Sabelianisme: Perbedaan antara revisi

Banyak pertukaran pandangan doktrinal antara kaum Modalis dan kaum Tritunggalis yang mirip dengan di atas.<!-- Nas-nas semacam {{Alkitab|Kejadian 1:26-27}}; Gen{{Alkitab|Kejadian 16:11-13}}; Gen{{Alkitab|Kejadian 32:24}}, {{Alkitab|Kejadian 32:30|30}}; Judg{{Alkitab|Hakim-Hakim 6:11-16}}; Is{{Alkitab|Yesaya 48:16}}; Zech{{Alkitab|Zakharia 2:8-9}}; Matt{{Alkitab|Matius 3:16-17}}; Mark{{Alkitab|Markus 13:32}}; Luke{{Alkitab|Lukas 12:10}}; John{{Alkitab|Yohanes 5:18-27}}; John{{Alkitab|Yohanes 14:26-28}}; John{{Alkitab|Yohanes 15:26}}; John{{Alkitab|Yohanes 16:13-16}}; John{{Alkitab|Yohanes 17:5}}, {{Alkitab|Yohanes 17ː20-24|20-24}}; Acts{{Alkitab|Kisah Para Rasul 1:6-9}}; anddan Heb{{Alkitab|Ibrani 1:1-3}}, {{Alkitab|Ibrani1ː8-10|8-10}} aredirujuk referencedkaum byTritunggalis Trinitarianssebagai asnas-nas affirmingyang thatmembenarkan thepandangan Beingbahwa ofkewujudan theAllah Oneyang GodMahaesa isitu anbersifat eternalkekal, personalpribadi, and mutuallydan indwellingmerupakan '''communionpersekutuan''' of FatherBapa [GodAllah], SonPutra [theFirman Word of GodAllah], anddan HolyRoh SpiritKudus [theRoh SpiritAllah] ofyang God]saling bersemayam satu di dalam yang lain.<!-- 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>