I said this in a comment on TC’s blog, but it bears repeating:
Now in my opinion, the main reason that something was defined as heresy in the early Church was because it was an affront to God’s saving purposes. Theology/Christology was always connected to soteriology.
Modalistic belief makes God’s saving purposes a sham. Jesus’ prayers to the Father on behalf of believers fell on def ears because Jesus was the Father. In effect, Modalism takes away the mediator between God and man. It’s also to say that Father didn’t really send his Son into the world to die for our sins. When Tertullian mocks Praxeas saying:
By this Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete, and he crucified the Father. (Against Praxeas I)
He’s effectively saying that the modalistic God died on the cross. But how can a God who dies save anyone unless we have some multi-personal understanding of him? With Arian belief, the problem was that the savior was thought to be a creature. But how can a creature in need of redemption redeem anyone?
B”H
Nick, that is a mischaracterization of the modalistic belief made by the detractors, themselves often heretics. Remember, Tertullian was a Montanist while Hippolytus schismed from Rome.
No one is saying that the Father was crucified, as that would be a heresy. Again, you are relying upon the words of heretics themselves to describe what you deem a heresy.
By: Polycarp on September 4, 2008
at 11:36 am
Polycarp: I’ll issue the same challenge to you that I have every other Oneness believer to make a similar charge. Prove it. The sad fact is that what we know of modalism in the 2nd-3rd centuries we know from its opponents, and they all are in general agreement about what men such as Noetus, Praxeas, and Sabellius believed and taught.
And no one now is saying that the Father was crucified, but as I pointed out, Tertullian was mocking Praxeas, so it’s not likely that Praxeas actually said that although it was the logical end to what he did say.
And I don’t see how Tertullian’s Montanism or Hippolytus’ schism from Rome excuses Modalism or renders their critiques inadequate. That seems nothing more than a genetic fallacy on your part.
By: Nick Norelli on September 4, 2008
at 11:42 am
Nick: Thank you for contending for the faith.
Truth matters.
By: Stan McCullars on September 4, 2008
at 11:47 am
Stan: I agree.
By: Nick Norelli on September 4, 2008
at 11:55 am
Nick, this is good stuff. I believe Damian asked about what should we consider a heresy. I’ll have to direct him to your take.
Thanks for the link, by the way.
By: tc robinson on September 4, 2008
at 1:19 pm
Nick, you use the words of those that were themselves heretics to describe other heretics. Don’t you find that hypocritical?
Prove what? That heretics formed the opinions about modalists for 1700 years? Not that difficult to prove. Prove what modalists actually taught? Can’t do it, as both of us well know, however, it is still unwise to buy into the detractor’s comments.
RND Kelly says that the faith of the modalist actually predated the Trinitarians, yet you seem to think it invented.
By: Polycarp on September 4, 2008
at 1:51 pm
TC: No need to redirect Damian. This was all in that massive comment I left on your blog. In fact, this was the part responding to Damian.
Polycarp: No, I don’t find that hypocritical. First of all, you’re acting as if Tertullian and Hippolytus were the only early apologists to come against modalists. Secondly, you’re committing a genetic fallacy in asserting that because they were heretics (I won’t argue that with you, but I could) themselves that they are incapable of critiquing another heresy. The fact of the matter is that Louis Farrakhan could rightly critique the Jehovah’s Witnesses regardless of his own theological error. One has nothing to do with the other.
And prove your assertion that the modalists have been misrepresented. I have no legitimate reason to believe that all detractors must have misrepresented their opponents. Especially when all the detractors seem to offer the same description of what their opponents said.
I’m not really sure what you mean by your last comment. And I think you meant J. N. D. Kelly, but if the assertion is that modalism predated creedal Trinitarianism then no one is going to argue that. The creeds were responses to heresies, remember?
By: Nick Norelli on September 4, 2008
at 2:04 pm
Nick, I picked up on that, but too late on the redirecting thing. :-)
By: tc robinson on September 4, 2008
at 2:33 pm
TC: These things happen.
By: Nick Norelli on September 4, 2008
at 2:49 pm
Actually, there are some Oneness advocates that believe the Father died on the cross. One passage they believe teaches this is found in Colossians.
Colossians 1:12– 12 Giving thanks unto the Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light: 13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son: 14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. [KJV]
This is a text my brother (having became a member of a “Jesus Only” church) tried to use to say argue that it was the Father who became flesh and died on the cross.
By: Troy C on September 4, 2008
at 5:48 pm
Thanks Nick,
I read your blog too, so you’re right, no need for T.C. to redirect me, but thanks for answering my questions – very clear answers, too.
By: Damian on September 4, 2008
at 6:00 pm
Troy: Good to know. The way I’ve usually heard it from modern Oneness believers is that the “Son” (i.e. humanity) of Jesus died on the cross.
Damian: Any time.
By: Nick Norelli on September 4, 2008
at 8:00 pm
No, I think he meant R. Kelly, whose lesser-known middle initials are N. and D.
By: Esteban Vázquez on September 4, 2008
at 9:41 pm
It makes sense that this would be the reason that heresy becomes important to discuss. I mean, even if people who believe heresies also believe the gospel they spread ideas that make the gospel incomprehensible. I’m sure many anti-nomians believe the gospel and follow Jesus, but when they tell people that the gospel means your sins don’t matter, then somebody might not repent and believe the gospel. Goes the same for various other heresies, but the fact of the matter is that they make the gospel murky. Good post.
By: Geoff on September 4, 2008
at 10:20 pm
Esteban: Ahh… you might be right. ;)
Geoff: Yup, murky indeed, and thanks.
By: Nick Norelli on September 4, 2008
at 11:13 pm
“Jesus’ prayers to the Father on behalf of believers fell on def ears because Jesus was the Father.”
Maybe the Father’s ears were so def because He had been listening to R. Kelly. Word.
By: rtjones on October 12, 2008
at 6:51 pm
Ryan: Or the Dixie Chicks.
By: Nick Norelli on October 12, 2008
at 7:27 pm
nick:
True modalism does predate trinitarianism. The creeds were formed how long after scripture was completed? Scripture has never upheld any definition of a triune god.
As far as the Father being crucified, I’ve never heard that taught or preached. It only comes from detractors. Kinda like OP’s saying trinitarians believer in tritheism. Funny thing, more trittheists exist because of the doctrine of the trinity. That is polytheism but as long as they call it trinity than they are fine?
By: cs on November 11, 2008
at 7:25 pm
cs: I didn’t say that Modalism predates trinitarianism, in fact I believe the opposite to be true. I said that Modalism predates CREEDAL Trinitarianism. The Christian faith was Trinitarian through and through so that when modalistic heresies arose they said, ‘wait a second, that’s not what we believe,’ and drafted creeds in response to articulate what it was that they did believe.
And I doubt that many people living would teach that the Father was crucified, although it is very fashionable to talk about the Father’s suffering on the cross (see e.g., Jürgen Moltmann). But again, modalists were MOCKED by calling their belief ‘patripassianism’ but this was the logical outworking of their belief. Like I said to Polycarp above, I have no reason to think that they were misrepresented. But I can’t see how you can charge the doctrine of the Trinity with creating tritheists, since tritheism would be the result of MISUNDERSTANDING the Trinity. Plus there have been tritheists for much longer than there have been Jews or Christians… But no, calling tritheism Trinitarianism doesn’t make it okay, it’s still heresy & idolatry.
By: Nick Norelli on November 11, 2008
at 8:11 pm
nick: You know I believe that God, that means all of God (Colossians 2:9) was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself (2 Corinthians 5:19). The logical conclusions can’t be reached in the light of 1 Timothy 3:16. It is a great mystery of how God became flesh. I can’t pretend to educate you on any differences between the oneness and trinity but I can state that we tend to stop there. God became flesh, the one God of the OT became Jesus of the NT. You were right it wasn’t God that died on the tree it was the son, the flesh.
Before there were any other way there was a man named Adam who believed in one God. The one he walked with in the cool of the day.
I knew you would answer that with a no about trinitarianism and tritheism. We’ve had that bought already.
By: cs on November 11, 2008
at 11:08 pm
cs: What you believe and what Sabellius, Praxes, and Noetus believed are different. To read your version of modalism back into theirs is anachronistic. The logical conclusion of their belief was that the Father suffered and died on the cross even if that is not the logical conclusion of your belief. I believe that the logical conclusion of your belief is a Nestorian christology, but I think we’ve discussed that before as well.
By: Nick Norelli on November 12, 2008
at 11:42 am