**Hebrews 1:6** (NIV) says: > when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.” My question is for Trinitarians, Modalists and Binitarians: ***Why was it necessary for God to give the command to his already perfectly loyal Angels to worship the second person or mode of the Godhead, whom** (one would assume) **they already always included in their worship?*** Quotes from Creeds or scholars of the different views, making sense out of this, are welcome.

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 could appear sometimes as the Father, other times as the Son, and other times as the Spirit. For the Modalist, Christ is not only God, he is the Father himself. The orthodox Trinity doctrine, as taught by the mainstream church, including most Protestant churches, similar to Modalism, regards the Son and the Holy Spirit to be “God” but describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as the three distinct Persons. To maintain the one-ness of God, so that the doctrine does not teach tri-theism (three Gods), the Father, Son, and Spirit are said to share one undivided divine essence (also called being or substance). So, both Modalism and the Trinity doctrine proclaim one God and one substance. But while Modalism describes the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as three modes, the orthodox Trinity doctrine describes them as three Persons. For the orthodox Trinity doctrine to be different from Modalism, personhood must be real. For three reasons, in my view, personhood in the orthodox teaching is NOT real: Full Divine Essence ------------ Firstly, the orthodox Trinity doctrine teaches that God does not have parts. Consequently, the three Persons are not three parts of God, but *each of them is the full divine essence*. In other words, each of the three Persons is God in His entirety. This principle may be illustrated by the following formula: > God = the Father = the Son = the Holy Spirit. The Athanasian Creed expresses this principle as follows: > "The Father is God; > the Son is God; > and the Holy Ghost is God. > And yet they are NOT THREE GODS; > BUT ONE GOD" Thomas Aquinas, who is “recognized by the Roman Catholic Church as its foremost Western philosopher and theologian” (Britannica ) confirmed this: > “It cannot be said that the divine Persons are distinguished from each > other in any absolute sense; for it would follow that there would not > be one essence of the three persons.” So, if the three Persons are identical, then they are mere modes of God. One Mind and Will --------- Secondly, generally, a person is a self, a thinker, with his own will and mind. But in the orthodox Trinity doctrine the Father, the Son, and the Spirit share one single mind and will. Today, there are many who think of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as each having His own mind, but then you have three Gods (tri-theism). The fact that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, in the standard Trinity doctrine, share one single mind and will, strengthens the view that they are mere modes of God. Relations make no difference. ----------------------------------- People are differentiated both by their persons and by their relations: - Each person is different. - Persons also differ in their relationships with other people, for example in marriage, family, etc. In the orthodox Trinity doctrine, as already stated, the three Persons are identical because they share one single divine substance. Consequently, the only difference between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is in their relationships, namely: - The Father begets the Son and - The Spirit proceeds from the Son (in Western catholic thinking) or from the Father (in Eastern Orthodox thinking). The following shows that Aquinas argued that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is those relationships: > “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 for the view that the Spirit must proceed from the Son illustrates the notion that the only difference between the Father, Son, and Spirit is their relations, for, he says, if the Spirit proceeds from the Father, 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 orthodox understanding of the Trinity, the relationships have no practical implication. As Aquinas argued, “in creatures relations are accidental, whereas in God they are the divine essence itself.” Therefore, the “relations in Him are **essential, not accidental**.” To explain: - With people, a person becomes a parent when a child is born. That is what Aquinas means by “accidental." - But in God, these relations are not caused by events. They are “essential,” meaning that **these relations do not bring about change**. So, each of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit always was and always will be the entire substance of God. Consequently, always and under all conditions, the Father, Son, and Spirit shared one and the same substance, mind, and will. **The relations make no difference**. Conclusion ---------- Some people, in their explanation of the Trinity, emphasize the three-ness of God, often bordering on tri-theism. In contrast, the Christian mainstream understanding of the Trinity, namely the theory that the three Persons are not three parts of God, but that **each of them at all times is the full divine essence, sharing one single mind and will**, implies that the difference in relation (their origins) has no practical consequences. The emphasis is fully on the one-ness of God. Consequently, I fail to see the difference between the three Persons and, therefore, the difference between the mainstream Trinity doctrine and Modalism, in spite of the usual disclaimer that the Trinity doctrine is not Modalism.

Modalism, or Sabellianism , is the belief that the three persons of the Trinity (God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit) are simply three "roles" or "modes" of the same person. This view is labelled as a heresy by many denominations. What are common Biblical and theological arguments against modalism?

For an overview of Sabellian theology, see - The Sabellians of the Fourth Century . The main characteristic is that God is only one hypostasis (Reality or Person). Jesus Christ, therefore, is not one of the hypostases in God. Rather, the Logos of God merely worked in the man Jesus Christ as an activity, energy, or inspiration. This question is based on the books of the following experts in this field: > LA = Lewis Ayres Nicaea and its legacy, 2004 Ayres is a Professor of > Catholic and Historical Theology at Durham University in the United > Kingdom. > > RH = Bishop R.P.C. Hanson The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God > – The Arian Controversy 318-381, 1987 With respect to Athanasius, in my reading, I came across statements that claim the following: Similar to the Sabellians ------------------------- Athanasius’ theology was similar to the known Sabellians of his time: - "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and **Athanasius**. Eustathius insists there is **only one hypostasis**.“ (LA, 69) The Son is part of the Father. ------------------------------ For Athanasius, the Son is intrinsic to the Being – not of God – but of the Father. In other words, the Son is part of the Father: - “Athanasius' increasing clarity in treating the Son as **intrinsic to the Father's being**.” (LA, 113) - “Athanasius' argument speaks not of two realities engaged in a common activity, but develops his most basic sense that the Son is **intrinsic to the Father's being**.” (LA, 114) - “Although Athanasius’ theology was by no means identical with Marcellus’, the overlaps were significant enough for them to be at one on some of the vital issues—especially their common insistence that the Son was **intrinsic to the Father's external existence**.” (LA, 106) The Holy Spirit is part of the Father. -------------------------------------- For Athanasius, just as the Son is part of the Father, the Holy Spirit is part of the Son and, therefore, not a distinct Reality: - “Just as his (Athanasius’) account of the Son can rely heavily on the picture of the Father as one person with his intrinsic word, so too he emphasizes the closeness of Spirit to Son by presenting the Spirit as the Son's ‘energy’.” (LA, 214) - “The language also shows Athanasius trying out formulations that will soon be problematic. … ‘The Cappadocians' will find the language of ἐνέργεια [superhuman activity] used of the Spirit … to be highly problematic, seeming to indicate a lack of real existence.” (LA, 214) Only one hypostasis ------------------- Athanasius believed that there is only one hypostasis in God: - The “clear inference from his (Athanasius') usage” is that “there is **only one hypostasis in God**.” (LA, 48) - “Athanasius' most basic language and analogies for describing the relationship between Father and Son primarily present the two as intrinsic aspects of **one reality or person**.” (LA, 46) - "The fragments of Eustathius that survive present a doctrine that is close to Marcellus, and to Alexander and Athanasius. Eustathius insists there is **only one hypostasis**.“ (LA, 69) Opposed three hypostases ----------------------- Athanasius opposed the concept of “three hypostases.” He regarded the phrase as "unscriptural and therefore suspicious:” - Athanasius wrote: "Those whom some were blaming for speaking of three hypostases, on the ground that the phrase is unscriptural and therefore suspicious ... we made enquiry of them, whether they meant ... hypostases foreign and strange, and alien in essence from one another, and that each hypostasis was divided apart by itself." (LA, 174) The Enemy --------- For Athanasius, the enemy was those who taught more than one hypostasis (Person) in God: - “Athanasius and Marcellus now seem to have made common cause against those who insisted on distinct hypostases in God.” (LA, 106) Alliance with Marcellus ----------------------- The similarity of their theologies allowed Athanasius to form an alliance with Marcellus: - At the time when both Marcellus and Athanasius were exiled to Rome, “they considered themselves allies.” (LA, 106) - “At the Council of Jerusalem and the Council of Tyre in the same year he (Marcellus) had supported Athanasius.” (RH, 217) - “Athanasius ... continued to defend the orthodoxy of Marcellus.” (RH, 220) - Contrary to the traditional account, “it is … no longer clear that Athanasius ever directly repudiated Marcellus, and he certainly seems to have been sympathetic to Marcellus’ followers through into the 360s.” (LA, 106) - “About the year 371 adherents of Marcellus approached Athanasius, presenting to him a statement of faith. … He accepted it and gave them a document expressing his agreement with their doctrine.” (RH, 801)  If Athanasius was not a Sabellian, how does one salvage him from it?

The Bible calls Jesus our mediator: > Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us. (Romans 8:34, ESV) > > For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, (1 Timothy 2:5, ESV) > > Consequently, he [Jesus] is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them. (Hebrews 7:25, ESV) Trinitarians believe that Jesus intercedes with the Father on our behalf. He can do this because he is a distinct person, and he is the only competent mediator because only God can truly mediate with himself. Modalism teaches that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "different *modes* or *aspects* of the One God, as perceived by *the believer*, rather than *three coeternal persons within the Godhead*." ([Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism)) If God is not multiple people, how can Jesus intercede with the father? How do modalists understand the role of Jesus as mediator?

John 14:23 says: > Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and **we will come** unto him, and **make our abode** (literally, we will make) with him. Both of the emboldened verbs are in the 1st person plural form and so are properly rendered as we/our making it seem as though two distinct persons are involved. How do Modalists explain the plural terms?

How do Modalists interpret John 14:28? > You heard me say to you, I am going away, and I will come to you. If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. ([John 14:28](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+14%3A28&version=ESV) , ESV)

**New International Version** >To the one who is victorious, I will give > the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I was victorious and > sat down with my Father on his throne. **New Living Translation** >Those who are victorious will sit with me on my > throne, just as I was victorious and sat with my Father on his throne. **English Standard Version** >The one who conquers, I will grant him to sit > with me on my throne, as I also conquered and sat down with my Father > on his throne. From what I can gather, there are two thrones spoken of here. How do modalist sects explain this verse?

If I believe that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, but not as three persons but as one, do I believe in Modalism?

In Revelation, after the resurrection, Yeshua says... >"Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of **my God**, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of **my God**, and the name of the city of **my God**, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from **my God**: and I will write upon him my new name." ([Revelation 3:12](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A12&version=KJV) , KJV) Modalists believe that there is one god, the Father, who takes on three distinct modes or functions as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Why does god refer to god as "my God"?

[Karl Barth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Barth) (1886–1968) is considered noteworthy for allegedly "recovering the doctrine of the Trinity in the 20th century." He is considered a reformed theologian, but his views are generally not considered classically reformed by confessional reformed bodies. He heavily emphasized the doctrine of the Trinity in his writings. Was his view consistent with the ecumenical creeds of the early church? I'm wondering if at any point his doctrine of the Trinity was not orthodox. That is, if he is not classically reformed in his formulation of the Trinity, is he still orthodox?

There are a number of denominations that are labeled as being Modalist, such as the United Pentecostals, and others associated with [Oneness Pentecostalism](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oneness_Pentecostalism) whom subscribe to the nontrinitarian theological doctrine of Oneness. However, although some Oneness theologians indicate that the doctrine of Oneness and Modalistic Monarchianism are *essentially* the same, and that Sabellius–from whom the concept of modalism originates–was basically correct, I've yet to discover any churches that identify *themselves* as being Modalist by definition. Are there any churches that identify themselves as being Modalist? Or is it a term used only by Trinitarians to label Oneness denominations as heretical?

Both Oneness Pentecostals and Swedenborgians could, it seems to me, be described as "modalist " in contrast with "trinitarian ." Obviously there are plenty of _general_ differences between the two church families. But are there differences between their respective brands/flavors of modalism (if that's even what it is)?

We hear a lot at times about the godhead, so that got me wondering: what is the Scriptural basis for the Christian doctrine of Modalism?

I'm reading Pelikan's first volume of The Christian Tradition, a History of the Development of Doctrine. In this section called "The New Prophecy" in chapter 2 (page 104 in my edition), Pelikan discusses Montanism. Apparently, in the early stages of Montanism, it was focused on moral rigidity and did not try to alter the doctrine of the Church; Montanus probably did not view himself as the Holy Spirit incarnate. Regardless, in later Montanism, his adherents probably viewed him as the Paraclete (aka Spirit) and therefore attempted to alter the doctrine of the church. I'm a bit confused about this passage, however: > In other words, they would seem to have embraced the doctrine that > Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were only successive modes of > manifestation of the one God. In that case, the manifestation of God > as Son in Jesus would have been followed by the manifestation of the > one God as Paraclete in Montanus, each in turn. Such language about > the Trinity was in itself quite acceptable in the second century, and > even later; but when the church went beyond it to formulate the dogma > of the Trinity, those Montanists who continued to use this language as > a way of including Montanus in the manifestations of God found > themselves heretical on this score as well. **To me this sounds like Pelikan is asserting that using the language of modalism to describe the Father, Son and Spirit was, in the second century and perhaps beyond, not inappropriate and not contrary to the orthodoxy of the Church.** Is this indeed factual? Edit - In the fourth chapter discussing the formulation of the Trinity, Pelikan mentions this: > Although adoptionism is today more commonly called "adoptionist > Monarchanism" or "dynamic Monarchianism," the label "Monarchian" seems > to have been invented by Tertullian to designate those who, declaring > that "we maintain the monarchy," protected the "monarchy" of the > Godhead by stressing the identity of the Son with the Father without > specifying the distinction between them with equal precision. In the > same treatise, however, Tertullian admitted that "the simply people > ... who are always the majority of the faithful ... shy at the > economy," that is, at the distinction between Father and Son. He > conceded that even orthodox believers could speak of the relations > within the Trinity in such a way as to emphasize the monarchy at the > expense of the economy. This judgement is substantiated by the sources > ...