What is modalism / Modalistic Monarchianism?

Those who propagate such views have been accused of what is known as Sabellianism. This is a mistake. Sabellius of N. Africa (200 A.D.) taught that God is essentially Uni-personal, and that what we speak of as three Personal Subsistencies in the Unity of the Godhead, were really only threefold in manifestation; that the same Person, as Father, purposed to save; as Son, accomplished redemption, and, as Holy Spirit, came to lead sinners to Christ. Popular illustrations of the "Three in One"—from the nature of light or the mode of existence of certain substances are essentially Sabellian and should be avoided. Such teaching is of course fundamentally unsound. But the special denials combated here lend themselves more to tritheism. Instead of a past eternity and an Old and a New Testament, full of the relations of three Divine Persons in the Unity of the Godhead in intimate relation one to another, as Father, Son and Spirit (and no other possible relation is suggested), we are told to think of three Divine Beings, how related is not revealed, in a cold, colourless, blank eternity as far as Divine affections are concerned. Beings all the replica one of another, and of course without any subordination for mutual purposes, which in their shallow way these errorists declare to be incompatible, "if words mean anything," a favourite phrase of their school, with the equality of the Divine Persons, as they understand the phrase.

As a matter of fact, instead of being new light, it is a very old error, an error which, from time to time, has gained a new Lease of life, so that there is nothing new about it at all. It is really Sabellianism, only perhaps under a new guise. This early teacher, in opposition to Tritheism, maintained there was only one God, but that He sometimes acted "as Father, sometimes as Son, sometimes as Spirit, and sometimes as all three."

It has been said that God has been pleased thus far to reveal Himself in three Persons, but that these are only modal displays of Himself, which could be and will be multiplied far beyond this number. This is the fatal error of Sabellianism, an error which is deadly, because it practically robs us of the sense of our knowledge of God, and indeed destroys any true apprehension of the personality of the Father, Son and Spirit. As a matter of fact, Sabellianism does not hold to personality in any true sense. How could it, if our knowledge of God is not yet rounded out? The Son, and the Father, and the Holy Spirit are but modes of divine revelation and not Persons at all! Sabellianism, therefore, leads to two opposite errors. On the one hand, it gives us a heartless monotheism, in which the divine personality is removed entirely from our knowledge, and we only have Him in some of the many forms in which He is pleased to make Himself known. It is monotheism, without the hope of ever passing into any true knowledge of God. On the other hand, it opens the way for that dreary pantheism which dissipates all thought of divine personality, and makes God an infinite, indeed, and all-pervasive essence, confused however so completely with His creation that, as a matter of fact, we lose both the thought of the creature as well as the Creator.

The first passage I now quote from one of these learned doctors gives us the thought of many as to this teaching church. Its direct contradiction to revealed truth on the subject will be apparent at the first glance. "The church, in the fullest sense, is left to herself to work out by her natural faculties the principles of her own action." In this short sentence the presence of the Holy Ghost, the enmity of the natural mind, and the authority of the word of God, are wholly denied. Another person of eminence amongst these teachers thus describes the Trinity: "The law of thought is the ultimate basis and bond of coherence of this world; this thought is consubstantial with the being of the eternal 'I am.' Being, becoming, and animating — or substance, thinking, and conscious life — are the expressions of a triad, which may be represented as will, wisdom, and love — light, radiance, and warmth;" and then he adds, "If all this has a Sabellian sound, those who oppose it are bound to show how it differs from the teaching of the fathers." This is what an eminent doctor says of the fathers! Now in mythology triad is the term applied to the mysterious union of three deities, in theology Sabellianism is the doctrine that Godhead consists of one Person only. He does not deny the Sabellianism of these thoughts. We can now form some idea of what importance is to be attached to the statement, "The church teaches." "The church, in the fullest sense, left to herself to work out by her natural faculties the principles of her own action" (according to one of these writers), has decided, it appears, to recognise this writer as an authorised teacher in her midst! Another doctor remarks, that it was natural for a Christian in the earliest ages to regard heathenism as belonging to the kingdom of Satan. Then we have the following statement (he had been talking about the heathen divinities): "The natural religious shadows projected by the spiritual light within, showing on the dark problems without, were all in reality systems of law given by God, though not given by revelation." That is, the idolatrous systems of worship offered to the gods, or to devils rather, of which the practice of diabolical corruption formed an essential part, were in reality laws given by God! I need not ask a child of God from what spirit such doctrines emanate. We know that the heart is desperately wicked, but I do not believe that such thoughts are of spontaneous growth there, but of Satanic origin. The word says, "Try the spirits whether they are of God;" by multitudes an unheeded word. "Full well ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition" — "observe what is delivered by yourselves to keep." But these prophets, far from approving or accepting this admonition of our divine Master, boldly declare that in the fullest sense the church is to work out by her "natural faculties" the principles of her own action. This is a principle "delivered by themselves to keep."

"The Archbishop of Dublin is a Sabellian. Of the painful situation in which this may place the clergy it is not for me to judge. What the laity will feel in thinking of their association with him, on the general superintendence of the establishment, they must consider for themselves. But Sabellianism may be considered some questionable opinion or difference. But you must know, sir, that it strikes at the root of all vital as well as orthodox Christianity, by neutralising the distinction between the FATHER and the SON. The FATHER'S sending the SON — the SON's obedience to the FATHER — the whole scheme of mediatorial Christianity — that is, Christianity itself becomes lost in this form of infidelity. A Trinity in character, but not a Trinity of persons, in the essential force of that word, may ease the proud mind of man of that which is beyond its natural powers, but takes away, at the same time, the whole basis on which a sinner can rest by faith. Men may be guilty of Tritheism, and Sabellians may avoid this. But they also undermine the faith in another way.

The Archbishop of Dublin is a Sabellian. Of the painful situation in which this may place the clergy it is not for me to judge. What the laity will feel in thinking of their association with him, on the general superintendence of the establishment, they must consider for themselves. But Sabellianism may be considered some questionable opinion or difference. But you must know, sir, that it strikes at the root of all vital as well as orthodox Christianity, by neutralising the distinction between the Father and the Son. The Father's sending the Son - the Son's obedience to the Father - the whole scheme of mediatorial Christianity - that is, Christianity itself becomes lost in this form of infidelity. A Trinity in character, but not a Trinity of persons, in the essential; force of that word, may ease the proud mind of man of that which is beyond its natural powers, but takes away, at the same time, the whole basis on which a sinner can rest by faith. Men may be guilty of Tritheism, and Sabellians may avoid this. But they also may undermine the faith in another way.

"The neuter hen, (one) denotes, according to the connection and for the purpose of the argument, unity of will and power; which rests on the unity of essence or nature: for power is one of the divine attributes, which are not outside of the divine essence, but constitute it. Even if we confine hen to dynamic unity, we have here one of the strongest arguments for the strict divinity of Christ. It is implied even more in esmen (we are) than in hen. No creature could possibly thus associate himself in one common plural with God Almighty without shocking blasphemy or downright madness. In this brief sentence we have, as Augustine and Bengel observe, a refutation both of Arianism and Sabellianism: hen refutes the former by asserting the dynamic (and, by implication, the essential) unity of the Father and the Son. 'I and the Father' and 'we are' refute the latter by asserting the personal distinction. Sabellianism would require the masculine eis, instead of the neuter; and this would be inconsistent with 'We are,' and the self-conscious 'I.'"

But Mr. N. after all had said to some of those who received him, that he saw nothing in scripture to forbid him to suppose a beginning to Christ's existence; and correspondence was renewed with those who at P — had received him; and in a very long exposé of his creed he states, "The ancient test was, to confess Christ to be (ἐχ τῆς οὐσίας), made of the essence of the Father, and not made out of nothing (ἐξ οὐχ ὂντων); in short, begotten, not created. The modern test is, to confess that Christ is Jehovah. I do not think that Athanasius ever dreamed of the distinction between Jehovah and Adonai being of importance to the doctrine of Christ's divinity, or cared any more to distinguish the two words, than did the writers of the New Testament. When H — urged me to this confession, I enquired whether Jehovah meant simply very God; and supposed it immaterial whether I confessed Christ to be Jehovah or to be true God, and was willing to adopt the former to quiet any fancies that I took God in any lower sense than the essence of Godhead; and I truly believed and believe the Lord Jesus to be ἐχ τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός. But now I see I had better have kept to this ancient confession." And further on: "And now let me ask, Whom am I to believe to have died for me? Did MERELY the man Jesus die? as the Sabellians generally say (which convicts their system of practical Socinianism); or did the Word and Son of God die? Unhesitatingly I believe the latter. But can any one say that Jehovah died on the cross, and yet that Jehovah is but one individual? One Jehovah lives while one Jehovah is dead, yet there is but one Jehovah," etc.

220 Here is his doctrine of the Trinity, which I notice only to remark that its main points are wholly borrowed from Philo; for all this philosophy is only bringing us down to the reveries of the unbelieving Jew, who mixed the law with Neoplatonism. "The profoundest analysis of our world leaves the law of thought as its ultimate basis and bond of coherence." This is pure Philonism. "This thought is consubstantial with the being of the eternal I AM. Being, becoming, and animating — or substance, thinking, and conscious life — are the expressions of a triad which may be represented as will, wisdom, and love; light, radiance, and warmth, etc." Dr. Williams is very confused in what follows, or rather lower in doctrine than Bunsen; he makes wisdom the word, consciousness the spirit; but then, in order to have Christ, he says, "Consciousness or wisdom becoming personal in the Son of man;" it is the spirit or the word, and becomes personal. He adds, no wonder, "If all this has a Sabellian, or almost a Brahmanical sound, its impugners are bound, even on patristic grounds, to shew how it differs from the doctrine of Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, and the historian Eusebius." Now Justin Martyr was deeply tinged with Platonism, and always wore his philosopher's cloak; Origen was plunged into every wildness Platonism and an extravagant imagination could plunge a person in. Eusebius was an Arian, not a Sabellian; whereas this doctrine is more Sabellian, or, as the writer justly says, almost Brahmanical — rather Buddhist, which Philo tended to. And this is what we are to get by leaving scripture!

The dear brethren in the Lord who have adopted the false view we have been discussing seem unaware that instead of being "new truth" or "fresh light," it is really a very old error. An error which dates from comparatively early times, but has re-appeared occasionally since, yet it has in every instance been refused by God's people. In one form of it, it passes under the name of Sabellianism. On p. 5 of his pamphlet C.A.C. repudiates the accusation that his doctrine has any resemblance to Sabellianism, with scorn. Let us see whether he can so easily dispose of his accuser as might appear.