Gospel Guidebook: Getting and Keeping It Right 
한국어 日本語
Modalistic Monarchianism Best Describes God's Nature
by Robert P. TerryUpdated May 16, 2026
The vast majority of Christians describe themselves as Trinitarian, but the truth is that many Trinitarians "are practical modalists" (according to Trinitarian scholar Robert Letham on p. xxxii of his book The Holy Trinity). Modalistic Monarchianism (commonly referred to as "modalism") has a rich history in the church. In fact, the early Christian theologian Tertullian (155 to 220 AD) stated that modalists "always constitute the majority of believers" (Ch. III here), and this statement holds true today (see the video clips of Trinitarian apologist James White below). Tertullian was the first person to use the word "Trinity," but according to Letham, his teachings carried "a bias toward subordination and modalism" (The Holy Trinity, p. 100). In fact, scholars have long recognized that Nicene Trinitarianism gravitates toward modalism (Ibid., p. 290). Again, according to Letham, it was the Modalistic Monarchians who were happiest with the Creed of Nicaea 325 because it defined the Son as being of the same hypostasis as the Father (Ibid., p. 119). The truth is that the Trinity dogma wasn't really established until the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. For example, the Encyclopedia Britannica says, "It was not until later in the 4th century that the distinctness of the three and their unity were brought together in a single orthodox doctrine of one essence and three persons" (here) and this statement is also verified by the New Catholic Encyclopedia (see p. 193 here).
More recently, Southern Baptist theologian Frank Stagg, speaking on the development of Trinity doctrine, said, "But what began as insistence upon tri-unity eventually became an emphasis upon the threeness and increasing jeopardy to the belief in oneness... To the term trinity were soon added the terms 'persons,' 'three persons,' 'three persons of the Godhead'...Thus trinitarianism was fast on the way to tritheism... This the New Testament never anticipated and does not support" (see p. 7 here). Stagg's concerns about tritheism were correct because there are many Trinitarian apologists who are teaching that God ontologically has three centers of consciousness. See, for example, social-Trinitarians like William Lane Craig here and the GotQuestions.org website here, and non-social Trinitarians like James White here and Lane Tipton (from 20:20 to 25:03 and again from about 38:00 onward) here. Even Trinitarians, such as Robert Letham and J.V. Fesko, who believe that God ontologically has only one will (i.e., one center of consciousness), paradoxically say that there are three "different" persons in God who are capable of having intra-trinitarian dialogue (see for example, Letham's The Holy Trinity, p. 324 footnote 34, p. 454, and p. 459, and Fesko's The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption p. 175). And how exactly do non-social Trinitarians like Tipon and Fesko escape the charge of tritheism? Regrettably, not by using Scripture. For Tipton, it is as easy as invoking perichoresis (a concept that was initially developed to explain the incarnation, and only later extended in meaning to describe "interpenetration" between the god persons in 749 AD) and simply asserting that it is not tritheism. For Fesko, again, it's as easy as simply asserting that the intra-trinitarian dialogue doesn't "require" tritheism or social trinitarianism (although he seems to be indirectly admitting that intra-trinitarian dialogue more naturally lends to or is characteristic of tritheism and social trinitarianism). This is not to say that there haven't been some Trinitarians who have seen the dangers inherent in the three god persons. For example, Swiss Reformed theologian Karl Barth emphasized that God is unipersonal and exists in "three modes of being" (p. 359 of Church Dogmatics Vol. 1). Although he emphatically denied modalism, he is sometimes suspected of having been a modalist, and his rejection of modalism seems mostly limited to a type of modalism called "sequential modalism" (i.e., a belief that God switches roles as needed by hiding behind three masks as an unknown fourth entity). Likewise, Roman Catholic theologian Karl Rahner insisted that there is only one subject in God and famously said, "should the doctrine of the Trinity have to be dropped as false, the major part of religious literature could well remain virtually unchanged" (p. 10-11 of his book Trinity), indicating that the Trinity doctrine held little significance for the bulk of Christian authors. For confirmation that Barth and Rahner are regarded by some people as holding modalistic Trinitarian beliefs, see p. 197 of the New Catholic Encyclopedia here.
As mentioned above, Trinitarian apologist James White has repeatedly said that 60 to 80% of confessing Trinitarians actually hold modalistic beliefs (here, here, here, and here). In other words, despite their nominal belief in the Trinity, they instinctively understand and read their Bibles with the comprehension that God is unipersonal and reveals Himself modalistically. And rightly so, because even Trinitarian scholars like Matthew Barrett admit that "there is no verse in the Bible that spells out the Trinity" (p. 35 of Simply Trinity). As mentioned above, the Old Testament doesn't develop any system of Binitarianism, despite the repeated references to God and His Spirit. Some Trinitarians try to appeal to 1 John 5:7 as a proof text for the Trinity, but it says nothing about co-eternality and could just as easily be interpreted to teach modalism. In fact, textual critic Edward Hills has argued that 1 John 5:7 is authentic but was illicitly removed from early manuscripts because it was perceived to teach modalism, namely, that "the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit were identical" (see p. 212 here).
The Bible teaches that God exists as one person (see Deuteronomy 6:4 NASB or JPS). To understand why it is important to correctly understand the nature of God, I recommend reading my article Modalistic Monarchianism, Trinitarianism, and the Atonement. To understand how to distinguish the Father and Son without falling into the error of seeing distinct god persons, I recommend the following article by Jason Dulle: The Acknowledgement and Proper Placement of the Distinction Between Father and Son.