Who Said This?
And is it problematic?
We believe in one God, who is eternal, self-existent, infinite, and immutable. We believe He has one nature, one essence, and one substance, yet manifests Himself to man in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Don’t know who said it but it sounds like modalism.
Well, it’s hard to say. It uses typical Oneness Pentecostal/modalistic language with that “manifests” terminology. On the other hand, true modalists don’t normally refer to the manifestations as “persons.” It doesn’t have to be problematic, depending on what they actually believe, but it certainly could be worded better.
David:
As Andy said, the term “manifestation” is usually characteristic of modalism in general, most commonly seen today in the United Pentecostal Church International (i.e, “Oneness Pentecostals”).
Oneness Pentecostalism teaches that there is One God, and Father, Son and Holy Spirit are different modes or manifestations of God. They do not believe in a plurality of Divine Persons. Thus, Oneness Pentecostals speak of God “revealing Himself” as Father, Son and Spirit at different times and in different circumstances. These modes are merely manifestations of the One God. Modalism is the trickiest of Christological heresies, because you have to define terms very carefully.
So, you’re either dealing with modalists, or folks who just aren’t being careful with their language. Perhaps the most straightforward way to tell, if you’re in a position to do so, would be to ask:
- Do you believe Jesus Christ has eternally existed as a Divine Person distinct and differentiated from the Father?
This cuts right to the heart of the matter - does the one Being who is God consist of three co-equal, co-eternal Divine Persons, or not?
Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government.
So, you’re either dealing with modalists, or folks who just aren’t being careful with their language.
I think it’s the latter. I pulled it from the doctrinal statement at WCBC. But after googling that particular portion found out that LOTS of Baptists use that same articulation. Often KJVO types, interestingly.*
(*not in any way intended to reflect on the sanest KJVOs. He knows who I’m talking about.)
I noticed that, too. I was hoping you had some insight as to where it came from originally.
If I remember right, it sounds like TD Jakes. He uses both the manifestation and 3 persons language to describe the Trinity, charting a path somewhere between oneness Pentecostalism and orthodoxy. Still too modalistic…….
Jakes does not use “persons” language in his doctrinal statement:
http://www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-Statement.aspx
When I first read it I thought it might be Jakes, too, but it’s better than what Jakes professes in his official doctrinal statement.
In fairness to West Coast, they go on to specify doctrines of the Son and Spirit that further distinguish them as persons.
[AndyE]Jakes does not use “persons” language in his doctrinal statement:
http://www.thepottershouse.org/Local/About-Us/Belief-Statement.aspx
When I first read it I thought it might be Jakes, too, but it’s better than what Jakes professes in his official doctrinal statement.
Christianity Today’s coverage of the elephant room……
http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2012/january/td-jakes-embrac…
Interesting that Jakes hasn’t changed his church’s doctrinal statement to reflect what he told McDonald and Driscoll in the elephant room 3 years ago.
Discussion