The philosophy of modalism has its quiddity sourced from linguistic manipulation to the enthronement of faces or modes culminating in the jettisoning of the theological Trinity. The sovereignty of the Most High Jehovah cannot, as a matter of fact, stop Him from using different faces of Divine manifestation. The problem of modalistic view arises from its detachment from revealed principle of the Bible. Modalism establishment of faces for Divine modus operandi stands a repudiation of Bible's distinction of Persons of the Godhead. Get them Scripturally cornered and what do you hear from their linguistic manipulation, “The Bible is filled with metaphorical innuendos.” Quite apropos is the facticity that the Author of the Bible must have the preeminence of being the first subject of reference in the first opening words of The Book. It says, “In the beginning God created…” and should it surprise me if they come up with, “The plurality of elohiym is metaphorically a mere deference to the Most High.” Whoever conjures that must reach deeper into the hat for more magical rabbits: for the same Bible has the Hebraic singular Eloah for the same Most High! Who constitute the “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness...” of the empyrean council as pertaining to the creationism? Was God engaged in divine soliloquy? Yes, He can decide what to do, but it is equally absurd to soliloquize Genesis 1:26, in the light of Trinitarian concept. Could He be addressing angels? They cannot be participatory authors of creationism for the obviosity of making them equally Gods of empyrean worship. Does the throne of the Rainbow Administration of Jehovah suffer vacuity? Modalism’s strictly oneness portrayal of Divinity means that He manifests as Christ, Father or Holy Spirit of His individualism. Does He leave one of His faces on the throne when He makes His divine manifestation away from heaven? The throne had never been unoccupied.Read More