Quote:
Originally Posted by BobDylan
Actually, modalistic monarchianism was a response to the accusation that dynamic monarchians deny the deity of the son. Dynamic monarchianism, the oldest form of monarchianism from the first and second centuries, emphasized the humanity, but it DID NOT deny Jesus' deity (as their opponenets accused). Modalism was simply terminology used to express the deity more clearly (so as to respond to their detractors)... then the anti-monarchians accused the modalists of "patripassionism" (father suffered). When you contrapose dynamic monarchianism (emphasizing the humanity of Christ) with modalisitic monarchianism (emphasizing the deity of Christ), you have an accurate historical picture of what the early monarchians really believed. It's also interesting to note that the modalistic monarchians always spoke favorably of the dynamic monarchians, and vice versa. They were in "fellowship" with one another. This is indicative of the close bond between the doctrines of dynamic and modalistic monarchians. They believed almost exactly, if not exactly, the same way you and I believe.
|
You left this out. Both Monarchianism Adoptionist and Dynamic Monarchianism considered Jesus Christ as a unique man energized by the Holy Spirit at the time of His baptism and called to be the Son of God for a limited time. (Nelson's Dictionary of Christianity pg. 467)
Threaded Mode
