Skip to content

Add your phone number?

Optional. Nothing is sent unless you choose it.

The Historic Faith
Sign in
Question 9
Bercot claims “most Western Christians” functionally believe modalism and illustrates it with a Presbyterian pastor’s “you’re a father and also a son” explanation; when you try to articulate what you believe about the Father and Son, where do you notice yourself slipping toward modalism (or confusion), and how do Bercot’s “two distinct persons, one will” quotations from Tertullian and Justin Martyr challenge that?
Another way to ask: Bercot says many Western Christians slide into modalism, like the “you’re a father and also a son” example. When you try to explain the Father and Son, where do you notice yourself getting confused or sounding modalist, and how do the quotes “two distinct persons, one will” challenge you?

Direct Answer Bercot challenges modalist drifting by insisting the Father and the Son are not one person wearing two “modes,” but two distinct persons united in one will—the Son always doing what the Father wishes. His examples push Christians to speak of real sending, praying, and headship between two persons.

Support from Transcript:

  • He defines modalism/Sabellianism: the idea “Jesus and the Father are actually one and the same person,” with “Father and Son…simply modes.”
  • He recounts the pastor illustration: “you’re a father…also a son…that’s the way it is,” and Bercot’s response: “I’m not my own son, and I’m not my own father.”
  • He says many Western Christians functionally hold this, even if denominations don’t officially teach it, and many can only say “Jesus is God” but can’t explain “in what sense…Son of God.”
  • He argues Scripture itself shows two persons: “The Father sent me,” Jesus prayed to the Father, and sits “at the right hand of the Father.”
  • Tertullian: the Son is “always in the Father” and “with God,” “never separated,” because “I and the Father are one”—explained as one will/administration.
  • Justin Martyr: the one appearing to patriarchs is “numerically distinct” but “not distinct in will,” never doing anything the Maker did not wish.
Discussion Follow-ups Bercot’s approach invites believers to practice describing “oneness” as unity of will and purpose, not identity of person.