My encounter with a modalist: The trinity, Sola Scriptura, Orthopraxi, Orthozoe, Orthodoxy

Some months ago I was wisely frequenting an internet thread on the Facebook group called "Calvinism: the group that chooses you" (not the one full of kinists).  While I did not take screen shots I made sure to record what was said.

I encountered a Modalist, the heresy that proclaims God is one person who manifests himself in three ways.  Often called Sabellianism/Modalistic Monarchianism: God is perceived in three different modes but is one person.  He simply shows himself differently at different times.  TD Jakes (a oneness pentacostal) for example:
"I don't like the term persons, I like to think of them as three manifestations."

His Churches statement of faith is
"There is one God, creator of all things, infinitely perfect, and eternally existing in three manifestations: Father, Son and Holy Spirit

The idea being God is sometimes the father, sometimes the son and sometimes the Holy Spirit

The orthodox historic Christian position is God is three persons ( person being a center of consciousness, a self), one ousia (essence/substance),  three hupostases (distinct existences in the individual).

Orthodoxy can be thus expressed in a graphic.

Now to my encounter with a modalist.

He began by calling Trinitarians heretics in a thread  about JW’s.  This made logical sense considering the mutual denial of the trinity he shared with them. He was clearly a modalist, proclaiming God is one person not just one being. In fact he professed quite proudly that's what he was.  God had been the father, was the son and is now the Holy Ghost.  

People pulled texts and approached him systematically quite strongly but he persisted.  In his words anybody arguing for the trinity was  a fool for holding to 2000 years of heretical teaching.  I cannot remember how he approached the church being not just wrong but apostate for that time, but that was but one of the many holes he wasn't just ignoring but vehemently denying constituted an issue for him.

I knew that scripture wasn't working so I decided to go a different route.  I turned to arguing theology.

I opened with a probing question.

How does God relate if relationship is Alien? Why does Jesus pray? His reply was "he prayed to himself in heaven” (though such action implies persons to relate).  I talked person as a “rational self” not separate being hence the sharing in the essence and three hypostasis and one ousia. He with quite obvious disgust continued to deny the necessity of it and attacking the usage of the terminology.  Since the word wasn't in scripture, it mustn't be biblical. 

It became obvious he held to Sola scriptura,  both his problem and a point of agreement I decided to build on.

He did buy into a common mistake today, his Sola Scriptura was really Sola Ego.  His understanding was literally "All I need is me and the bible" (though of course he relied on a translation handed down from somebody interpreting the Greek). He relied on a translation, and inherited Sola Scripture as tradition but could see neither. Naturally then he read himself into the text to an unhealthy degree and was unaware that he was making scripture conform to him and not himself to scripture.He was twisting scripture in a vacuum and either unaware or intentionally doing violence to the text.

Here I had to fight him on his redefinition of Sola Scriptura.  I brought up how his reading like anybody else's is never in a vacuum as he inherits tradition and brings his own experiences with him.  I told him not to forsake tradition.  Scripture as ultimate not only authority which was the definition of the reformers.  Scripture does have to be interpreted and the council of the church should not be left out.  He just pulled back avoiding my point and replied“none of the apostles used the term person!” Exclamation points and all so you know he was seriously mad.

None of them used sola scriptura either as I pointed out (the term though had the meaning as I explained) but the concepts of both are found in scripture. To finish, I decided to make another pivot within theology.

 I ended by bringing up Baptism.  Why are we baptized into the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and not one or the current mode?

I was going to go to Jesus sending the Paraclete (always plan ahead) but he had backed off.  He finally had no answer because his very practice testified to the truth and a theology he had thoroughly denied.

If doctrine doesn’t work, go practice because it reflects doctrine and if one is off the other can testify to the truth handed down.   His baptism attested three persons as one being.  

The same problem was encountered by the Gnostics and the Arians alike in their own ways.  The Gnostics believed matter was evil and many that Christ never had a body (denying the incarnation). Yet they celebrated the Eucharist, an eating of bread and wine.  Arians baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit but proclaimed them three different unequal beings.  It would mean baptizing in the name of a lesser deity, a created being.

How we live, how we practice can often expose how we really should speak and think as much as vice versa. If a persons theology does not reflect their practice there is a disconnect.  In confronting a heretic we can use their rites borrowed from the true church to show the truth.  We can likewise do so in the world today for those who cannot explain their ethic or their morality.  Like the modern humanist who borrows "good morality" from Christianity as he picks and chooses, heretics borrow the name and practices of Christianity.  

Orthopraxi (right practice), Orthodoxy (right doctrine/thinking) and Orthozoe (right life) are vital to living out one's faith.  If you can't make a point to a heretic in his deviation from orthodoxy, go to the other two. In this case I wen to Orthopraxi to show his religious practice exposed his devation from orthodoxy.

Likewise in your own life, if you have an imbalance in these investigate your theology.  

This just can't be shared enough