Modalism

• Messages sorted by:[ date ][ thread ][ subject ][ author ]

From: Hale Anne <HaleA@rs6k.meredith.edu>
To: higher-fire@prairienet.org

 > What does modalist mean?

     From THE ONENESS OF GOD

---------------------------------------------------------------------
      MODALISTIC MONARCHIANISM: ONENESS IN EARLY CHURCH HISTORY

                           by David Bernard

     What is the nature of God? What is the relationship of Jesus
Christ to God? These two questions are fundamental to Christianity.
The traditional answer of Christendom is given by its doctrine of the
trinity. In the first few centuries of Christianity, however, this
formulation was by no means the definitive one. In fact, The New
Catholic Encyclopedia states that in the second century A.D. "a Trini-
tarian solution was still in the future" and that Trinitarian dogma
"was not solidly established...prior to the end of the 4th century."

     There were many explanations of the nature of God and Christ,
several of which enjoyed widespread acceptance. One of the most impor-
tant of these was modalistic monarchianism, which affirmed both the
absolute oneness of the Godhead and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

     According to the church historian Adolph Harnack, modalistic
monarchianism was the most dangerous rival to trinitarianism in the
period from 180 A D to 300 A.D. He concludes from passages in Hippoly-
tus, Tertullian, and Origen that modalism was the official theory in
Rome for almost a generation, and that it was at one time "embraced by
the great majority of all Christians."

     Despite its evident importance, it is difficult to arrive at a
complete description of what modalistic monarchianism really was. Some
of the more prominent modalists were Noetes, Praxeas, Sabellius,
Epigonus, Cleomenes, Marcellus of Ancyra, and Commodian. At least two
Roman bishops (later classified as popes), Callistus and Zephyrinus,
were accused of being modalists by their opponents. It is difficult to
obtain accurate information about these men and their beliefs because
existing historical sources were all written by their trinitarian
opponents who were intent upon disproving the doctrine of their antag-
onists.

     Undoubtedly, the modalists' doctrine was misunderstood, misrepre-
sented, and distorted in the process. It is impossible, therefore, to
find a precise description of the beliefs of a particular modalist.
However, by putting together different statements about these various
men, it is possible to arrive at a fairly good understanding of modal-
ism. For example, there were possibly some differences in the theolo-
gies of Noetus, Praxeas, Sabellius, and Marcellus; how serious is
difficult to determine. It is certain, however, that each maintained
the full deity of Jesus Christ while admitting  of no distinction of
persons in the Godhead.

     The modalist doctrine is usually explained simply as the belief
that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are only manifestations, or
modes, of the one God (the monarchia), and not three distinct persons
(hypostases).  It should be distinguished from dynamic monarchianism
which also upheld the oneness of God, but did so by claiming that
Jesus was an inferior, subordinate being. More precisely, modalistic
monarchianism is the belief that considers "Jesus as the incarnation
of the Godhead" and "the Father incarnate."

     This view has the obvious advantage of upholding the strong
Jewish monotheistic tradition while also asserting the early Christian
belief in Jesus as God. At the same time it avoids the paradoxes and
mysteries of the trinitarian dogma. However, the trinitarians argued
that it did not adequately account for the Logos, the pre-existent
Christ, or the biblical distinction between the Father and the Son. An
analysis of modalism reveals how it answers these objections.

     Not only did the modalistic monarchians have a different concept
of God from that of the trinitarians, but they also had different
definitions of the Logos and the Son. Their basic position was that
the Logos (the Word in John 1) is not a distinct personal being but is
united with God in much the same way as a man and his word. It is a
power "indivisible and inseparable from the Father," as Justin Martyr
described the belief. For Marcellus, the Logos is God Himself, partic-
ularly as thought of in activity. Thus, the trinitarian concept of the
Logos as a separate being (based on the philosophy of Philo) was
rejected. The modalists accepted the incarnation of the Logos in
Christ, but for them that simply meant the extension of the Father in
human form.

     Closely allied with this idea is the modalistic definition of
the Son. They maintained that the Son refers to the Father come in the
flesh. Praxeas denied the preexistence of the Son, using the term Son
to apply only to the incarnation. The distinction between the Father
and the Son is that Father refers to God in Himself, but Son refers to
the Father as manifested in the flesh (in Jesus). The Spirit in Jesus
was the Father, but Son refers specifically to the humanity of Jesus
as well as deity. Plainly, then, the modalists did not mean that
Father is interchangeable with Son in terminology. Rather, they meant
that the two words do not imply separate hypostases (persons) of God
but only different modes of the one God.

     Putting the two concepts of Logos and Son together, we see how
the modalists thought about Jesus. Noetus said that Jesus was the Son
by reason of His birth but He was also the Father. The modalistic
Logos doctrine identified the Spirit of Christ as the Father. The
Incarnation was like a final theophany in which the Father is fully
revealed. However this was not Docetism (the belief that Jesus was a
spirit being only), because both Praxeas and Noetus emphasized Jesus'
human nature, especially his human frailties and sufferings. As in
trinitarianism, Jesus was "very man and very God"; for the modalists,
Jesus was the incarnation of the fullness of the Godhead and not just
the incarnation of a separate person called the Son or Logos.

     The most common objection made to modalistic monarchianism was
that it was Patripassian; that is, it implied that the Father suffered
and died. Tertullian was the first to so accuse the modalists. He
interpreted modalism to mean that the Father is the same as the Son.
But this would mean that the Father died a clear impossibility. In
this way, Tertullian sought to ridicule and refute modalism.

     Later historians, taking Tertullian's  argument as truth, have
labeled the modalist doctrine as Patripassianism. However, Praxeas
explained that while Jesus was the Father incarnate, Jesus died only
as to His humanity, as the Son. Sabellius evidently answered the
charge of Patripassianism in a similar way.

     The whole issue can easily be resolved by realizing that modalism
did not teach, as Tertullian assumed, that the Father is the Son, but
rather that the Father is in the Son. As Commodian said, "The Father
went into the Son, one God everywhere." Similarly, Sabellius explained
that the Logos was not the Son but was clothed by the Son.28  Other
modalists in response to the charge explained that the Son suffered,
while the Father sympathized or "suffered with." By this they meant
the Son, the man Jesus, suffered and died. The Father, the Spirit of
God within Jesus, could not have suffered or died in any physical
sense bwt yet He must have been affected by or have participated in
the suffering of the flesh. Accordingly, Zephyrinus said, "I know only
one God, Christ JesUs, and apart from Him no other who was born or
could suffer....It was not the  Father who died but the Son."

     From these statements, it seems clear that the modalists held
that the Father was not flesh but was clothed or manifested in the
flesh. The flesh died but the eternal Spirit did not. Therefore,
Patripassianism is a misleading and inaccurate term to use for modal-
istic monarchianism.

     Basically, then, modalistic monarchianism taught that God has no
distinction of number but of name or mode only. The term Son refers to
the Incarnation. This means that the Son is not an eternal nature, but
a mode of God's activity made especially for the purpose of salvation
of mankind. There is no preexistent Son, but one can speak of the are-
existent Christ since the Spirit of Christ is God Himself. The Logos
is seen as referring to God's activity. Jesus is therefore the Word or
activity of the Father clothed in flesh. The Holy Spirit is not a
separate being any more than the Logos. The term Holy Spirit describes
what God is, and refers to God's power and action in the world. So,
both the terms Logos and Holy Spirit refer to God Himself, in specific
modes of activity.

     The effect of modalistic monarchianism is to reaffirm the Old
Testament concept of one, indivisible God who can and does manifest
Himself and His power in many different ways. Furthermore, Jesus
Christ is identified as that one God who has manifested Himself
through incarnation in a human body. Modalism thus recognizes the full
deity of Jesus, much more than trinitarianism does, which is exactly
what the modalists c1aimed. The fullness and completeness of God is in
Jesus.

     In summary, modalistic monarchianism can be defined as the belief
that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are manifestations of the one God
with no distinctions of person being possible. Furthermore, the one
God is expressed fully in the person of Jesus Christ.
Walter L Copes