Sabelianisme: Perbedaan antara revisi

<blockquote>Firman itu telah menjadi manusia, dan diam di antara kita, dan kita telah melihat kemuliaan-Nya, yaitu kemuliaan yang diberikan kepada-Nya sebagai Anak Tunggal Bapa, penuh kasih karunia dan kebenaran... Tidak seorangpun yang pernah melihat Allah; tetapi Anak Tunggal Allah, yang ada di pangkuan Bapa, Dialah yang menyatakan-Nya.</blockquote><!--

ManyBanyak doctrinalpertukaran exchangespandangan betweendoktrinal modalistsantara andkaum TrinitariansModalis aredan similarkaum toTritunggalis theyang abovemirip dengan di atas.<!-- Passages suchNas-nas assemacam Gen{{Alkitab|Kejadian 1:26-27}}; Gen 16:11-13; Gen 32:24,30; Judg 6:11-16; Is 48:16; Zech 2:8-9; Matt 3:16-17; Mark 13:32; Luke 12:10; John 5:18-27; John 14:26-28; John 15:26; John 16:13-16; John 17:5,20-24; Acts 1:6-9; and Heb 1:1-3,8-10 are referenced by Trinitarians as affirming that the Being of the One God is an eternal, personal, and mutually indwelling '''communion''' of Father [God], Son [the Word of God], and Holy Spirit [the Spirit of God]. Addressing the fact that the word ''Trinity'' does not occur in scripture, Trinitarians attest that extra-biblical doctrinal language often summarizes our understanding scripture in a clear and concise manner—other examples being even the words ''modalism'', ''mode'', and ''role''—and that use of such language does not of itself demonstrate accuracy or inaccuracy. Further, the accusative implication that the word ''Trinity'' gained common use apart from careful and pious fidelity to scripture may be associated with [[ad hominem]] argumentation. Hippolytus described his own response to Noetus' doctrine, claiming the truth to be more evident than either of the two mutually opposed views of [[Arianism]] and Sabellianism : <blockquote>In this way, then, they choose to set forth these things, and they make use only of one class of passages; just in the same one-sided manner that Theodotus employed when he sought to prove that Christ was a mere man. But neither has the one party nor the other understood the matter rightly, as the Scriptures themselves confute their senselessness, and attest the truth. See, brethren, what a rash and audacious dogma they have introduced... For who will not say that there is one God? Yet he will not on that account deny the economy [i.e., the number and disposition of persons in the Trinity]. The proper way, therefore, to deal with the question is first of all to refute the interpretation put upon these passages by these men, and then to explain their real meaning.<ref name="Against the Heresy of Noetus"/></blockquote>