The Modern Day Modalists—Part II(b)

Two Early Church Fathers on the Nature of God

"But may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ Himself, who is the Son of God, and our everlasting High Priest, build you up in faith and truth, and in all meekness, gentleness, patience, long-suffering, forbearance, and purity; and may He bestow on you a lot and portion among His saints, and on us with you, and on all that are under heaven, who shall believe in our Lord Jesus Christ, and in His Father, who 'raised Him from the dead.'" —Polycarp of Smyrna, Epistle of Polycarp

In part II(a) we unpacked the ancient heretical teaching of modalism and showed that the Pentecostal sect represented by David K. Bernard, General Superintendent of the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), fully embraces the modalism condemned by the early Church.

Shockingly, Mr. Bernard seems unaware of the fact that the early Christians were not modalists. In fact, and quite contrary to Church history, Bernard writes in his book "The Oneness of God,"

"We have indicated that Oneness was the only significant belief in the early second century with regard to the Godhead" (p.239).

The teaching of the Church since the beginning has been that God exists as three persons in one divine essence. At the beginning of this article I quote the early Church father Polycarp, who clearly delineates two persons in the essence of God; the Father and the Son of God, Jesus Christ. Tradition tells us that Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John, which means that he was taught by an Apostle that the "everlasting High Priest", Jesus Christ, is not His own Father. Now, does what Polycarp wrote read like modalism?

A contemporary of Polycarp's writing around 98—117 A.D. and also a student of the Apostle John (source), Ignatius of Antioch, wrote the following to two churches he oversaw as the third bishop of Antioch:

"For 'they are dumb dogs, that cannot bark,' raving mad, and biting secretly, against whom ye must be on your guard, since they labour under an incurable disease. But our Physician is the only true God, the unbegotten and unapproachable, the Lord of all, the Father and Begetter of the only-begotten Son. We have also as a Physician the Lord our God, Jesus the Christ, the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For 'the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passible body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts" (The Epistle of Ignatius to the Ephesians, on-line source).

"I exhort you to study to do all things with a divine harmony, while your bishop presides in the place of God, and your presbyters in the place of the assembly of the apostles, along with your deacons, who are most dear to me, and are entrusted with the ministry of Jesus Christ. He, being begotten by the Father before the beginning of time, was God the Word, the only-begotten Son, and remains the same for ever; for 'of His kingdom there shall be no end', says Daniel the prophet." (Epistle of Ignatius to the Magnesians, on-line source)

Ignatius succinctly writes that God the Father is the "Begetter" of the Son, Jesus Christ, who is also "the Lord our God." Again, does this early Church father sound like a modalist? No. Both Polycarp and Ignatius learned from the Apostle John the one true God exists as three eternal persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Furthermore, both Polycarp and Ignatius, both disciples of the Apostle John and early Church fathers, are writing instruction to the Churches they oversee, which is clearly not modalistic teaching, in the late first century and early second century; precisely during the time Mr. Bernard claims, "Oneness was the only significant belief."

Refutation of the Modern Day Modalist's View of the Nature of God

In part II(a) of this series I pointed out that the cause of the error made by the modern day modalists is that they mistakenly confuse God's unitary essence with that of a unitary personality, or as Dr. Francis Pieper put it a "unipersonal" monas, or monad. We see this confusion on their part in the words of David K. Bernard where he writes, "God is an individual being with personality and rationality" (ibid. p. 31). God is "only one person or personality" (ibid. p. 147). Mr. Bernard arrives at his conclusions, not from the Scriptures, but from reason alone. Yes, Bernard, as well as other modalists, will cite Scriptures that teach us God is one, but then they proceed to interpret the indivisibility of that unity as a single person, or as unipersonal. However, scriptures such as Deuteronomy 6:4 and Galatians 3:20 do not tell us that God is a unitary personality (unipersonal). The mistake being made by the modern day modalists, and by Bernard, is pronounced by their treatment of Scriptural texts such as Matthew 28:19 which clearly point to three persons in one divine essence. Bernard explains, regarding Matthew 28:19,

"[T]his verse of Scripture does not teach that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate persons. Rather, it teaches the titles of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost identify one name and therefore one being." (ibid. p.136, emphasis in text)

"Matthew 28:19 does not teach three persons in one God, but rather it gives three titles of God, all of which properly apply to Jesus Christ. These titles sum up different roles of God or modes of His revelation; by its singular reference to "name," it focuses upon the one name of God revealed in the New Testament" (ibid. p. 139).

What Bernard writes is the common view held by modern day modalists of Matthew 28:19 and they are in error. As Dr. Francis Pieper writes in his "Christian Dogmatics", "There are three Persons in the one God. For the terms Father, Son, and Holy Ghost denote Persons" (p. 377, vol. I). It is clear to Bernard, and modern day modalists, that the three terms in Matthew 28:19 denote three separate subjects, but they define those subjects as mere titles and modes of one person. Why do the terms Father, Son, and Holy Spirit refer to three persons? We know they do from the Scriptures themselves.

In the gospel of John we read, "These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you" (John 14:25-26, emphasis mine). Here Jesus is speaking to His disciples. Quite obviously Christ is referring to Himself in the first person "I". He refers to the disciples, again quite obviously, in the second person "you". Language is typically quite clear with first and second person distinctions, or subject/object relationships. "I" am writing this article to "you", the object, or recipient, of my words. Both "I" and "you" clearly refer to persons. Jesus then speaks of other subjects or objects in the third person; namely, "the Father" and and "the Holy Spirit". Notice that both are subjects of His discourse separate from Himself. Indeed, Jesus refers to the Holy Spirit as "He" who will be sent by another distinct subject, the Father. Jesus is most certainly not referring to "roles" or "modes" of Himself in this dialogue with His disciples, but He is speaking of other persons who can, and will, act on His behalf.

Again, John writes under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, "But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me" (John 15:26). To interpret the above as titles, or "offices", that apply to Jesus Christ simply makes a mockery of Jesus' own words. Indeed, is Jesus telling His disciples that He is sending a title to them for comfort? Is this mere title proceeding from another title "the Father"? The modalist would have us believe that Jesus, speaking out of His "office" of "Son", is telling the disciples that He, from His "office" of "father", will send Himself to the disciples in His "office" of "Holy Spirit".

Probably the single most devastating text for the modern day modalist is found in the Gospel of John chapter 17. John records what has been called "the Priestly High Prayer." In this prayer Jesus is praying to the Father and states,

"Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. I glorified you on earth, having accomplished the work that you gave me to do. And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed" (John 17:1-5).

Notice again the subject/object relationship between the Father and the Son, but this time Christ says something quite special. He states, "I glorified you on earth... And now, Father, glorify me in your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed." We find in Jesus' prayer two important points for this topic. First, He tells us that the Father is a person who has a "presence" and that He had glory with the Father prior to the existence of the world. Jesus is clearly praying to a person other than Himself and at the same time proclaiming His own preexistence as a person with the Father. Jesus continues in His prayer,

"I do not ask for these only, but also for those who will believe in me through their word, that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us, so that the world may believe that you have sent me. The glory that you have given me I have given to them, that they may be one even as we are one, I in them and you in me, that they may become perfectly one, so that the world may know that you sent me and loved them even as you loved me. Father, I desire that they also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory that you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world." (John 17:20-24)

Jesus' prayer is not comprised of "sham words" where He is pretending to speak out of one "office" or "mode" to another "office" or "mode" in some sort of twisted, contrived, act meant to lead bystanders on to believe that He is praying to a real person when according to the modern day modalists, He is praying to an "office" He holds—which means He is praying to Himself. Notice, too, that in Jesus' prayer that He asks for the disciples to be one "just as you, Father, are in me, and I in you, that they also may be in us." Here Jesus describes the type of unity He has with the Father. He is one with the Father. The Father is in Him, and He is in the Father. Notice, too, that he prays asking for the disciples to be one with He and the Father "even as we are one." Of course Jesus isn't praying to the Father asking that the disciples become one in substance with Him and the Father, but it is important to note the unity (oneness) Jesus describes He and the Father has is a unity of persons similar to the unity He prays to have with His disciples. This isn't the "oneness" of a unipersonal monad, or a unity of "titles", "modes", or "offices", as taught by the modern day modalists. Instead, this is a unity of persons in a single essence.

To sum up, David K. Bernard, and the modern day modalists as represented by the UPCI, are mistaken. We have seen that the early Church did in fact teach that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons. Furthermore, they would condemn the false teachings of the modalists arising in the late second and early third centuries. We have seen from the Holy Scriptures that the nature of God is comprised of three persons in one essence. Matthew 28:19 lists the three Divine Persons as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Jesus refers to both the Father and the Holy Spirit as persons separate from Himself. Each person Jesus refers to is capable of doing things such as "teaching" and "sending".

Finally, the writer of the book of Hebrews places the preexistent Christ, as a person, prior to the creation echoing the Gospel of John chapter one.

Hebrews 1:1, Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world. 3 He is the radiance of the glory of God and the exact imprint of his nature, and he upholds the universe by the word of his power. After making purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.

5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,

“You are my Son,
today I have begotten you”?

Or again,

“I will be to him a father,
and he shall be to me a son”?

6 And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

“Let all God's angels worship him.”

7 Of the angels he says,

“He makes his angels winds,
and his ministers a flame of fire.”

8 But of the Son he says,

“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever,
the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has anointed you
with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”

10 And,

“You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning,
and the heavens are the work of your hands;
11 they will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment,
12 like a robe you will roll them up,
like a garment they will be changed.
But you are the same, and your years will have no end.”

The Hebrews text speaks for itself, but it is important to point out that these verses are about Jesus as He is coming into the world: "You are my Son, today I have begotten you." This same Son "laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning" and He will "roll them up, like a garment" at the end of the world when He comes again. Compare John 1:1-5 with Hebrews chapter one:

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life, and the life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it."

John goes on to write, "14 And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.... 18 No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known." Once again, the Scriptures are clear that the Son who comes into the world is God, and that He was sent by His Father, who is God, into the world. The only way to make sense of these Scriptures is to allow them to stand for themselves. Our human reason can't comprehend how it is possible that the Son is not the Father and that the Father is not the Son, but both Father and Son are God. Not two Gods, but the one God. Yet, the Scriptures are clear that Father and Son are not titles, modes, or offices of one person. The "office" of Father could not possibly say to the "office" of Son, "I will be to him a father and he shall be to me a son." The Father says to the Son, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom" and this can only make sense if we are reading about one person speaking to another; not one person speaking of himself as the modern day modalists would have us believe.

The Holy Scriptures are clear, there is only ONE God and that within His divine nature exists three persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

In part III of this series we will revisit some of the above as we investigate the Christology of the Oneness Pentecostals, today's modern day modalists.