Oneness was the only significant belief in the early second century with regard to the Godhead. Even when forms of binitarianism and trinitarianism began to develop they did not gain dominance until the latter part of the third century. During this time there were many notable Oneness leaders and teachers who opposed this shift in doctrine.
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 Trinitarian 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 important 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 Hippolytus, 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 Noetus, 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 antagonists.
Undoubtedly, the modalists' doctrine was misunderstood, misrepresented, 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 modalism. For example, there were possibly some differences in the theologies 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, particularly 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 pre-existence 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 fulness 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 labelled 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. 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 but 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 modalistic 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 pre-existent Son, but one can speak of the pre-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 claimed. The fulness 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.
Dominant Belief In 2nd And 3rd Centuries
