Nathan Busenitz has written found in Oneness Pentecostal circles, as well as the on-going confusion as to where T. D. Jakes stands on the issue.
A second article by Mark Driscoll is also illuminating.
3 thoughts on “Modalism, Oneness and T. D. Jakes”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The idea that a person must believe a particular concept of the Trinity in order to be a Christian is nonsense. The only thing that is necessary in order for a person to be a Christian is the belief that Jesus Christ was a truly sinless sacrifice for our sins, because if he were not, then his sacrifice would not have been effective, in which case we would still be in our sins. As for how Jesus Christ was truly sinless, the manner in which a Christian answers that question has no bearing on his belief that Jesus Christ was a truly sinless sacrifice for our sins, and that his sacrifice was effective, and that anyone that accepts the sacrifice of Jesus Christ for the removal of his or her sins is cleansed of his or her sins and is a Christian. The definition of Modalism is the belief that there is one God, who exists in three different forms, Father and Son and Spirit, AT DIFFERENT TIMES. But what if the Father, Son and Spirit are three different forms of the same God AT THE SAME TIME, the same divine person in three different forms AT THE SAME TIME? What then? What is the difference between (1) one God in three persons (at the same time) and (2) one divine person in three forms (at the same time)? The difference is nothing more than semantics. It seems to me that if Christians want to fight over that, then they are fighting over a distinction without a difference, and thus they are doing what Christians so often do: claiming to be the true Christians, and the others to be the false Christians, so that they can feel superior (1 Corinthians 3). How typical.
The Lord Jesus would disagree with you. What we believe about Him is vital for our salvation – and it is Jesus who said that. John 8:24 “unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins.” That’s plain enough isn’t it?
Modalism is an ancient heresy, long rejected by orthodox Christians.
Modalism, also called Sabellianism, is the unorthodox belief that God is one person, who has revealed himself in three forms (or modes), in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine, where God is one being eternally existing in three persons. According to Modalism … God does not exist as the Father, Son and Holy Spirit at the same time. Rather, He is one person and has merely manifested himself in these three modes at various times. Modalism thus denies the … coexistence of the three … Modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. … The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
http://www.theopedia.com/Modalism
The difference between Trinity-ism and Modal-ism is the coexistence issue. In Trinity-ism, the three are coexistent. In Modal-ism, the three are NOT coexistent.
What I described to you before (one person in three coexistent forms) is Trinity-ism, NOT modal-ism.
My definition of the Trinity (one person in three coexistent forms) is the correct definition of the Trinity.
The traditional definition of the Trinity (one being in three coexistent persons) uses language that is incorrect and nonsensical, which has led to the accusation of three gods.
A being is a person. Therefore, the traditional definition of the Trinity is one person (one being) in three coexistent persons, which (one person in three persons) is nonsensical, and which (three divine persons) has led to the accusation of three gods.
The correct definition of the Trinity is that God is one person that exists in one form (the Father) and a second form (the Son) and a third form (the Spirit) all at the same time (coexistence). That definition of the Trinity is correct, and it makes sense, and it does NOT lead to the accusation of three gods.
That definition of the Trinity is consistent with John 14:9, where Jesus says that to see the Son is to see the Father (two coexistent forms of the same person).
That definition of the Trinity likewise is consistent with Romans 8:9, where Paul says that the Spirit of God (the Father) is the Spirit of Christ (the Son), according to which the Father (God) and the Son (Christ) and the Spirit are three coexistent forms of the same person.
How can the Spirit of God (the Father) be the Spirit of Christ (the Son), unless the Father and the Son are the same person?
If the Father and the Son are the same person, then the Spirit of that person likewise is the same person.
Therefore, according to Romans 8:9, the Father (God) and the Son (Christ) and the Spirit are the same person. They are three coexistent forms (the Father and the Son and the Spirit) of the same person (God).
That explains how the Son could state that before Abraham was, I AM (John 8:58). The only way that the Son could be the I-AM of the Old Testament would be for the Father and the Son to be the same person (two coexistent forms of the same person).
One person (God) existing in three coexistent forms (the Father and the Son and the Spirit) is the correct definition of the Trinity, which does NOT lead to the accusation of three gods.