The Trinity

[Ovedya]

Over the past week or so I have been searching the internet for a good short summary of what modalism is. In all honesty I cannot find a better resource than the following: Modalism, Tritheism, or the Pure Revelation of the Triune God According to the Bible. (1994, Living Stream Ministry) As the site states, this publication was printed in response to a false accusation against a certain church organization. In the process of defending itself against these accusations, the organization had to outline what modalism is, and conversely what tritheism is, and then to affirm the genuine truth of the Scriptures which is, that neither modalism nor tritheism is correct, because they both take the truth of the Scriptures to the wrong extreme. This is a good brief summary of the history of both heresies, so I'd highly recommend that you and the other readers of this debate take the time to go through and read the entire publication.

The problem with modalism, as I stated previously in this thread, is that it emphasizes only one aspect of the entire truth concerning God's inward nature. Modalism stresses that the Son and the Spirit are merely successive and temporary manifestations of God the Father. It is restrictive in nature because modalism confines God to only one of these successive and temporary states at a time. However, as I have also shown above, and I will continue to show further in this posting, God clearly has manifested himself as the Father, Son, and Spirit at the same time. The evidence given should, in and of itself, be enough for any reasonable person to conclude that modalism cannot be the entire truth with regard to the revelation of who God is - what He is in His inner being - in the Scriptures.

As I have shown, no reader of the Greek language in the first century (Or the second through fourth centuries for that matter) would ever misunderstand the clear revelation that the writers had concerning the Triune nature of God, or even the divinity of Christ. So in order to deny that clearly the writers intended to show that there is a divine Father, a divine Son, and a divine Holy Spirit, each of whom function together in unity within the believers and within God's eternal economy, one would have to believe that the language is too ambiguous, that there are corruptions within the texts of Scripture, or that other readers have simply gotten it wrong all these centuries.

Well, clearly the language is not ambiguous. There are many verses which speak of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; and there are many verses which give each of these divine Persons of the Godhead place, Person, and character. Even in His commandment to go forth and baptize the nations, the Lord Jesus Himself identified each divine Person of the Godhead: "Go therefore and disciple all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Matt. 28:19). In the Greek language to "disciple" ("teach" in some translations) is to Matheteuo, or instruct. It means "to make pupils of," or, as the translation I used above, simply, "to disciple." So here the Lord is telling His own "Matheteuos", His own disciples, to make more disciples from the nations (The nations of heathens, that is).

To a disciple of the Lord making more disciples simply means that he should teach others about the Lord Himself, to impart the same teachings that the Lord imparted into him into others. But take note: The Lord used three distinct names in His commandment to the disciples: Father, Son, Spirit. Yet He only used the one term to describe these three: name. He said, "...into the name." There is only one name for these three distinctly identified Persons. The language is clear.

Clearly there are no corruptions within the texts of Scriptures. To argue against the fact that there are certain clear identifications within the texts of Scripture that identify three distinct divine individuals in the Godhead, one would have to deconstruct the texts of Scripture and discard those verses which do not fit within the confines of modalistic theology. Scriptural deconstruction, or Biblical revisionism is nothing new; heathens and theologins have been attempting to deconstruct the Bible for centuries in order to force the Scriptures to agree with their own theologies or natural concepts. But an honest student of the Bible recognizes that there are truths contained within the Scriptures that, despite his ability to comprehend them, or because they conflict with his own concepts or understanding, are just as much the truth as those verses which he does understand and agree with. Put simply, an honest seeker and disciple of the Lord receives all truth of Scripture equally, and does not attempt to change, ignore, marginalize, or discard entire passages of Scripture because they conflict with his own understanding or theology.

Finally, what if we've gotten it wrong all these centuries? That's actually a very good question. It bears examination. I think the first thing that we should consider with this argument is first, whose making the claim. Who claims that there is "new truth" or "uncovered truths" to the Bible that were not previously seen? Secondly, in examining such a claim, one must consider carefully how the majority opinion could have ever been wrong in the first place; and given all the time that has passed, how so many who have examined, re-examined, re-studied, and researched the same evidence, could have all come to the same conclusions and still have been wrong.

Given the span of time and the degrees to which some of history's best theologins themselves were, A) Students of the Greek language, and B) Scholarly students of the Scriptures, it seems highly unlikely that they could all arrive at the same conclusions and still be so very wrong. Some of them, or all of them, would have had to at some point fallen prey to the same traps that I've described above: They misread or misunderstood the clear language of the Bible - in which case they were not good students of the language; or they intentionally disregarded or discarded entire passages of Scripture in order to support a preconceived theology or idea. In which case these men were clearly heretics.

Therefore, as a conflicting and contrary theology to established and confirmed Biblical orthodoxy, modalism is a kind of heresy. It is a school of though that exists outside the realm of true Biblical orthodoxy. It does not just have its "foot in the door," but exists completely outside of true Biblical orthodoxy.

Well, one might say, "Isn't modalism at least half the truth? And therefore, if half the truth, then truth?" No. The pure revelation of God is that neither modalism nor thritheism in any of their forms are truth, but that God is both one - He operates within His economy and expresses Himself in unity within and without His creation; and He is three - He is three distinct, but not separate, divine Persons that co-exist and co-inhere from eternity past to eternity future. This "unity in plurality, plurality in unity" is an essential truth in Scripture which brings together both aspects of the truth, and conforms to the pure revelation of the Scriptures without compromise and without sacrificing either aspect.

Therefore, because modalism sacrifices essential truths by marginalizing, ignoring, or discarding passages in the Bible which reveal the three distinct and divine Persons of the Godhead, it is heresy. And because tritheism sacrifices essential truths by marginalizing, ignoring, or discarding passages in the Bible which reveals God's unique oneness, it is heresy as well. Both modalism and tritheism must necessarily be rejected by those seeking to maintain the entire revelation of Scriptures (To "keep God's Word," as it were - John 14:23) intact, and to stay true to genuine Biblical orthodoxy.

Now, to your most recent comments (I will try to be brief):

"Also, the fact that Jesus - whom you agree is God - the fullness of the Godhead (divinity - Col. 1:19; 2:9) prayed to God as a separate Person, referring to His Father, and using terms that unequivically identify God the Father as a separate divine Person aside from Himself, proves as a fact that He Himself is a separate divine Person in the same Godhead as the Father. Jesus, in His prayer, is not speaking of His humanity alone, but also to His divine and eternal status within the Godhead.

Once again in my earlier post I have stated how I see this verse of Scripture and it is up to those reading to decide if it makes sense. It is not my intention with this debate to change your mind as I can tell that your belief is deep in the trinitarian system. I cannot see any need for God to pray to God. He is Almighty and thus does not have any need to pray for anything. He is everything! You say that Jesus has the fullness of the Godhead in Him and so do I. What is the definition of fullness?

[Brother Chad]

I would like to point out that it is very clear throughout the NT that there is a distinction made between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As far as labeling this distinction to mean that there are three people in the Godhead is what confounds me.

Ovedya has stated,

Edited March 2, 2006 by Brother Chad

[Ovedya]

I would like to point out that it is very clear throughout the NT that there is a distinction made between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. As far as labeling this distinction to mean that there are three people in the Godhead is what confounds me.

The distinction is not just in terminology, however, which is where a lot of your argument appears to lie. Even though you have admitted to not holding strictly to modalism, you have stated (early in this debate) that you believe that God, "has manifested Himself in different roles, functions, or modes."

I have already shown that the titles which refer to the Triune God are not separate titles or terms that refer to one God who has passed through different modes, or who has revealed himself in various roles, but to distinct divine Persons in the Godhead, each having His own function in God's eternal economy.

I cannot agree that this is my theology because it is evident that the Spirit is working in Genesis 1:2,

[Brother Chad]

I believe I will start with your use of Genesis 1:26-27. You have stated that the

Edited April 11, 2006 by Brother Chad

[EricH]

It would appear that this debate has run its course