Chapter 2: Modalism

Mrs. Anderson had been teaching Sunday School at Grace Community Church for fifteen years. She loved the children, and they loved her. Every week, she poured her heart into helping young minds understand the great truths of the Christian faith. But on this particular Sunday morning, as she reached for her favorite illustration to explain the Trinity, she had no idea she was about to teach one of the oldest heresies in Christian history.

“Children,” she began with a warm smile, pulling out a clear glass, a tray of ice cubes, and a small kettle. “Today we’re going to learn about the Trinity – how God can be three and one at the same time. It’s really quite simple when you think about it.”

She held up the ice cube. “This is water in its solid form – ice. We’ll call this God the Father.” She dropped it in the glass with a satisfying clink. Then she poured steaming water from the kettle. “This is water in its liquid form – we’ll call this Jesus, the Son.” Finally, she held the kettle over the glass so the children could see the steam rising. “And this vapor is water in its gas form – the Holy Spirit. See? Water can exist in three different forms, but it’s still just water. That’s how God works – He appears to us in three different forms: sometimes as the Father, sometimes as the Son, and sometimes as the Holy Spirit.”

The children nodded, seemingly understanding. Little did Mrs. Anderson know that she had just taught them modalism – a doctrine that says God is one person who merely appears in three different modes or forms. This teaching, though it sounds logical and even reverent, actually destroys the biblical doctrine of the Trinity and undermines the very gospel itself. What she meant to clarify, she had actually corrupted. What she intended to illuminate, she had obscured.

This scene plays out in countless churches every Sunday. Well-meaning Christians, trying to make the mystery of the Trinity understandable, reach for illustrations that seem helpful but actually teach ancient errors. The water/ice/steam analogy is perhaps the most common, but it’s far from the only one. These illustrations persist because they offer what seems like a reasonable explanation for something that transcends human reason. They make the incomprehensible seem comprehensible. But in doing so, they replace the truth with a lie.

Why does this matter? Why should we care if someone uses a flawed illustration in Sunday School? Because what we believe about God matters eternally. If God is not truly three persons but only one person wearing different masks, then the cross becomes a cosmic charade, prayer becomes a divine monologue, and the love of God becomes self-love rather than the eternal communion of three distinct persons. The stakes could not be higher.

What Is Modalism?

Modalism is the belief that God is one person who reveals Himself in three different modes, forms, or manifestations. Rather than being three distinct persons who share one divine essence, modalists believe God is a single person who sometimes acts as Father, sometimes as Son, and sometimes as Holy Spirit – but never all three simultaneously. It’s like an actor on a stage who plays three different characters by changing masks or costumes, but remains the same person underneath.

The word “modalism” comes from the Latin word “modus,” meaning “mode” or “manner.” Modalists believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are simply three modes of God’s activity or three ways that the one God reveals Himself to humanity. They are not three distinct persons in eternal relationship with one another, but rather three successive revelations or operations of the same divine person.

Historical Origins with Sabellius

The roots of modalism stretch back to the early centuries of Christianity. Around the year 200 AD, a teacher named Sabellius began promoting what would become the most influential form of this doctrine. Sabellius was concerned about preserving the unity of God – a legitimate concern rooted in Scripture’s clear teaching that there is only one God. Deuteronomy 6:4 declares, “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!” (NKJV). This fundamental truth of monotheism separated Judaism and Christianity from the polytheistic religions of the ancient world.

However, Sabellius went too far in his attempt to protect divine unity. He taught that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit were not distinct persons but simply different names for the same God acting in different roles. According to Sabellius, God was Father in creation, Son in redemption, and Spirit in sanctification. These were not three persons working together but one person working in three different capacities at different times.

The early church recognized the danger in this teaching immediately. If the Son is just the Father in a different mode, then who did Jesus pray to in the Garden of Gethsemane? Was He simply talking to Himself? When Jesus was baptized in Matthew 3:16-17, and the Father spoke from heaven while the Spirit descended like a dove, was this just divine theater with one person playing all the parts? The church fathers saw that Sabellianism, as it came to be called, made nonsense of the biblical narrative.

Tertullian, writing against a modalist teacher named Praxeas around 213 AD, famously declared that Praxeas “drove away prophecy and brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father.” This last phrase – “crucified the Father” – became a rallying cry against modalism. If the Son is just the Father in a different mode, then the Father died on the cross. This doctrine, called Patripassianism (from Latin words meaning “the Father suffers”), was recognized as contradicting Scripture’s teaching about God’s immutability and the distinct roles of the Father and Son in redemption.

Modern Forms: Oneness Pentecostalism

Though the ancient church condemned modalism, the doctrine never completely disappeared. It resurfaced with particular force in the early 20th century in what became known as the Oneness Pentecostal movement. In 1913, at a Pentecostal camp meeting in California, a preacher named John G. Schaepe claimed to have received a revelation about the true baptismal formula. He argued that baptism should be performed “in the name of Jesus only” rather than “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19.

This seemingly minor change in baptismal formula reflected a major theological shift. Oneness Pentecostals began teaching that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” were not names of distinct persons but titles of the one God whose name is Jesus. They argued that the traditional doctrine of the Trinity was actually a form of tritheism – belief in three gods – inherited from pagan philosophy rather than biblical revelation.

The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), formed in 1945, became the largest organized body promoting Oneness theology. Today, it claims over 5 million members worldwide. Other Oneness groups include the Pentecostal Assemblies of the World, the Church of Our Lord Jesus Christ of the Apostolic Faith, and numerous independent churches. Together, these groups represent millions of people who sincerely believe they are defending biblical monotheism while actually embracing an ancient heresy.

The “Modes” or “Masks” Concept

To understand why modalism is so appealing yet so wrong, we need to examine its central concept more carefully. Modalists often use the illustration of a man who is simultaneously a father to his children, a son to his parents, and a husband to his wife. This seems to make perfect sense – one person, three relationships or roles. But this illustration, like the water/ice/steam analogy, fundamentally misrepresents the Trinity.

The problem is that human analogies involve one person with different relationships or one substance in different states, while the Trinity involves three distinct persons who are simultaneously and eternally the one God. A human father doesn’t talk to himself as son and husband. Water cannot simultaneously exist as ice, liquid, and steam in the same space. But at Jesus’ baptism, all three persons of the Trinity were present and active simultaneously – the Son being baptized, the Spirit descending, and the Father speaking from heaven.

Why It Seems Logical but Isn’t Biblical

Modalism appeals to our human desire to resolve the tension between God’s oneness and threeness. It seems to preserve monotheism while acknowledging the deity of Christ and the Spirit. It appears more rational than the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, which maintains that God is both one and three – one in essence, three in persons. Our finite minds struggle with this concept, so we naturally gravitate toward explanations that fit within our logical categories.

But Christianity has never claimed that God fits neatly within human logical categories. Isaiah 55:8-9 reminds us, “‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways My ways,’ says the LORD. ‘For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My thoughts than your thoughts'” (NKJV). The Trinity is not illogical – it doesn’t violate the laws of logic by claiming God is one and three in the same sense. Rather, it is supralogical – it transcends human logic while remaining internally consistent.

Biblical Problems with Modalism

The most devastating critique of modalism comes not from theological philosophy but from Scripture itself. When we examine what the Bible actually says about the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we find that modalism simply cannot account for the biblical data. The problems are not minor or peripheral – they strike at the heart of the gospel narrative and make nonsense of Jesus’ own words and actions.

Jesus Praying to the Father – Talking to Himself?

Perhaps no biblical reality more clearly refutes modalism than Jesus’ prayer life. Throughout the Gospels, we see Jesus in constant communion with His Father. If Jesus is simply God the Father in a different mode, then every prayer of Jesus becomes an absurd theatrical performance – God talking to Himself for the benefit of human observers.

Consider Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17. This entire chapter records Jesus’ intimate conversation with the Father. He begins, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You” (John 17:1, NKJV). If modalism were true, this would be God asking Himself to glorify Himself. But the prayer continues with even more problematic statements for modalism:

“And now, O Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was” (John 17:5, NKJV). Here Jesus speaks of glory He shared with the Father before creation – not glory He had in a different mode, but glory shared between two persons in eternal relationship. The preposition “with” (Greek: para) indicates a face-to-face relationship between distinct persons, not different modes of the same person.

Even more striking is Jesus’ prayer in the Garden of Gethsemane. Matthew 26:39 records, “He went a little farther and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, ‘O My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will'” (NKJV). Here we see two distinct wills – Jesus’ human will recoiling from the suffering ahead, yet submitting to the Father’s will. If the Father and Son are the same person in different modes, this prayer becomes meaningless. How can one person have two different wills in conversation with each other?

Luke 22:42 emphasizes this distinction even more clearly: “Father, if it is Your will, take this cup away from Me; nevertheless not My will, but Yours, be done” (NKJV). The contrast between “My will” and “Your will” requires two distinct persons. A single person in different modes cannot have conflicting wills that must be reconciled through prayer and submission.

The Baptism of Jesus – Divine Ventriloquism?

The baptism of Jesus presents an insurmountable problem for modalism. All three persons of the Trinity appear simultaneously, acting in distinct ways. Matthew 3:16-17 records: “When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him. And suddenly a voice came from heaven, saying, ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'” (NKJV).

If modalism were true, this scene becomes a bizarre divine puppet show. God would have to be in the water as the Son, descending as the Spirit, and speaking from heaven as the Father – all simultaneously. But modalism explicitly denies that God can be three persons simultaneously. Oneness theologians sometimes try to explain this by saying the voice from heaven was just God’s divine nature speaking about His human nature, while the dove was merely a symbol. But this explanation does violence to the plain meaning of the text and creates more problems than it solves.

The parallel accounts in the other Gospels emphasize the same trinitarian reality. Mark 1:10-11 says, “And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove. Then a voice came from heaven, ‘You are My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased'” (NKJV). Luke 3:21-22 adds that Jesus was praying when this happened, further emphasizing the personal distinction between the Son who prays and the Father who answers.

John’s Gospel provides additional detail that undermines modalism. John the Baptist testifies, “I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and He remained upon Him. I did not know Him, but He who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘Upon whom you see the Spirit descending, and remaining on Him, this is He who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ And I have seen and testified that this is the Son of God” (John 1:32-34, NKJV). Notice the complex interpersonal relationships here: the Father sends John, the Spirit descends and remains on Jesus, and Jesus is identified as the Son. This cannot be one person in different modes.

Jesus at the Right Hand of the Father

Scripture repeatedly speaks of Jesus being at the right hand of the Father. This spatial metaphor indicates a distinction of persons that modalism cannot accommodate. After His ascension, Jesus didn’t cease to exist or merge back into a singular divine person. Instead, He remains distinct from the Father while sharing the throne of divine authority.

Stephen’s vision in Acts 7:55-56 provides powerful evidence: “But he, being full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God, and said, ‘Look! I see the heavens opened and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God!'” (NKJV). Stephen sees two distinct persons – not one person appearing in two modes. The Father doesn’t have a right hand in a literal, physical sense; this is metaphorical language indicating distinct persons sharing divine authority.

Hebrews 1:3 declares that after Christ “had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high” (NKJV). The entire argument of Hebrews depends on Jesus being a distinct person who serves as our High Priest and Mediator. Hebrews 7:25 says, “Therefore He is also able to save to the uttermost those who come to God through Him, since He always lives to make intercession for them” (NKJV). How can Jesus make intercession to God if He is the same person as God the Father? Intercession requires one person appealing to another on behalf of a third party.

Romans 8:34 asks rhetorically, “Who is he who condemns? It is Christ who died, and furthermore is also risen, who is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (NKJV). Paul presents Christ’s position at God’s right hand and His intercessory work as present realities, not past modes of divine activity. If modalism were true, this ongoing intercession would be meaningless.

The Spirit as “Another” Comforter

Jesus’ teaching about the Holy Spirit in John 14-16 creates insurmountable difficulties for modalism. Jesus promises to send “another” Comforter, using language that requires personal distinction. John 14:16-17 records Jesus saying, “And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever—the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you” (NKJV).

The Greek word for “another” here is allos, meaning another of the same kind. Jesus is saying the Spirit is another divine person like Himself who will continue His ministry to the disciples. If modalism were true, Jesus would essentially be saying, “I’m going away, but I’ll come back in a different mode.” But that’s not what He says. He distinguishes between Himself departing and the Spirit coming.

John 15:26 makes the distinction even clearer: “But when the Helper comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify of Me” (NKJV). Notice the complex interpersonal relationships: the Son sends the Spirit from the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father, and the Spirit testifies about the Son. This is not one person changing modes but three persons in eternal relationship.

John 16:13-15 further emphasizes these distinctions: “However, when He, the Spirit of truth, has come, He will guide you into all truth; for He will not speak on His own authority, but whatever He hears He will speak; and He will tell you things to come. He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you. All things that the Father has are Mine. Therefore I said that He will take of Mine and declare it to you” (NKJV). The Spirit hears and speaks what He hears – requiring personal distinction from the one speaking to Him. The Spirit glorifies the Son and takes what belongs to the Son to declare it – impossible if they are the same person in different modes.

“Let Us Make Man” Becomes Meaningless

Genesis 1:26 records God saying, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness” (NKJV). The plural pronouns have long been recognized as hints of plurality within the Godhead. While the full revelation of the Trinity awaited the New Testament, these Old Testament passages make sense in light of trinitarian doctrine but become problematic for modalism.

If God is only one person who manifests in different modes, why would He speak to Himself in the plural? Modalists sometimes argue this is a “plural of majesty” like the royal “we,” but Hebrew scholars note that such usage is not found in biblical Hebrew. Others suggest God was speaking to angels, but angels are never said to participate in creation, and humans are not made in the image of angels.

Genesis 3:22 presents the same problem: “Then the LORD God said, ‘Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil'” (NKJV). Genesis 11:7, regarding the Tower of Babel, records God saying, “Come, let Us go down and there confuse their language” (NKJV). Isaiah 6:8 has God asking, “Whom shall I send, and who will go for Us?” (NKJV). These passages suggest a plurality within God that modalism cannot adequately explain.

The Oneness Pentecostal Movement

While ancient modalism was largely a theological debate among scholars, modern Oneness Pentecostalism is a vibrant religious movement affecting millions of believers worldwide. Understanding this movement requires examining both its theological distinctives and its cultural impact on contemporary Christianity.

T.D. Jakes and Popularization

Perhaps no single figure has done more to mainstream Oneness theology in recent decades than Bishop T.D. Jakes. As pastor of The Potter’s House, a 30,000-member church in Dallas, Texas, and through his media ministry, Jakes has influenced millions. His books regularly top bestseller lists, his conferences draw thousands, and his films reach mainstream audiences. Yet his theological position on the Trinity has remained controversial.

Jakes grew up in the Oneness Pentecostal tradition and was ordained in the Greater Emmanuel Temple of Faith, a Oneness denomination. While he has somewhat softened his language in recent years, possibly for broader evangelical acceptance, he has never clearly renounced Oneness theology. When pressed on the issue, he tends to use ambiguous language that could be interpreted either way.

In a 2000 interview with Christianity Today, Jakes was asked directly about his views on the Trinity. Rather than affirming three distinct persons, he spoke of “three manifestations” of God, classic modalist terminology. He said he believed in “one God, but manifested in three dimensions,” comparing it to “God in three dimensions. Father in creation, Son in redemption, Spirit in regeneration.” This is textbook modalism, not orthodox trinitarianism.

The influence of such a prominent figure holding modalist views cannot be overstated. Many Christians, impressed by Jakes’ preaching ability and ministry success, absorb his theology without recognizing its departure from orthodox Christianity. His books and sermons, while often containing helpful practical insights, subtly promote a modalist understanding of God that undermines the biblical doctrine of the Trinity.

United Pentecostal Church International

The United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI) represents the largest organized Oneness body, claiming over 5 million constituents worldwide with churches in 195 nations. Founded in 1945 through a merger of two Oneness organizations, the UPCI aggressively promotes its distinctive doctrines through publishing, education, and missionary work.

The UPCI’s Articles of Faith explicitly reject the Trinity, stating: “We believe in the one ever-living, eternal God: infinite in power, Holy in nature, attributes and purpose; and possessing absolute, indivisible deity. This one true God has revealed Himself as Father; through His virgin-born Son, in redemption; and as the Holy Spirit, by emanation.” Note the language – God “revealed Himself as” rather than “exists as” three persons. This is classic modalist terminology.

Their doctrinal statement continues: “The one true God, the Jehovah of the Old Testament, took upon Himself the form of man, and as the Son of man, was born of the virgin Mary.” This makes the Father and the Son identical – not distinct persons but the same person in different forms. They teach that the name of this one God is Jesus, and that “Father,” “Son,” and “Holy Spirit” are merely titles or roles, not names of distinct persons.

The UPCI also teaches that salvation requires baptism “in the name of Jesus Christ” rather than the trinitarian formula Christ gave in Matthew 28:19. They argue that the apostles never used the trinitarian formula and that “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit. This baptismal practice becomes a marker of their theological system and often a point of division with other Christians.

Their Proof Texts Examined

Oneness Pentecostals appeal to various Scripture passages to support their doctrine. Examining these texts and their arguments helps us understand both the appeal and the error of modalist theology.

Isaiah 9:6 – “For unto us a Child is born, unto us a Son is given; and the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace” (NKJV). Oneness believers argue that if Jesus is called “Everlasting Father,” then He must be the Father. However, the Hebrew phrase here (abi-ad) is better translated “Father of Eternity” and is a title indicating Christ’s role as the source of eternal life for believers, not a statement that He is God the Father. Moreover, if we pressed this logic consistently, we would have to conclude that Jesus is also the Holy Spirit since He’s called “Counselor,” a title applied to the Spirit in John 14.

John 10:30 – “I and My Father are one” (NKJV). Modalists claim this proves Jesus is the Father. But the Greek word for “one” here is neuter (hen), not masculine (heis). Jesus is claiming unity of essence or nature with the Father, not that He is the same person as the Father. The plural verb “are” (esmen) actually argues against modalism – why would Jesus use a plural verb if He meant “I am the Father”? Furthermore, Jesus prays in John 17:21 that believers would be “one” in the same way He and the Father are one. Clearly, He’s not praying for believers to become the same person.

John 14:9 – “He who has seen Me has seen the Father” (NKJV). This is perhaps the favorite text of Oneness believers. But read in context, Jesus is responding to Philip’s request to see the Father. Jesus is saying that He perfectly reveals the Father’s character and nature, not that He is the same person as the Father. In the very same discourse, Jesus repeatedly distinguishes Himself from the Father: “I go to My Father” (v. 12), “I will pray the Father” (v. 16), “My Father will love him” (v. 23).

Colossians 2:9 – “For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (NKJV). Oneness teachers argue this means all of God – Father, Son, and Spirit – is in Jesus. While it’s true that Jesus possesses the full divine nature, this doesn’t mean He is the only person in the Godhead. The same fullness dwells in each person of the Trinity. The verse teaches the full deity of Christ, not that Christ is the only person of the Godhead.

The Baptismal Formula Controversy

One of the most visible distinctives of Oneness Pentecostalism is their insistence on baptism “in Jesus’ name only” rather than “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” as Jesus commanded in Matthew 28:19. This practice becomes a test of orthodoxy within Oneness churches and a major point of contention with other Christians.

Their argument runs as follows: In the book of Acts, every recorded baptism is performed “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48; 19:5). They claim the apostles understood that “Jesus” is the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that Matthew 28:19 is actually commanding baptism in Jesus’ name since that is the singular “name” (not “names”) of the three titles mentioned.

However, this argument fails on multiple levels. First, the phrase “in the name of Jesus” in Acts is not necessarily a baptismal formula but rather indicates the authority by which baptism is performed – by Jesus’ command and authority. Second, the apostles would hardly have immediately disobeyed Jesus’ explicit command in Matthew 28:19 if they understood it as trinitarians do. Third, early church history shows that the church practiced trinitarian baptism from the beginning. The Didache, written around 70-100 AD, instructs: “Baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.”

More fundamentally, the Oneness interpretation makes Jesus’ words in Matthew 28:19 essentially deceptive. Why would Jesus use three distinct titles with the conjunction “and” between them if He meant only one person? Why not simply say “baptize them in My name” if that’s what He meant?

Why Modalism Destroys the Gospel

The errors of modalism are not merely academic or theoretical. This doctrine strikes at the heart of the gospel itself, undermining the very foundation of our salvation. When we lose the distinction of persons in the Trinity, we lose the reality of the incarnation, the validity of Christ’s mediation, and the personal nature of God’s love. The consequences are devastating for Christian faith and practice.

No Real Incarnation

The incarnation – God becoming man in the person of Jesus Christ – is the central miracle of Christianity. John 1:14 declares, “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (NKJV). This astounding truth requires that the Word (the Son) is distinct from the Father. The Son became flesh; the Father did not.

Modalism makes the incarnation impossible or meaningless. If the Father and the Son are the same person, then God didn’t send His Son into the world; He just came Himself in a different mode. John 3:16, perhaps the most famous verse in the Bible, loses its meaning: “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son” (NKJV). If the Father and Son are the same person, then God didn’t give anyone – He just showed up in a different form.

The book of Hebrews emphasizes that Jesus, while fully divine, became truly human to accomplish our salvation. Hebrews 2:14 states, “Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil” (NKJV). This “sharing” in humanity requires a distinct person of the Trinity taking on human nature while remaining in relationship with the Father.

Furthermore, the continuing incarnation of Christ refutes modalism. Jesus didn’t stop being human after His resurrection. He ascended bodily into heaven and will return bodily. 1 Timothy 2:5 declares, “For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus” (NKJV) – written years after the ascension, still referring to Jesus as “the Man.” If modalism were true, we would have to believe that God the Father now has a human body, or that the incarnation was temporary, neither of which Scripture teaches.

No Real Mediation

The Bible presents Jesus as our Mediator, standing between God and humanity to reconcile us to the Father. This mediatorial role requires that Christ be distinct from the Father while being fully divine and fully human. A mediator, by definition, must be distinct from the parties being reconciled.

Hebrews 9:24 says, “For Christ has not entered the holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us” (NKJV). If Christ is the same person as God the Father, how can He appear “in the presence of God”? How can the same person appear before Himself on behalf of others?

The ongoing intercessory work of Christ becomes nonsensical in modalism. Romans 8:34 tells us that Christ “is even at the right hand of God, who also makes intercession for us” (NKJV). Hebrews 7:25 adds that “He always lives to make intercession for them” (NKJV). Intercession requires one person appealing to another. If the Son is merely the Father in a different mode, then intercession is impossible – God would be talking to Himself about us.

Similarly, the Holy Spirit’s intercessory work requires personal distinction. Romans 8:26-27 teaches, “Likewise the Spirit also helps in our weaknesses. For we do not know what we should pray for as we ought, but the Spirit Himself makes intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered. Now He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He makes intercession for the saints according to the will of God” (NKJV). The Spirit intercedes for us to God – impossible if the Spirit is just God in a different mode.

No Real Relationships in the Godhead

Scripture reveals that the persons of the Trinity exist in eternal relationship with one another. These relationships are not theatrical performances for our benefit but the eternal reality of who God is. The love between the Father and Son existed before creation and will continue forever.

Jesus speaks of the Father’s love for Him before the foundation of the world. In John 17:24, He prays, “Father, I desire that they also whom You gave Me may be with Me where I am, that they may behold My glory which You have given Me; for You loved Me before the foundation of the world” (NKJV). This pre-creation love between Father and Son requires distinct persons. One person cannot love Himself “before the foundation of the world” in any meaningful sense.

The mutual glorification within the Trinity also requires distinct persons. Jesus says in John 17:1, “Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You” (NKJV). In John 16:14, Jesus says of the Spirit, “He will glorify Me, for He will take of what is Mine and declare it to you” (NKJV). This mutual glorification makes no sense if these are just different modes of the same person – it would be divine narcissism rather than divine love.

The sending relationships within the Trinity further demonstrate personal distinctions. The Father sends the Son (John 3:17; Galatians 4:4). The Father and Son send the Spirit (John 14:26; 15:26). Sending requires a sender and one who is sent – distinct persons in relationship, not one person changing modes.

Love Requires Genuine Persons

1 John 4:8 declares that “God is love” (NKJV). This is not merely saying God has the attribute of love, but that love is essential to His very being. But love requires an object. If God was alone before creation with no distinction of persons, whom did He love? He couldn’t love creation because it didn’t exist yet. Self-love alone cannot account for God being essentially love.

The Trinity provides the answer. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have existed in an eternal communion of love. The Father loves the Son (John 3:35; 5:20). The Son loves the Father (John 14:31). This eternal love relationship is what makes God essentially love, not just potentially loving once He creates beings to love.

Jesus reveals this eternal love relationship in His prayers. In John 17:26, He says, “And I have declared to them Your name, and will declare it, that the love with which You loved Me may be in them, and I in them” (NKJV). The love between Father and Son becomes the model and source of God’s love for us. We are invited into the love relationship that has existed eternally within the Trinity.

This has profound implications for our understanding of salvation. We are not just forgiven of sins; we are brought into the eternal love relationship of the Trinity. Jesus prays in John 17:21, “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us” (NKJV). This union with God is possible because of the real relationships within the Trinity, not despite them.

Historical Rejection by the Church

From its earliest appearance, the Christian church has consistently and forcefully rejected modalism as a dangerous heresy. This wasn’t a minor disagreement about secondary issues but a battle for the very heart of the Christian faith. Understanding this historical rejection helps us appreciate why orthodox Christians today must continue to stand firm against this error.

Early Church Fathers’ Responses

The early church fathers didn’t hesitate to confront modalism when it appeared. They recognized that this doctrine, though claiming to protect God’s unity, actually destroyed the gospel. Their responses provide valuable insights for dealing with modalism today.

Tertullian (c. 160-225 AD), writing from North Africa, was one of the first to systematically refute modalism. In his work “Against Praxeas,” he coined the term “Trinity” (Latin: trinitas) and provided the formula that would guide orthodox theology: “one substance, three persons” (una substantia, tres personae). Tertullian argued that Scripture clearly distinguishes between the Father and Son while maintaining their divine unity.

Tertullian pointed out the absurdity of modalist interpretation: “If the Father and the Son are the same person, then the Father suffered and died on the cross.” This became known as Patripassianism (the Father suffers), a label that highlighted the heretical implications of modalism. He wrote, “It was the Son who suffered, died, and was buried, and rose again; not the Father… The Father is impassible and cannot suffer.”

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235 AD) wrote extensively against the modalist teaching of Noetus and his followers. In his “Contra Noetum” (Against Noetus), Hippolytus argued that the distinctions between Father and Son are real and eternal, not merely economic or temporary. He emphasized that the Word existed with God from eternity, distinct yet never separate from the Father.

Origen of Alexandria (c. 184-253 AD), one of the most brilliant minds of the early church, provided sophisticated philosophical and exegetical arguments against modalism. He demonstrated that the biblical language of begetting, sending, and proceeding requires real distinctions within the Godhead. Origen emphasized that the Son is eternally generated from the Father – there was never a time when the Son did not exist, yet He is distinct from the Father.

Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264 AD) had to combat modalism on one side and subordinationism on the other. He maintained the difficult but necessary balance: the Father and Son are distinct persons (against modalism) but share the same divine essence (against Arianism). His careful formulations helped establish the vocabulary that would be used at the Council of Nicaea.

Council Declarations

While modalism was never the primary focus of an ecumenical council in the way Arianism was, it was consistently condemned whenever church councils addressed the doctrine of God. The church’s rejection was unanimous and unequivocal.

The Council of Nicaea (325 AD), though primarily focused on refuting Arianism, also excluded modalism through its careful language. The Nicene Creed states that the Son is “begotten of the Father” and “of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father.” This language maintains both the distinction of persons (the Son is begotten, not the Father) and the unity of essence (same substance).

The Council of Constantinople (381 AD) expanded the Nicene Creed to include fuller statements about the Holy Spirit, declaring Him to be “the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father, who together with the Father and the Son is worshipped and glorified.” This clearly presents three distinct persons who are worshipped as one God.

Regional councils also condemned modalism. The Synod of Rome under Pope Dionysius (262 AD) condemned both Sabellianism (modalism) and subordinationism. The Council of Alexandria (362 AD) under Athanasius worked to clarify terminology, distinguishing between “one substance” (which is orthodox) and “one person” (which is modalist).

The consistent testimony of these councils demonstrates that modalism was never acceptable in any part of the church. East and West, Greek and Latin, Egyptian and Roman – all united in rejecting this error. This wasn’t a controversial issue where good Christians disagreed; it was a clear heresy that all orthodox Christians rejected.

Why It Keeps Resurfacing

Despite consistent condemnation, modalism continues to resurface throughout church history. Understanding why helps us guard against its reappearance in our own time.

First, modalism appeals to our desire for simplicity. The Trinity is mysterious and transcends human comprehension. Modalism offers what seems like a simpler explanation – one God who appears in three ways. This appeals to those who want to reduce divine mystery to human understanding.

Second, modalism appears to protect monotheism. Many who embrace modalism genuinely fear that the doctrine of the Trinity compromises the oneness of God. They worry that three persons means three gods. Modalism seems to preserve biblical monotheism while acknowledging the deity of Christ and the Spirit.

Third, modalism often enters through inadequate teaching. When pastors and teachers use flawed analogies (like water/ice/steam or the three-leaf clover) without explaining their limitations, they inadvertently plant modalist ideas. These illustrations, meant to help, actually hinder proper understanding.

Fourth, modalism can develop from an overreaction to other errors. Some, in their zeal to combat polytheism or tritheism, swing to the opposite extreme. Others, reacting against a cold, philosophical presentation of the Trinity, embrace what seems like a warmer, simpler alternative.

Finally, modalism resurfaces because each generation must learn these truths anew. Theological understanding is not genetically inherited. Each generation of Christians must be taught carefully and thoroughly what Scripture reveals about the nature of God.

Responding to Modalist Arguments

When engaging with those who hold modalist views, it’s important to respond with both clarity and charity. Many who embrace modalism are sincere believers who have been poorly taught. They need patient instruction, not harsh condemnation. Here we’ll examine common modalist arguments and provide biblical responses that can help guide these important conversations.

“Jesus IS the Father” Verses Explained

Modalists frequently point to verses that seem to identify Jesus as the Father. Understanding these passages in context reveals they actually support trinitarian doctrine, not modalism.

Isaiah 9:6 – “Everlasting Father”
As mentioned earlier, when Isaiah calls the coming Messiah “Everlasting Father,” he’s using a Hebrew idiom. The phrase “abi-ad” literally means “father of eternity” or “father of the age to come.” It’s a title indicating Christ’s role as the source and author of eternal life, not a statement that He is God the Father. Just as “Prince of Peace” doesn’t mean Jesus is literally a prince in the political sense, “Everlasting Father” doesn’t mean He is the person of God the Father.

Consider how Scripture uses “father” metaphorically elsewhere. Job 29:16 says, “I was a father to the poor” (NKJV). Genesis 4:21 calls Jubal “the father of all those who play the harp and flute” (NKJV). Isaiah 22:21 speaks of Eliakim becoming “a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem” (NKJV). In each case, “father” indicates a source, originator, or protector, not literal paternity.

John 14:9 – “He who has seen Me has seen the Father”
This verse must be read in its immediate context. Philip has just asked Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father” (v. 8). Jesus responds that seeing Him is seeing the Father because He perfectly reveals the Father’s character and nature. He and the Father share the same divine essence.

But in the very same conversation, Jesus clearly distinguishes Himself from the Father. In verse 10, He says, “The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works” (NKJV). This shows distinct persons – one speaking, one dwelling and working. In verse 12, Jesus says believers will do greater works “because I go to My Father” (NKJV). How can Jesus go to the Father if He is the Father?

John 10:30 – “I and My Father are one”
The Greek construction of this verse actually argues against modalism. The word “one” (hen) is neuter, not masculine (heis), indicating unity of essence or nature, not personal identity. Moreover, the verb “are” (esmen) is plural. If Jesus meant “I am the Father,” He would have used singular grammar.

The Jews understood Jesus to be claiming deity, not claiming to be the Father. They picked up stones to stone Him for blasphemy, saying, “You, being a Man, make Yourself God” (v. 33, NKJV) – not “You make Yourself the Father.” Jesus was claiming equality with God, not identity as the Father.

“Baptized in Jesus’ Name Only” in Acts

The book of Acts records several baptisms performed “in the name of Jesus” or “in the name of the Lord Jesus.” Oneness Pentecostals argue this proves the apostles rejected trinitarian baptism and understood “Jesus” to be the name of the Father, Son, and Spirit.

However, careful examination reveals several problems with this argument:

First, these are historical narratives, not prescriptive formulas. Acts describes what happened without always giving exact words used. When Acts says someone was baptized “in the name of Jesus,” it may be summarizing that the baptism was performed by Christ’s authority, not giving the exact baptismal formula spoken.

Second, the phrase varies in Acts, suggesting it’s not a rigid formula. We find “in the name of Jesus Christ” (2:38), “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (8:16; 19:5), and “in the name of the Lord” (10:48). If this were the essential formula for valid baptism, why the variation?

Third, early church evidence supports trinitarian baptism. The Didache (c. 70-100 AD) instructs: “Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” Justin Martyr (c. 100-165 AD) describes Christian baptism “in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit.”

Fourth, the theological significance of “in the name of” must be understood. In biblical usage, doing something “in someone’s name” means by their authority or as their representative. The apostles baptized by Jesus’ authority, according to His command in Matthew 28:19. They weren’t contradicting His instructions but fulfilling them.

The “Mystery” Excuse

When pressed on logical problems with their doctrine, modalists often retreat to claims about divine mystery: “God’s ways are higher than our ways,” or “It’s a mystery we can’t understand.” While there is certainly mystery in the Trinity, this doesn’t mean we can embrace logical contradictions or ignore clear biblical teaching.

The doctrine of the Trinity involves mystery – how can God be one in essence and three in persons? – but it doesn’t involve contradiction. We don’t say God is one and three in the same sense. He is one in essence, three in persons. This is mysterious but not contradictory.

Modalism, however, does involve contradictions. It requires us to believe that:

• Jesus prayed to Himself
• Jesus sent Himself
• Jesus witnessed about Himself to Himself
• Jesus loved Himself before the world began
• Jesus sat down at His own right hand
• Jesus is His own Father and His own Son

These aren’t mysteries; they’re nonsensical contradictions that make the biblical narrative unintelligible. True mystery preserves what Scripture reveals even when we can’t fully comprehend it. False mystery uses the claim of incomprehensibility to avoid dealing with biblical evidence.

Economic vs. Ontological Trinity Distinction

A crucial distinction that helps address modalist confusion is between the economic Trinity and the ontological Trinity. The ontological Trinity refers to who God is in His eternal being – one essence, three persons. The economic Trinity refers to how the three persons relate to creation and especially to our salvation.

In the economy of salvation, we see an order or structure: the Father sends the Son, the Son submits to the Father, the Spirit proceeds from the Father and/or Son. This economic ordering doesn’t mean inequality of essence or dignity. The Son’s submission to the Father in His earthly ministry doesn’t mean He’s less than the Father in His divine nature.

Philippians 2:5-11 illustrates this beautifully. Christ, “being in the form of God, did not consider it robbery to be equal with God, but made Himself of no reputation, taking the form of a bondservant” (vv. 6-7, NKJV). The Son’s voluntary humiliation for our salvation doesn’t negate His essential equality with the Father.

Modalists often confuse economic subordination with ontological identity. When Jesus says, “The Father is greater than I” (John 14:28, NKJV), He’s speaking from His position in the economy of salvation as the incarnate Son. This doesn’t mean He’s not fully God or that He’s the same person as the Father.

Pastoral Approach to Modalists

Dealing with modalism in the local church requires wisdom, patience, and love. Many who hold modalist views are sincere Christians who have been poorly taught. They need gentle correction and patient instruction, not harsh condemnation. Here we explore practical strategies for addressing this issue pastorally.

Gentle Correction Strategies

When you discover someone in your church holds modalist views, your first response should be prayer and patience. Remember that many people embrace modalism not out of rebellion but out of a sincere desire to protect the oneness of God. They may have been taught this doctrine by trusted teachers or raised in churches where it was assumed.

Start with relationship. Before attempting theological correction, establish trust and demonstrate genuine care for the person. People are more receptive to correction from those they trust. Take time to understand their background and why they believe what they believe.

Ask questions rather than making accusations. Instead of saying, “You’re a heretic!” try asking, “Can you help me understand what you believe about the Father and the Son? Are they distinct persons or the same person?” Let them explain their views in their own words. Often, people don’t realize the implications of what they believe until they have to articulate it clearly.

Use Scripture as your primary tool. Rather than beginning with theological terms or church history, start with clear biblical passages. Walk through the baptism of Jesus in Matthew 3, Jesus’ high priestly prayer in John 17, or the sending passages in John’s Gospel. Let Scripture itself reveal the distinction of persons.

Acknowledge legitimate concerns. Affirm their desire to maintain the oneness of God – this is biblical and important. Show them that the doctrine of the Trinity preserves monotheism while accounting for all the biblical data. We’re not choosing between one God and three persons; we’re embracing both truths as Scripture reveals them.

Be patient with the learning process. Moving from modalism to trinitarianism isn’t usually instantaneous. It may take multiple conversations, much prayer, and careful study. Don’t expect immediate acceptance. Give the Holy Spirit time to work through the Word.

Avoid unnecessary theological jargon initially. Terms like “hypostatic union,” “homoousios,” and “economic Trinity” may be helpful eventually, but they can be overwhelming at first. Start with simple, biblical language and introduce technical terms only as needed.

Teaching Tools and Resources

Having the right resources can make a significant difference in helping someone move from modalist to trinitarian understanding. Here are tools and approaches that have proven effective:

Visual Aids: While being careful not to oversimplify, certain diagrams can be helpful. The Shield of the Trinity (Scutum Fidei) has been used since medieval times to illustrate that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. This visual representation can help people grasp the concept of one essence with three distinct persons.

Biblical Studies: Develop a series of Bible studies that walk through key passages systematically. Start with the baptism of Jesus, move through His prayers and teachings about the Father and Spirit, examine the apostolic teachings in Acts and the Epistles, and conclude with the worship scenes in Revelation. Let Scripture build the doctrine progressively.

Historical Testimonies: Share testimonies from those who have moved from modalism to orthodox faith. Hearing how others have wrestled with these issues and come to embrace the Trinity can be encouraging and instructive. The testimony of former Oneness Pentecostals can be particularly powerful.

Recommended Books:

• The Forgotten Trinity by James White – Clear, accessible defense of the Trinity
• Delighting in the Trinity by Michael Reeves – Shows the beauty and importance of trinitarian doctrine
• The Deep Things of God by Fred Sanders – How the Trinity changes everything
• Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by Bruce Ware – Relationships, roles, and relevance of the Trinity

Videos and Online Resources: In our digital age, many people learn better through video than through books. Recommend solid online resources that explain the Trinity clearly and refute modalism. Channels like “Theology in Perspective” and “Trinity Apologetics” offer helpful content.

When to Be Patient vs. Firm

Pastoral wisdom requires knowing when to be patient and when to be firm. Not every situation calls for the same response.

Be patient with:

• New believers who are still learning basic doctrine
• Those who have been sincerely misled by false teaching
• People who are genuinely studying and asking questions
• Members who hold modalist views but aren’t teaching them to others
• Those from Oneness backgrounds who are in process of learning

Be firm with:

• Teachers or leaders who persist in spreading modalist doctrine after correction
• Those who are divisive and creating factions in the church
• People who refuse to submit to Scripture after patient instruction
• Anyone teaching that orthodox believers aren’t truly saved
• Those who make modalism a test of fellowship or salvation

Paul’s instruction to Titus provides guidance: “Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition, knowing that such a person is warped and sinning, being self-condemned” (Titus 3:10-11, NKJV). Patient instruction should be our first approach, but persistent false teaching after clear correction requires firm action to protect the flock.

Remember that the goal is restoration, not punishment. Even when firmness is required, it should be exercised in love with the hope of bringing the person to truth. As Paul writes, “And a servant of the Lord must not quarrel but be gentle to all, able to teach, patient, in humility correcting those who are in opposition, if God perhaps will grant them repentance, so that they may know the truth” (2 Timothy 2:24-25, NKJV).

Common Questions

When discussing the Trinity and modalism, certain questions arise repeatedly. Here are biblical, thoughtful responses to the most common inquiries.

“Isn’t This Just Semantics?”

This question often comes from those who think the difference between modalism and trinitarianism is merely a matter of words without real significance. They might say, “We all believe in one God and that Jesus is God. Why does it matter whether we call them persons or modes?”

The answer is that words represent realities, and the realities here are vastly different. The difference between persons and modes is the difference between real relationships and theatrical performance, between genuine love and divine narcissism, between a God who can truly save and one who cannot.

If the Father, Son, and Spirit are merely modes, then:

• God cannot be essentially love, since love requires a genuine other
• The incarnation is an illusion – God didn’t really become man
• Jesus’ prayers are meaningless conversations with Himself
• We have no mediator – no one stands between us and God
• The gospel itself collapses – God didn’t send His Son; He just came Himself

This is far more than semantics. It’s the difference between biblical Christianity and a different religion altogether. As theologian Robert Letham notes, “The Trinity is the gospel. Without it, we would have no gospel at all.”

“What About Jesus Saying ‘I and the Father Are One’?”

This question, based on John 10:30, is perhaps the most common objection raised by modalists. They argue that if Jesus and the Father are one, they must be the same person.

The answer lies in understanding what kind of oneness Jesus claims. The Greek word for “one” here (hen) is neuter, not masculine (heis). This indicates unity of essence or nature, not personal identity. Jesus and the Father share the same divine nature – they are one God – but they remain distinct persons.

Furthermore, Jesus uses the plural verb “are” (esmen). He doesn’t say “I and the Father am one” but “are one.” The plural verb maintains personal distinction while affirming essential unity.

Most decisively, Jesus prays in John 17:21 that believers would be one “as We are one.” Is Jesus praying for believers to become the same person? Obviously not. He’s praying for unity, not personal identity. The same kind of unity (though on a different level) exists between the Father and Son – perfect unity of purpose, will, and nature while maintaining distinct personhood.

“Why Does It Matter If God Has Modes or Persons?”

This practical question deserves a practical answer. The distinction between modes and persons matters because it affects every aspect of our relationship with God and our understanding of salvation.

It matters for prayer. If God is three persons, we can pray to the Father through the Son by the Spirit. Each person plays a distinct role in our prayer life. But if God just has modes, prayer becomes confused. Are we talking to one person who’s pretending to be three?

It matters for worship. We worship one God who exists as three persons. Our worship songs, our liturgy, our baptismal formula – all reflect this trinitarian reality. Modalism would require us to completely restructure our worship.

It matters for salvation. The gospel is that God the Father sent His Son to die for our sins and sends His Spirit to apply that salvation to our hearts. Each person has a distinct role in our salvation. Modalism collapses these distinct roles into a confusing divine monologue.

It matters for assurance. Romans 8:34 tells us Christ intercedes for us at the Father’s right hand. Hebrews 7:25 says He “always lives to make intercession” for us. If Christ is the Father, this intercession is meaningless, and we lose a crucial ground of our assurance.

It matters for understanding God’s love. The eternal love between Father, Son, and Spirit shows us that God is essentially love. This eternal love overflows to us in salvation. Without distinct persons, God’s love becomes self-love rather than other-oriented love.

Practical Application: Protecting Your Church from Modalist Influence

Every church needs to be proactive in protecting its members from modalist teaching. This isn’t about creating a hostile environment or becoming heresy hunters, but about faithfully shepherding the flock God has entrusted to our care. Here are practical steps churches can take to guard against modalist influence while promoting healthy trinitarian theology.

Educational Initiatives

Implement a robust new members class. Don’t assume new members understand the Trinity correctly. Many come from backgrounds where they’ve been taught modalism or have picked up confused ideas from popular culture. Include a clear session on the nature of God, explaining what the church believes and why. Use this time to lovingly correct any misconceptions.

Develop a systematic teaching plan. Don’t leave trinitarian instruction to chance. Plan regular sermons and Bible studies that explore the nature of God. This might include an annual Trinity Sunday emphasis, a sermon series through John’s Gospel highlighting the relationships between Father, Son, and Spirit, or a study of the great trinitarian passages of Scripture.

Create age-appropriate curricula. Children and youth need solid trinitarian teaching from an early age. Develop or select Sunday School materials that accurately present the Trinity without relying on flawed analogies. Teach children to recognize and avoid modalist errors while celebrating the beauty of our triune God.

Offer doctrinal training for teachers. Everyone who teaches in your church, from children’s workers to adult Bible study leaders, should understand the Trinity clearly. Provide regular training sessions where teachers can ask questions, clarify their understanding, and learn how to explain these truths to others.

Worship and Liturgy Safeguards

Evaluate your church’s music carefully. Some popular worship songs contain modalist lyrics or ambiguous language about God. While we don’t need to become overly critical, we should ensure the songs we sing teach truth. Train your worship leaders to recognize problematic lyrics and either avoid such songs or modify the words appropriately.

Use historic creeds and confessions. Regular recitation of the Apostles’ Creed or Nicene Creed helps reinforce orthodox theology. These time-tested statements of faith provide guardrails against error and connect your congregation to the historic Christian faith.

Maintain biblical baptismal practice. Use the trinitarian formula Christ gave in Matthew 28:19. This isn’t mere traditionalism but obedience to Christ’s command. The baptismal formula becomes a teaching moment about the nature of God.

Be intentional about trinitarian language in prayer. Model biblical prayer patterns that acknowledge all three persons of the Trinity. Pray to the Father, through the Son, by the Spirit. This reinforces proper understanding while avoiding both modalist confusion and tritheistic error.

Discernment in Resources and Guest Speakers

Carefully vet outside resources. Before recommending books, videos, or study materials, ensure they present orthodox trinitarian theology. Be especially cautious with materials from charismatic or Pentecostal sources, as these sometimes contain Oneness influence even when not explicitly Oneness in orientation.

Screen guest speakers and missionaries. Before inviting someone to speak in your church, ask about their understanding of the Trinity. This isn’t about being suspicious or unfriendly, but about protecting your flock from false teaching. A simple question like “Could you briefly explain what you believe about the Trinity?” can reveal much.

Monitor small group studies. While encouraging Bible study is important, ensure small group leaders aren’t introducing modalist teachings. Provide approved study materials and maintain communication with group leaders about what they’re teaching.

Address popular false teachers. When prominent modalist teachers gain influence through television, books, or the internet, address their teachings specifically. Help your congregation understand why these teachings are wrong without becoming obsessed with controversy.

Pastoral Response Protocols

Establish clear procedures for handling doctrinal concerns. When someone in your church begins promoting modalist views, have a plan in place. This might involve:

1. Initial private conversation with a pastor or elder
2. Providing educational resources and study opportunities
3. Follow-up meetings to assess understanding and receptiveness
4. If necessary, restricting teaching opportunities until the issue is resolved
5. In extreme cases, formal church discipline for persistent false teaching

Distinguish between confusion and conviction. Someone who’s genuinely confused about the Trinity needs patient teaching. Someone who’s convinced of modalism and actively promoting it requires a firmer response. Wisdom is needed to discern the difference.

Maintain a redemptive focus. The goal is always restoration, not punishment. Even when firm action is necessary, it should be taken with love and hope for the person’s return to biblical truth.

Building a Trinitarian Church Culture

Celebrate the Trinity in all aspects of church life. Don’t relegate trinitarian doctrine to the classroom. Show how the Trinity affects everything – our worship, our relationships, our mission, our hope. When people see the practical importance of this doctrine, they’re less likely to be swayed by error.

Share testimonies of trinitarian transformation. Invite former modalists to share how coming to understand the true Trinity changed their faith. These personal stories can be powerful tools for helping others see the importance of right doctrine.

Connect trinitarian theology to the gospel. Help people see that the Trinity isn’t an abstract doctrine but the very heart of the gospel. The Father’s love, the Son’s sacrifice, and the Spirit’s application of salvation all depend on the distinct persons of the Trinity.

Foster a culture of gracious orthodoxy. Create an environment where people feel safe asking questions and admitting confusion, while maintaining clear boundaries on essential doctrine. This balance of grace and truth reflects the character of our triune God.

Prayer and Reflection: Worshiping the True Triune God

As we conclude our examination of modalism, it’s appropriate to turn our hearts to worship and prayer. The doctrine of the Trinity isn’t merely an intellectual exercise but a revelation of the God we love and serve. Understanding who God truly is should lead us to deeper worship, greater awe, and more fervent devotion.

Consider the wonder of what Scripture reveals: The eternal God exists as three distinct persons in perfect unity and love. Before creation, before time itself, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit existed in perfect communion. The Father eternally loving the Son, the Son eternally glorifying the Father, the Spirit eternally proceeding in love from both (or from the Father through the Son, depending on one’s position on the filioque).

This eternal communion of love is the source of all love in creation. We love because He first loved us – not just in sending His Son, but in the eternal love that exists within the Godhead itself. The love between Father and Son, shared by the Spirit, overflows to us in creation and redemption.

Think of what we would lose if modalism were true. We would lose the beautiful reality of the Father sending His beloved Son – it would just be God coming Himself. We would lose the precious truth of Jesus interceding for us at the Father’s right hand – it would be meaningless self-conversation. We would lose the comfort of the Spirit as another advocate – it would just be Jesus in a different form.

But praise God, modalism is not true! We worship the true triune God revealed in Scripture. We have a Father who loved us enough to send His only Son. We have a Son who loved us enough to leave the glories of heaven and die in our place. We have a Spirit who loved us enough to convict us of sin, regenerate our hearts, and take up residence within us.

A Prayer of Worship and Commitment

Heavenly Father, we worship You as the fountain of all love and the source of all good. You are not a solitary monarch but exist eternally with Your Son and Spirit in perfect communion. Thank You for revealing Yourself to us through Your Word and showing us the beauty of Your triune nature.

Lord Jesus Christ, eternal Son of the Father, we praise You for Your incarnation, death, and resurrection. You are not the Father in a different mode but the distinct second person of the Trinity who became man for our salvation. Thank You for being our mediator, our advocate, our ever-living intercessor at the Father’s right hand.

Holy Spirit, divine person who proceeds from the Father and Son, we worship You as truly God. You are not an impersonal force or merely God in another form, but the distinct third person of the Trinity who indwells, sanctifies, and empowers us. Thank You for Your ministry of conviction, regeneration, and transformation in our lives.

Triune God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – we commit ourselves to knowing You more fully, worshiping You more faithfully, and proclaiming You more clearly. Protect us from the error of modalism that would rob us of the beauty of Your triune nature. Give us wisdom to recognize false teaching, courage to stand for truth, and love to restore those who have been deceived.

Help us to teach the next generation the precious truth of the Trinity, not as dry doctrine but as living reality. May our churches be centers of trinitarian worship where You are glorified as You truly are – one God in three persons, blessed forever.

We pray all this in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, our one God forever and ever. Amen.

Bibliography

Anizor, Uche, and Hank Voss. Representing Christ: A Vision for the Priesthood of All Believers. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2016.

Athanasius. Letters to Serapion on the Holy Spirit. Translated by C.R.B. Shapland. New York: Philosophical Library, 1951.

Basil the Great. On the Holy Spirit. Translated by Stephen Hildebrand. Yonkers, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2011.

Bauckham, Richard. Jesus and the God of Israel: God Crucified and Other Studies on the New Testament’s Christology of Divine Identity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Bavinck, Herman. Reformed Dogmatics, Volume 2: God and Creation. Edited by John Bolt. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2004.

Beisner, E. Calvin. “Jesus Only” Churches. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1998.

Bernard, David K. The Oneness of God. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 1983.

Bird, Michael F., and Scott Harrower, eds. Trinity Without Hierarchy: Reclaiming Nicene Orthodoxy in Evangelical Theology. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic, 2019.

Boyd, Gregory A. Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006.

Carson, D. A. The Gospel According to John. Pillar New Testament Commentary. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.

Dunn, James D. G. Did the First Christians Worship Jesus? The New Testament Evidence. Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010.

Emery, Gilles. The Trinity: An Introduction to Catholic Doctrine on the Triune God. Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 2011.

Fee, Gordon D. Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1996.

Gregory of Nazianzus. On God and Christ: The Five Theological Orations. Translated by Frederick Williams. Crestwood, NY: St Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 2002.

Grudem, Wayne. Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994.

Gunton, Colin E. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997.

Harris, Murray J. Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992.

Hippolytus. Against Noetus. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 5. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Hurtado, Larry W. Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

Irenaeus. Against Heresies. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 1. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

Jakes, T. D. Interview. Christianity Today, February 2000.

Johnson, Keith E. Rethinking the Trinity and Religious Pluralism: An Augustinian Assessment. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2011.

Köstenberger, Andreas J., and Scott R. Swain. Father, Son and Spirit: The Trinity and John’s Gospel. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008.

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Rev. ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2019.

Macleod, Donald. The Person of Christ. Contours of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1998.

McGrath, Alister E. Understanding the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1988.

Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to John. Rev. ed. New International Commentary on the New Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Norris, David S. I AM: A Oneness Pentecostal Theology. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 2009.

Owen, John. Communion with the Triune God. Edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

Packer, J. I. Knowing God. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1973.

Reed, David A. In Jesus’ Name: The History and Beliefs of Oneness Pentecostals. Blandford Forum, UK: Deo Publishing, 2008.

Reeves, Michael. Delighting in the Trinity: An Introduction to the Christian Faith. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

Sanders, Fred. The Triune God. New Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

Tertullian. Against Praxeas. In Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 3. Edited by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1994.

The Didache: The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles. In The Apostolic Fathers. Translated by Michael W. Holmes. 3rd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2007.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

United Pentecostal Church International. Articles of Faith. Hazelwood, MO: Word Aflame Press, 2020.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

Warfield, Benjamin B. The Works of Benjamin B. Warfield, Volume 2: Biblical Doctrines. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 2003.

Webb, R. Alexander. Jesus Becoming Jesus: A Theological Interpretation of the Gospel of John. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2020.

White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.

Williams, Ernest Swing. Systematic Theology. 3 vols. Springfield, MO: Gospel Publishing House, 1953.

© 2025, DakeBible.org. All rights reserved.