The virtue of Monarchianism is that it rejected the duality or plurality of gods as taught by the Gnostics. It did this by emphasizing the Unity of God. Unfortunately, Monarchianism greatly erred with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity. Harold O. J. Brown explains:

“The tragedy of monarchianism lies in the fact that its adherents really were trying to understand Christ correctly. The name “monarchian” is applied to groups that sought to stress a fundamental biblical and Christian truth, namely, the conviction that God is one, the sole monarch of the universe.” [HERESIES; pg. 95]

To understand Monarchianism it is helpful to note that there were two branches. In other words, among adherents there were two quite different approaches to God’s monarchy. One approach is called “adoptionism”, the other “modalism”. Both views represent early attempts to explain the plurality or “threeness” of God within the conceptual framework of God’s Unity or Oneness.

THE ADOPTIONIST VIEW OF MONARCHIANISM

The adoptionist view simply states that Jesus is a man endowed with special power from God, and thus in a way adopted as God’s Son. It is helpful to understand the circumstances which gave rise to the adoptionistic view of Monarcianism. Harold Brown comments:

“As a distinct heresy, adoptionism did not make its appearance until about the year 190 in Rome, where it was certainly partly a reaction against the gnostic speculation that made of Christ an immaterial aeon.” [HERESIES; pg. 96]

Meet Paul of Samosata-- A Proponent of Adoptionism

Although a primitive view of adoptionism appeared earlier, adoptionism attained a greater level of sophistication by Paul of Samosata (ca. 200- 75). As an adoptionist, he insisted on the true humanity of Jesus and thus opposed Docetism, an earlier error which claimed Jesus only appeared to be human. For our present study his explanation of the union between Jesus and God is of special interest. Brown comments:

“Paul of Samosata taught that Jesus was born of a virgin and that the holy spirit had been poured out upon him at his baptism. He did call Jesus God, unlike the earlier adoptionists’ for whom he was a mere man, but by this Paul only meant that through his moral perfection and the miraculous powers granted him at his baptism, Jesus was able to remain in constant union with God.” [HERESIES; pg. 98]

Adoptionism was soon swept from the stage by the slogan, “true God and true man”, which was coined by Irenaeus and Tertullian in reference to Christ. Nonetheless adoptionism occasionally recurs. Harold O. J. Brown comments on this phenomenon:

“Its basic idea (that Jesus was a mere man) is so appealing that it frequently recurs whenever a rationalistic, anti-miraculous interpretation of Scripture comes into fashion.”

THE MODALIST VIEW OF MONARCHIANISM

Unlike adoptionism, Modalism upholds the deity of Christ, but does not see him as a distinct Person from the Father. Modalism holds that God reveals himself under different aspects or modes in different ages-- as the Father in Creation and in the giving of the Law, as the Son in Jesus Christ, and as the Holy Spirit after Christ’s ascension. Modalism stresses the full deity of Christ and thus does justice to the tremendous impact he made upon his age, and it avoids the suggestion that he is a second God alongside the Father. Unfortunately it abandons the diversity of Persons within the godhead, and thus loses the important concept that Christ is our representative or advocate with the Father. [HERESIES; pg. 99]

Like adoptionism, modalism has a basis in Scripture. The adoptionists emphasize the Synoptic Gospels and their portrayal of the descent of the Holy Spirit upon Jesus at his baptism. The modalists emphasize the Gospel of John with its statements stressing the oneness of Christ with the Father, for example, “I and my Father are one,” and, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father” (John 10:30, 14:9). Rather than understand these verses to mean that Christ is a second Person in perfect communion with the Father, they are taken to mean that he and the Father are a single Person, in other words, that he is the Father. The word “one” in the Greek text of John 10:30 is the neuter ‘hen’ which suggests that the meaning is “one deity, one divine essence,” rather than one Person, but this is a rather sophisticated insight. It makes sense only if one can conceive of God as subsisting in distinct Persons, namely, in the Father and the Son, and of course in the Holy Spirit as well. Anyone who has not yet been able to formulate the concept of the Trinity in this explicit way will of course find it simpler and more plausible to understand Christ as saying, “I and the Father are one Person,” in other words, as presenting himself as a mode of the Father. If the Son is not a real Person who can stand before the Father and address him, then the Christian concept of substitutionary satisfaction, which holds that Christ takes our place and pays our debt to the Father, becomes at best a symbol, not a reality. Commonly, modalism arises as an attempt to reduce the mystery of the Trinity to a more understandable concept. [HERESIES; pg.100]

Meet Sabellius -- A Proponent of Modalism

Little is known of Sabellius as a man but his name remains a term of abuse in subsequent theological controversies. Through the teaching of Sabellius, modalism reached its high point early in the third century. Harold O. J. Brown says:

“Sabellius taught the strict unity of the godhead: ‘one Person, three names.’ God is ‘hyiopator,’ Son-Father. The different names, Father, Son, and Spirit, merely describe different forms of revelation; the Son revealed the Father as a ray reveals the sun. Now the Son has returned to heaven, and God reveals himself as the Holy Spirit. The concept that the Trinity subsists in different Persons is lost. Sabellius’ view saw the existence of the Son as confined to his earthly work. Consequently he cannot continue to be ‘an advocate with the Father’ (1 John 2:1) or be said to ‘live forever to make intercession’ (Heb. 7:25).

SUMMARY OF MONARCHIANISM

Monarchianism represents an early movement intended to preserve the bible teaching of the Unity, or Oneness of God, against the duality or plurality of gods proposed by gnostics. Monarchianism is represented by two divergent views, adoptionism and modalism. While each upholds the Unity of God both err with respect the doctrine of the Trinity; adoptionism by sacrificing the deity of Christ, modalism by not recognizing Christ as a Person distinct from the Father. Both will frequently reappear in history; adoptionism recurs when a rationalistic, anti-miraculous interpretation of Scripture comes into fashion; modalism recurs as a failure to teach the doctrine of the Trinity clearly. Harold Brown observes:
“An implicit or naive modalism is sometimes found in modern fundamentalist circles that insist on the deity of Christ but are unwilling to make the theological effort to formulate a clear doctrine of the Trinity.” [HERESIES; pg. 99]