The Trinity Doctrine and Modalism Compared

Modalism

In Modalism, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are mere “modes” of how the one God interacts with creation. Like an actor on a stage, God sometimes appears as the Father and other times as the Son or the Spirit, but it is one and the same Person. For example, He appears as the Father in the creation, the Son in Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension.

For the Modalist, Christ is not only God, he is the Father himself. This would mean that the Father suffered and died on the Cross. This view was rejected in the third century. Sabellius, who taught a version of it, was excommunicated in AD 220.

The Trinity Doctrine

The Trinity doctrine, as taught by the mainstream church, including most Protestant churches, like Modalism, regards the Son and the Holy Spirit to be “God” but describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three distinct Persons. To maintain the oneness of God, so that the doctrine does not teach Tri-theism (three Gods), the Father, Son, and Spirit share one undivided essence or substance. It is then said that they are one Being with a single mind and will.

So, both Modalism and the Trinity doctrine proclaim one God and one substance. But while Modalism describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as modes, the Trinity doctrine describes them as Persons. For the Trinity doctrine to differ from Modalism, personhood must be real. For three reasons, in my view, the Persons in the Trinity doctrine are NOT real persons but mere modes of God:

1. The Persons are Identical.

Firstly, on the principle of divine simplicity, a remnant of ancient Greek philosophy, but still today accepted by theologians as valid, the Trinity doctrine teaches that God does not have parts. Consequently, the three Persons are not three parts of God. Rather, each of them is the full divine essence. In other words, each Person is the entire God. This means they are identical, which means they are mere modes of God. Show More

2. The Persons share one single Mind.

Secondly, in the orthodox doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one single mind and will.

Secondly, while the term ‘person’ implies a self, a thinker, with his own will and mind, in the Trinity doctrine, the Father, Son, and Spirit share one single mind and will because the mind and will are rooted in the substance of God, not in the Persons. Show More

The disastrous consequence is that the Father cannot love the Son and the Son cannot love the Father. Similarly, the Son cannot truly intercede with the Father.

Ordinary Christians may think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each having His own mind, but that would be three Gods (ri-theism).

Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the standard Trinity doctrine, share one single mind and will, they are mere modes of God.

3. Relations make no difference.

In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, as already stated, the three Persons are identical because they share one single divine substance and one single mind. The only difference between them is their relationships, namely:

      • The Father begets the Son and
      • The Spirit proceeds from the Father (and from the Son in Western catholic thinking). Show More
The following from Thomas Aquinas:

“So then the only question left is what makes the persons distinct from one another? What makes the distinction real? The answer is that they are distinct only in their relation to one another.” [Summa 1028]

“The divine persons are distinguished from each other only by the relations.” [Summa 1036]

Aquinas’ justification of the view that the Spirit must proceed from the Son as well confirms that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is their relations, for, he says, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, then the Spirit is the same as the Son because both have a relationship only with the Father. For the Son to be distinguished from the Holy Spirit, there must be a relationship between them as well. [Summa 1036] Quoting Aquinas:

“It must be said that the Holy Ghost is from the Son. For if He were not from Him, He (the Holy Ghost) could in no wise be personally distinguished from Him (the Son).”

However, in the Trinity, created beings cannot see or understand what those distinctions are: “The distinctions between them are real: but we do not know what it is to exist distinctly in this state.” (Ayres, p. 295) So, as far as we can tell, there is no distinction. Show More

Conclusion

In conclusion, in Modalism, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are mere “modes” of how the one God interacts with creation. In contrast, the Trinity doctrine describes the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as Persons but if we analyze what these Persons are, we discover that they are identical in all respects. Consequently, they effectively are “modes” of God. Show More

Consequently, the Trinity doctrine is a form of Modalism. Claims to the contrary does not help. We need to consider the substance of the matter.

The Arian Controversy was a war between two main views:

One Being – Second-century Modalism, third-century Sabellianism, and fourth-century Nicene theology claimed that only one divine Being exists. Different theologians explained this differently, but in all instances, there is only one divine Being:

        • Modalism said that ‘Son’ and “Father’ are two names for the same Being.
        • Sabellianism described them as parts of one Being.
        • In Nicene theology, the Son is part of the Father.
        • The Trinity doctrine describes them as one Being who is divided invisibly.

Three Beings – Second-century Logos theology, Origen’s third-century theology, and fourth-century Arianism taught three distinct divine Beings, but with the Son and Spirit subordinate to the Father.

The ‘one Being’ view is based on the Old Testament (OT). It argues that the OT reveals only one divine Being. Since the Son is also divine, He must somehow be part of that one divine Being.

The ‘three Beings’ view accepts that the Son is a second divine Being and tries to find evidence of such a second Being in the OT.


Other Articles

Tertullian was a not a Trinitarian.

Overview

Tertullian and Sabellius represented two opposing trajectories. Tertullian was a Logos theologian and Sabellius developed from Monarchianism. Nevertheless. their theologies were similar:

Both taught that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis, meaning, a single Existence.

But both distinguished between Father, Son, and Spirit within that single Existence.

Introduction

Books Quoted

Hanson, R.P.C. – The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God – The Arian Controversy 318-381 (1987)

Ayres, Lewis, Nicaea and its legacy, 2004  

Although I quote extensively from other authors, the conclusions are my own and not necessarily shared by these authors.

Hypostasis

The Greek church fathers used the word hypostasis for something distinct from other things, a distinct existence. So, to say that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three hypostases means they are three distinct Beings. Show More

Logos-theology

In Tertullian’s time, Logos-theology and Monarchianism were two main views. Beginning in the second century, following Justin Martyr, Logos-theology dominated non-Jewish Christianity. It taught that the Logos existed through two stages: He always existed as an aspect of God, but became a distinct but subordinate hypostasis (Person) when God decided to create. (See – The Apologists.)

Monarchianism

Opposing Logos-theology, the Monarchians (also known as Modalism) believed that Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis. Specifically, they believed that ‘Father’ and ‘Son’ are two names for the same Person. Consequently, the Father suffered on the Cross. Show More

Sabellianism

Sabellianism is named after the early third-century theologian Sabellius. Like the Monarchians, he explained the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single hypostasis (one Person). Show More

However, there was an important difference between Sabellianism and Monarchianism. None of Sabellius’ writings have survived. Everything we know about him comes from the writings of his opponents, and we know that one’s enemies seldom reflect one’s views fairly. But Von Mosheim studied the available documents and concluded that Sabellius, while maintaining that Father, Son, and Spirit are one hypostasis (Person), opposed the Monarchian concept that Father and Son are simply two names for the same Person. Rather, he argued that Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct forms, aspects, or portions of the one divine Person. Show More

Arians

In the third century, Origen refined Logos theology but still taught that the Son is a distinct Existence. Following him, in the 4th century, the Arians professed three hypostases, meaning that the Father, Son, and Spirit are three distinct Existences. For example, the Arian Dedication Creed of 341 is important because it reveals the nature of Arianism without emperor-interference. It opposed Arius’ extreme teachings, but its main purpose was to oppose Sabellianism. For that purpose, while Sabellianism favored ‘one hypostasis’, it explicitly confesses three hypostases. Show More

Tertullian

Did not oppose Sabellius.

Wikipedia states that Tertullian was “one of the chief critics of Sabellianism.” This was true only to the extent that Monarchianism and Sabellianism formed a single trajectory, but Tertullian (ca. 160–225) wrote slightly before Sabellius (fl. ca. 215) and did not oppose Sabellius directly. Tertullian’s enemy was Sabellius’ precursor – the Monarchians. Show More

Was a Logos-theologian.

Tertullian is often praised as an accurate anticipation of Nicene theology. He did use the language of the Trinity doctrine: one substance, three Persons. Show More

However, he believed that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father. Show More

And, like Arius, he believed there was a time when the Son did not exist. Show More

Consequently, he did not teach the Trinity doctrine. He was a typical Logos theologian. Consistent with Logos-theology, he taught that the Son or Logos was eternally within the being of the Father and only became distinct at a particular point for creation, revelation, and redemption. Show More

Tertullian is regarded as important, not for his theology, but for introducing certain words that later became ‘orthodox, particularly the terms ‘trinity’, ‘substance’, and ‘person’. Show More

Personae

So, what did Tertullian mean by “three personae?” Are they forms, aspects, or portions of one hypostasis, as Sabellius proposed, or did he understand Father, Son, and Spirit to be really distinct, like three Persons with three distinct minds? The following shows that Tertullian believed that the Father, Son, and Spirit are a single hypostasis (a single Person with a single mind):

The Son is a portion of the Father. Show More

The entire substance is a “single discrete entity,” meaning one hypostasis. Show More

The Logos “became more clearly distinguished” but remained part of the Father. Show More

Therefore, Tertullian’s ‘Persons were not ‘Persons’ in the sense of distinct Beings with distinct minds. This is also how other theologians used the term. Sabellius (Basil, Epistle 210.5.36–41, Hanson p. 328) and the Sabelian Paulinians (Anatolios, p. 27) used the term for the Father and Son. It is sometimes translated as ‘persons,’ but it means “role” (Hanson, p. 649), “character or part (almost as in a play)” (Hanson, p. 692), or “role or manifestation” (Anatolios, p. 27). Basil regarded πρόσωπον (prosopon) “as less appropriate, too close to Sabellianism” (Ayres, p. 210). Show More

Similar to the Sabellius

Although Sabellius and Tertullian represented two different trajectories, their theologies were similar: Tertullian was a Logos theologian, but the Monarchians criticized the Logos theologians for teaching that they divide the one God into two Gods. Tertullian developed his peculiar theology to overcome that criticism. He deviated from the standard Logos theory and described God as “three personae” in one substance. Therefore, like Sabellius, the Son is not a distinct existence, but both Sabellius and Tertullian were able to identify the Father and Son within that single existence. Show More

Nicene Theology

It seems as if the Western pro-Nicenes of the fourth century continued Tertullian’s understanding. Both Alexander and Athanasius described the Father, Son, and Spirit as a single hypostasis, with the Logos intrinsic to the being of the Father. Show More

And the manifesto compiled by the Western delegates at the Council of Serdica, which is the only Western (Nicene) creed from the fourth century that was not emperor-manipulated, explicitly confesses one hypostasis. Show More

Conclusion

Wikipedia states that Tertullian was “one of the chief critics of Sabellianism,” but this article argued that It is valid to classify Tertullian as a Sabellian if we define Sabellianism as teaching that Father, Son, and Spirit are only one Person within whom the Father, Son, and Spirit are somehow distinguished.


Other Articles