From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Christianity / Theology / Catholicism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by theology work group (marked as Low-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Low-importance).

Recent Changes=[edit]

I've edited according to the discussions below whilst relying on the Catholic encyclopedia article Monarchian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:32, 29 January 2013 (UTC)


the second sentence in the first paragraph is misleading as the logos argument was used by Monarchians to support their position. The Alogi, those against the logos doctrine were a sect of Arians and in complete opposition to Monarchians. I also support the statement below, the term ' homouisias' meaning "of the same substance" was used by Monarchians and made it into the Nicean creed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Further to my comments, the quotes provided dont support the position and I've seen it being quoted from Wikipedia. If theres no objections I intend to delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I believe the following statement from the article is in error:

The problem with reconciling such a belief with the orthodoxy of the Church was that the Catholic interpretation of God as the Trinity, while it places the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as co-eternal, equal beings, does not go so far as to say that all three are the same essence, which is the principal tenet of the flavor of Monarchism known as Modalism, which states that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are exactly one and the same as the Father (in different "modes").

The First Ecumenical Council made it very clear that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit share one divine essence: the Greek word they used was homoousious (sp?), and this word was incorporated into the Nicene Creed. They avoided Modalism by maintaining the distinction between the three persons of the Trinity. It is a fine line, but also one that is well delineated. Unfortunately, I don't know enough about monarchianism to correct the above. If no one else does, I'll try to when I have the time. Wesley

After doing a small amount of reading, I replaced 'essence' with 'person ' in the article. Standard Catholic and Orthodox teaching is that there are three distinct persons in the Trinity who share just one divine essence. Although the one essence formula was rejected at the Synod of Antioch in 268 in relation to this controversy, it was later accepted by the entire Church in 325 at the First Ecumenical Council. Wesley 22:01 Nov 5, 2002 (UTC)

I understand one of the early difficulties between east and west in the debate was that the Latin-speaking west spoke of one substantia and three personae, while the Greek-speaking east spoke of one ousía and three hupostáseis, both of which words were usually translated by Latin substantia(e). Both sides took Latin substantia as equivalent to Greek hupóstasis, which it certainly is etymologically, and often semantically. So the Greeks understood the Romans as advocating modalism with only one hupóstasis, while the Romans heard the Greeks supporting tritheism with three substantiae. They eventually decided they were really saying the same thing in different words. The Latin word essentia was coined later (by Augustine, I think) as a more exact equivalent to ousía.
The first known use of trinitas was by Tertullian. But Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was martyred early in the 2nd century (I've seen both 107 and 115 given as dates), who must have known the apostles, and was therefore in a better position than we are to understand their meaning, disagreed very strongly with modalism (or patripassianism), and understood Father, Son and Paraclete as equal but distinct.—Copey 2 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

The following statement (now removed), which was without a proper citation, is erroneous:

Emanuel Swedenborg has also been considered a proponent of modalistic monarchianism, since he emphasizes a uni-personal God. However, he does not see God as appearing in three modes; rather, he sees God as one divine person, Jesus Christ, who has a divine soul of love, a divine mind of truth and a divine body of energy.

This is incorrect. First, Swedenborg stated that Sabellianism was a heresy: "The Christian Church began from the cradle to be vexed and divided by schisms and heresies... After the times of the apostles, many others arose, as the Marcionites, the Noetians, the Encratites, the Cataphrygians, the Quarto-Decimans, the Alogians, the Catharians, the Origenists or Adamites, the Sabellians..." (True Christian Religion, n. 378). This leaves the "Adoptionist" view. Again Swedenborg does not subscribe to this doctrine; he stated that Jesus became Jehovah in human form from the time of conception, not from the time of his baptism. The view of the Trinity as described by Swedenborg is completely different than Monarchianism and belongs in a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Webber (talkcontribs) 01:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Rant inserted into article[edit]

Modelism (>Modalism) is what the 1st Century Church (Apostolic) practiced and believed. They where (>were) still sons of the law. Read Deuteronomy 6:4: It states that God is One! This is the basis for the entire law. Jesus came to fulfill the law. In order to do that, Jesus would have to be fully God and fully man. The invisable (>invisible) God of the Old Testament would have to become visable (>visible) in the New Testament. God became man and dwelt among us: Read Matthew: His name shall be called Immanuel, being literally interpretted (>interpreted) God with us! Jesus is the Father incarnate in human flesh and that is what modelism (>modalism) seeks to show.

You must remember that from the conception of the church they where (>were) modelistic (>modalistic) in their beliefs. It was not until between 230 to 250 AD that the Catholics show up on the scene and create the doctrine called the Trinity. And it is not until 325 AD at the council of Nicaea that the (>they) lock out the Montenasts (>Montanists) (Apostolics) which where (>were) 2/3rds of the church and make the Trinity the dominate (>dominant) doctrinal view of the church. Caesar Constantine help (>helped) the Catholics lock out the Montenasts (>Montanists) (Apostolics) in 325 AD. And it was at that point that Christianity merged with Pagan. Read the Book of Revelations (>Revelation) and the 3rd Church, a mixture of Christian and a mixture of Pagan. This is what Jesus showed John in the book of Revelation. The 4th Church is also Catholic and it is a dead church and Jesus command to John was to warn people to come out, because nobody was being saved in this church! To this day, that is the state of the Catholic Church.

Modelists (>Modalists) today are Apostolics. The United Pentecostal Church is the largest of these groups and is the fastest growing church in North America and one of the fastest growing christian churches in the World. And its view is the same as the 1st Century Church, God is ONE (Oneness). Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles, not names of God, but manifestations of God in relation to humanity. Jesus is God in the flesh. Only God can forgive sin, that is what the Pharisees crucified Jesus for, declaring that he infact (>in fact) was God. Note that Jesus told the people of Israel, the Pharisees, and Govenor (>governor) Pilot (Pilate) that he was the "I AM." In the Old Testament that was the closest name to God. Jehovah, Yahwey, Adoni, and 72 names in all where only descriptive. I AM was what God told Moses his name was! That is what Jesus identified himself with when he walked this Earth! Jesus is the Father, Jesus is the Son, Jesus is the Holy Ghost, and Jesus is God manifest in human flesh. God incarnate in a human body, reconciling the world unto himself!

For some unknown reason User:Zsinj has restored this rant to the article.

I'm loving the rant. You may have not heard of it but the New Church has almost identical teachings about the Oneness of God, and the christological and theological system that backs it up is very thorough and coherent. I'm glad your church is growing so fast. This is exactly the direction the Lord wants us to be moving. Check out The New Church to compare with Oneness Pentecostals.

Ignatius of Antioch (martyred some time between 107 and 115 AD) must have known the apostles, and he totally rejects monarchian modalism. He was in a far better position than we are to know how the apostles understood the relationship of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Copey 2 09:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

If the Montanists had been monarchian modalists, Tertullian would not have joined them. He was the man who first applied the Latin word Trinitās to the nature of God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Copey 2 13:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this rant here in the first place? It is not scholarly. It is only uneducated bias, and has no scholarly material in it. As stated above, the works of Ignatius has no hint of modalism. Grailknighthero (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)



the name Natalius is brought up, but he seems to have nothing to do with the entry. please explain.

Filioque dispute[edit]

Medieval and modern disputes over the Filioque have re-awoken ancient controversies over monarchianism, with Eastern Orthodox theologians arguing in favour of a monarchy of the Father, while rejecting the related theological label. ADM (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

-- (talk) 09:11, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Monarchianism and Arianism[edit]

Monarchism and Arianism share no similarity, they were diametrically opposed movements. Confusion has arisen because some label Theodotianism as Dynamic Monarchianism (Adoptionism) this is a historically attested error of categorisation.

Are there relevant similarities, and therefore relevant distinctions, between these two theologies/Christologies that are pertinent to this article? Tomertalk 06:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

They are similar in that both say that the Son is not unbegotten (i.e. he was begotten and had a beginning). Not sure that this warrants mention though. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Monarchianism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)