What is Modalism?
The recent discussion of TD Jakes has raised the discussion of Modalism and Trinity. While I do not know anyone who clings to the label “Modalist,” it is a term applied to some who hold the Oneness view of Jesus Christ. This term is not first century, but eighteenth century, from Harnack.
Is Modalism the same as Oneness?
Modalism, as the rejected theory of God’s nature, claims that God changed various masks. In other words, He presented Himself as the Father, then the Son, and then the Holy Ghost. Sabellius may have been the main proponent of this idea. Of course, this is not the best explanation of the Lord, for the Son clearly existed as a man in conversation with the Father.
The modern Oneness movement sees God as being the Spirit of the Father within the Son, Christ Jesus. I defend this belief as the simplest understanding of our Lord. I recommend my treatment of the nature of Jesus Christ on another blog.
While that discussion deserves its own space, the discussion of Modalism is at hand. What really bothers me is how the discussion in the Elephant Room used this reasoning: since the majority of Christianity believes the Trinity, we know it is right.
Where the Trinity is not
No theologian or scholar claims that the Bible teaches the Trinity. They all accept it as a post-biblical discovery. Although they claim certain scriptures as “proof” of this doctrine, they still know the Trinity was defined or discussed until at least the second century and this belief did not become main-stream until the fourth century.
Barth, Bultmann, Dunn, McGrath, Bauckham, Cullman, Barnett, and many others admit there is no defensible claim for Paul or other Bible writers being Trinitarians. Therefore, it was a process of development from a very simple belief in God and Christ to a complex Christology.
This brings me to my problem with this whole discussion. Jakes is painted as having been heretical until he came to say, “Yes, I believe in a God of three persons.” Why is he not a heretic now, according to his Trinitarian mentors, but he was before, when it appears he came down the same path as people such as Tertulian and Athanasius?
Who are you calling a heretic?
If Jakes was a heretic (a charge I am not entertaining at this point, although I have ever followed him), then Paul must have been a heretic as well. If the early church did not believe in the Trinity, then they must also not have been on the “foundation of the church” as the Elephant Room conversants call the Trinity. If they were not on the foundation were they not the church.
How we believe about Jesus is the foundation of the faith. I do not think we should keep moving around the labels and redefining our understanding to align with something from the fourth century.
Other issues with the Trinity are that there is no ONE definition of the Trinity. Even though Jakes is holding hands in the Trinitarian camp now, we still do not know what he really believes for in the interview, he said, “What you call Modalism is what I call Pauline.” Does that he still believes in Modalism? Or does he think Paul was wrong?
Search my sites
Custom Search
Devotions with Dad