ForgotPassword?
Sign Up
Search this Topic:
Forum Jump
Posts: 2300
Feb 8 10 2:48 PM
Bible Believer
Question: "What are Sabellianism, Modalism, and Monarchianism?"Answer: One of the most hotly debated theological issues in the early Christian church was the doctrine of the Trinity. How do God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit relate to one another? How can there only be one God, but three Persons? All of the various early heresies resulted from individuals overemphasizing or underemphasizing various aspects of the Godhead. Ultimately, all of these false views result from attempts by finite human beings to fully understand and infinite God (Romans 11:33-36). Sabellianism, Modalism, and Monarchianism are just three of the numerous false views.Monarchianism had two primary forms, Dynamic Monarchianism and Modalistic Monarchianism. Dynamic Monarchianism is the view that Jesus was not in His nature God. It is the view that God existed in Jesus, just as God exists in all of us, but that God existed in Jesus in a particularly powerful way. Jesus was God because God inhabited Him. Modalistic Monarchianism, also known as Modalism, is the view that God variously manifested Himself as the Father (primarily in the Old Testament), other times as the Son (primarily from Jesus’ conception to His ascension), and other times as the Holy Spirit (primarily after Jesus’ ascension into Heaven). Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism teaches the God has simply revealed Himself in three different modes, and that He is not three Persons, as the Bible asserts. Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism is also known as Sabellianism, named after Sabellius, an influential early proponent of the view. Yet another aspect of Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism / Sabellianism is Patripassianism, which is the view that it was God the Father who became incarnate, suffered, died, and was resurrected. Patripassianism essentially teaches that God the Father became His own Son.With all that said, Sabellianism, Modalism, Monarchianism (dynamic and modalistic), and Patripassianism are all unbiblical understandings of the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity. It is impossible for us as finite human beings to fully understand an infinite God. The Bible presents God as one God, but then speaks of three Persons—the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. How these two truths harmonize is inconceivable to the human mind. When we attempt to define the indefinable (God), we will always fail to varying degrees. Dynamic Monarchianism fails in that it does not recognize the true deity of Jesus Christ. Modalistic Monarchianism / Modalism / Sabellianism / Patripassianism fails because it does not recognize God as three distinct Persons.
Posts: 1837
Feb 8 10 5:19 PM
Gal 2:16 Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified. Jas 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.
Posts: 3482
Feb 8 10 5:38 PM
Feb 8 10 5:50 PM
Posts: 7270
Feb 8 10 7:01 PM
Posts: 176
Feb 8 10 7:14 PM
Feb 8 10 7:26 PM
JerryRose wrote:The answer to all three questions is God. Nobody disagrees with that here, so give your accusations and vain babblings a rest.
Feb 8 10 7:54 PM
Feb 8 10 8:55 PM
Posts: 1861
Feb 8 10 9:40 PM
I've talked about Trinitariasm as polytheism. Such people believe that God is three Gods
So as far as I can tell Glorybe, you and I aren't modalists
Feb 8 10 10:26 PM
Feb 8 10 10:30 PM
Feb 9 10 7:45 AM
Who is the authority on who is Trinitarian, or what Trinitarian is if it is a mystery?
Is their another definition you want to propose?
That's why I call them "thingy's" When you trinitarians figure out if they are persons or personages, then get back to me.
I was admitting a fault that I have when I talk of Trinitariasm as being the belief in 3 Gods and not One. Furthermore, I do understand the Trinity belief.
Now prove me wrong on that!!!
Feb 9 10 8:50 AM
Posts: 85958
Feb 9 10 1:12 PM
Administrator
FHII wrote: I pulled this definition off of http://www.carm.org/modalism"Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another."What I'd like to know is if there is anyone who believes this? I certainly don't and I remember Jerry posting why he didn't as well, and I'm with him on that. I am not a modalist in that I don't subscribe to the belief that God never manifested himself at the same time. I've acknowledged and discussed verses like Mat 3:16 several times. This very definition is rediculous to me in that Trinitarians believe God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms or persons or personages as well. The difference is that a modalist doesn't think God does it at the same time while a Trinitarian believes that God is three "whatevers". So, if you are a modalist and believe that God doesn't reveal himself in different modes at the same time please stand up and be accounted for. I am not one. My feeling is that there are a couple of folks on this board conducting an inquisition and yet they are labeling folks as "modalists" when they aren't!I've kind of done the same thing. I've talked about Trinitariasm as polytheism. Such people believe that God is three Gods (though they don't say that.... They say, "persons" or "personages" -- like it really matters -- all rolled up into one). So if you are really a modalist, say so.... I have a feeling I'll be hearing crickets between the inquistors false accusations.
Feb 9 10 1:18 PM
steelmaker wrote: JerryRose wrote: The answer to all three questions is God. Nobody disagrees with that here, so give your accusations and vain babblings a rest. Not as long as you apostste oneness/modalist/ sabellianist/monarchiast/ whatever ya wannacallit heretix are still spouting your trash.
JerryRose wrote: The answer to all three questions is God. Nobody disagrees with that here, so give your accusations and vain babblings a rest.
Feb 9 10 2:19 PM
I'm just here looking for all these so called "modalists"
Feb 9 10 3:16 PM
BrianT wrote: I'm just here looking for all these so called "modalists"Not all modalists believe the modes are "consecutive and never simultaneous". Modalism is more about the nature of his existence than the timing of the forms his appearance to others. As such, there are several here that are rightly called "modalists", regardless of their affinity for the term itself. Instead of "mode", if Jerry wants to use "office" or you want to use "thingy", that doesn't change the underlying modalism.
Feb 9 10 4:25 PM
That's what I like about you Tim. I don't have to respond. I can just sit back and let you babble on (Babylon). I can let you change your posts several times and say nothing. Your words are enough.
Not all modalists believe the modes are "consecutive and never simultaneous". Modalism is more about the nature of his existence than the timing of the forms his appearance to others. As such, there are several here that are rightly called "modalists", regardless of their affinity for the term itself. Instead of "mode", if Jerry wants to use "office" or you want to use "thingy", that doesn't change the underlying modalism.
Regardless of what you call yourselves, you guys sure ain't Trinitarian.
Feb 9 10 6:15 PM
"Instead of attacking and mocking me why don't you simply answer the questions I posed to you?"More on that in a few minutes...." I don't like you much either ( I don't abide heretics that well) but at least I answer what you say without making your snide derogatory comments."Gee. Really? You don't like me much either? Wow! I can't say I'm shocked. But are you really going to sit there in front of your keyboard and say you haven't made snide derogatory comments? None of your derogotory comments bothers me because I consider the source of them. It doesn't bother me that you have called me a heretic, a punk, and a few other names. I really don't care. I simply find this quote fascinating in that you have the audacity to accuse me of making snide derogatory comments when you are pretty much guilty of the same. Sure! I have! I have mocked you, made attacking comments and made snide derogatory comments. I openly admit that so I'm not a hypocrite in that. It's just that is SOOO easy! Both doctrinally and in the natural. You should relax, fella! You are letting yourself be flustered. That is the big difference between you and I. I'm relaxed and you are all up in arms. I'd really like to have a civil conversation with you, but you aren't making that easy! In fact, you are making it easy to spoof you and makeit easy to make you look silly. Forgive me, but how can I resist? But I have answered all your questions at one time or another. There is not a point or question you, Steelemaker or Brian has made or asked that I have not addressed. I can not think of none. But to appease you I will answser any questions or points you want to pose to me again. So please do ask away.
Share This