So now, it seems like we are right back where we started with the discussion on the Trinity. Thanks a lot Sean! We have affirmed the distinction that the Bible makes on God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit. Not only are they spoken of separately, but their roles are different and there appears to be even an authority structure within the Godhead. However, we also have clear evidence that God is one from the Old to the New Testament. God is three in one. How in the world can we explain this not only to ourselves, but to people in polytheistic religions that we are preaching the Gospel to?
One approach has been to say that protecting our monotheism is not only the most important thing, but also the Bible itself sets this as the foundational character of God (His “oneness”). To do this, scholars have emphasized that oneness by finding alternatives to using the word “person”. In the classic doctrine, God is of one “substance”, therefore all three are equal in power, thought, and existence. Building on this to protect monotheism, some say that God then “appears” or “manifests” Himself in these three ways to man out of that one substance. God “appeared/manifested” as Jesus in the incarnation. Jesus is how the Bible and God describe God appearing to man as God/man. The Holy Spirit is how God “appears/manifests” in His working power through the church today and throughout history in various ways like the prophets and Creation. By using “manifests” or “appears” the issue of looking like polytheists is avoided when the term “person” is used.
The problem is that this theological approach is called “modalism” (or Sabellianism) and has been around for a long time. So why is that a problem? The church as a majority has rejected this view as heresy. Bummer for those of you who were thinking, “Hey, this sounds pretty good Sean, keep going!” Unless you are going for that whole rebel, heretic vibe. This is not to be confused with Unitarianism, which denies Jesus’ divinity. Modalists say Jesus was God and man, but that God doesn’t have there persons, rather three “modes” or “aspects” that He appears to man as.
Here is the part of the blog where I am completely honest with you (whereas for most of the blog, I am only partly honest???) If it weren’t for the fact that so many in church history has condemned modalism as heresy, I would probably be closer to their view on the Trinity than the classic view. There, I said it. If I weren’t already on a heresy watch list, I am probably on it now. I have to agree with the modalists, that “persons” isn’t the best choice for describing the Trinity. The problem is I just can’t come up with a better one. I also respect the great minds that have come before me, and don’t take it lightly when most of them view something as false doctrine.
Attempt to explain the Trinity number 1, strike one! Though some part of the modalist thought might come in handy later, as a whole system, it is not advisable. Maybe we really will end up with the egg or water illustration… No, I refuse to go down that road! Help me!
The Bible Nerd 