son (2 John 1:9). It is the concept, not the words, that matters. Just because someone jumbles the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit together in a doctrinal statement does not make him a Christian. You cannot believe in Christ, except as the man who is God and the Son of the Father. You cannot repent, except to the God who is triune.
I have a hard time thinking that the Lord would reject them for a faulty conception of Himself.
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Charlie]Charlie,
So Nicene Christianity is just one option? I have a hard time saying confirmed modalists are Christians. They’re not worshiping the same God. Contemporary Americans have a hard time admitting that someone can be disqualified from calling himself a Christian just because they hold a different abstract theology, but the rest of Christendom has had no such hesitation.
I do not deny the importance of the Nicene Creed regarding the Trinity. It IS the only correct option, IMO. But there is a big difference between what one must believe to be saved and what is theologically true. I am saying that acceptance of the deity of Christ is an issue for salvation, while Trinitarianism is an important issue in defining orthodoxy and thus fundamentalism and evangelicalism. I would not allow a non-trinitarian to preach or teach at the church I pastor, but I would not presume he is lost because he is a modalist. That’s why I said earlier that we need to be concerned about things beyond salvation.
I think most of the believers in the first two centuries of the church DID understand the deity of Christ, but I am skeptical that most of them understood the intricacies of the Trinity.
I would argue similarly with issues like inerrancy (or the infallibility) of Scripture. There are many saved people who believe the Bible (in the originals) contain errors, but they believe in the truths of the Gospel as spelled out in I Cor. 15. They may be saved, but I would not invite them to speak here! And I would practice a level of ecclesiastical separation from them.
Do you have a similar viewpoint or not?
I deny that the Nicene conception of the Trinity is faulty; it is limited by human rationality.I agree with this, but I would extend it in both directions: the framers of the Nicene creed were also limited by human rationality. I think they did a great job, however, but it is good to re-examine matters. Perfection in theology is not something that has been attained and must be preserved; rather, great progress has been made, but this does not eliminate refinement. There certainly is no other position offered thus far that includes ALL the criteria of Scripture when it comes to accounting for one God and the 3 Persons Who make up that one God.
"The Midrash Detective"
We as human beings have a human nature. We can observe that all human beings no matter how tall/short, skinny/fat, old/young, are made up of human substance. It is what makes us human. John 4 says God is a spirit. Whatever spiritual substance God is made up of or whatever it means to have a divine nature there are three distinct persons who possess the same substance and compose the one God. They are the Father/Son/ Holy Spirit. The idea I teach is of a composite unity. For instance Numbers 13:23 When they reached the Valley of Eshcol, they cut off a branch bearing a single cluster of grapes. There is only one cluster, but the cluster is made up of many grapes. So, God is composed of three persons who all share the same substance. In fact they are the only ones in the universe who share the same essence, nature or substance, which qualifies them to comprise the one God.
Don't be a great pastor, just be a pastor and let history judge for itself.
There are no perfect illustrations of the Trinity, but I think this one is worse than most.
A cluster is not the essence of grapes; it just happens to be how they are grouped together on the branch. I can call each individual person of the Trinity “God,” but no one would call each individual grape “cluster.” At least with the (likewise imperfect) illustration that Peter, James, and John all share one human nature, you can rightly call each of them “human.”
A cluster is not the essence of grapes; it just happens to be how they are grouped together on the branch. I can call each individual person of the Trinity “God,” but no one would call each individual grape “cluster.” At least with the (likewise imperfect) illustration that Peter, James, and John all share one human nature, you can rightly call each of them “human.”
My Blog: http://dearreaderblog.com
Cor meum tibi offero Domine prompte et sincere. ~ John Calvin
[Pastor Rob V] There is only one cluster, but the cluster is made up of many grapes. So, God is composed of three persons who all share the same substance. In fact they are the only ones in the universe who share the same essence, nature or substance, which qualifies them to comprise the one God.Forgive me if I’m misunderstanding, but this seems to me no different than the idea of a pie chart divided in thirds. Each third is made of God-substance, so combined they “comprise” one God.
BTW, whenever someone says, “I have figured out the Trinity and it’s simple. It’s like…” I stop listening. Being unlike anything created is a big part of what it means to be God.
In my view …. best to avoid illustrations
The “Shield of Trinity”
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/Trinity_knight…
More
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/Shield-Trinity…
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/Sent-Myhell-Ar…
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/trinitydiagram…
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/500px-Trinidad…
The “Shield of Trinity”
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/Trinity_knight…
More
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/Shield-Trinity…
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/Sent-Myhell-Ar…
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/trinitydiagram…
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb226/jrpeet/Blogging/500px-Trinidad…
Jim, I love the stained glass picture in particular. As ancient as those are, they make the point.
Rob, I think this part of your presentation is a good way to state things to make the point from a different angle:
Also, I would add that the UNITY or Oneness of God is the baseline truth we begin with. The Trinity is a more detailed and nuanced understanding. Thus I think the base understanding (One God) is the right emphasis. He is One God. This One God is 3 Persons.
Rob, I think this part of your presentation is a good way to state things to make the point from a different angle:
Whatever spiritual substance God is made up of or whatever it means to have a divine nature there are three distinct persons who possess the same substance and compose the one God.We tend to go the other way, but this is a great way to put it.
Also, I would add that the UNITY or Oneness of God is the baseline truth we begin with. The Trinity is a more detailed and nuanced understanding. Thus I think the base understanding (One God) is the right emphasis. He is One God. This One God is 3 Persons.
"The Midrash Detective"
Where can my wife order the stain glass for my next birthday present?
I need to replace one of my home windows with this.
I need to replace one of my home windows with this.
Discussion