Volume 3, Issue 2 – June 2025
Another Gospel: The Threat of Christological Heresies in Modern Thai Movements
Author: Dr. Chansamone Saiyasak (Professor of Religious Studies and Missiology), Theological Commissions of Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand & Asia Evangelical Alliance (a WEA-Regional Alliance)
Date: 21 June 2025
Introduction
This article argues that Christological distortions such as Modalism, Adoptionism, and Subordinationism, increasingly present in various movements in Thailand, constitute “another gospel” as warned by the Apostle Paul in Galatians 1:6–9. Drawing from Scripture, early Church Councils and Creeds, Reformation theology, and Protestant theologians, the article contends that these heresies misrepresent the person of Christ and the Triune God, thereby compromising the gospel itself. Upholding the eternal Sonship, full deity, and coequality of Christ is essential for a gospel that saves. Only the true Christ—fully God, coequal with the Father, and incarnate for our redemption—can bear sin, conquer death, and reconcile sinners to God.
The Apostolic Warning and the Gospel's Integrity
In Galatians 1:6–9, Paul rebukes the Galatians for turning to "another gospel" warning that even an angel who preaches a contrary message is to be "accursed" (v. 8). While the immediate context addresses legalism, the principle is broader: any distortion of the person or work of Christ is a distortion of the gospel itself. In this light, modern revivals promoting Modalism, Adoptionism, and Subordinationism are not doctrinal variants but heretical deviations that fall under biblical and apostolic condemnation.
In line with historic Christian orthodoxy, the rejection of Christological errors such as ontological Subordinationism, Adoptionism, and Modalism is not a matter of doctrinal refinement but one of “gospel integrity.” As rightly observed by Robert Letham, a British Presbyterian theologian and ordained minister, currently serving as Professor of Systematic and Historical Theology at the Union School of Theology (formerly Wales Evangelical School of Theology) and Adjunct Professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, the implications of denying the full and eternal deity of the Son are profound: “Either of these ideas [subordination or emanation] would have destroyed the gospel, for a Christ who is less than the Father could not reveal God or save his people” (Letham, 2015, p. 110). This incisive statement captures the central theological danger: if Christ is ontologically subordinate to the Father—less than fully God—then He cannot be the true revelation of God nor the Redeemer capable of accomplishing salvation. Adoptionism, which implies Jesus became the Son at a point in time, and Modalism, which denies personal distinctions simultaneously within the Godhead, similarly distort the person of Christ and, consequently, offer a gospel that is fundamentally different from the one proclaimed in Scripture. Thus, to distort the nature of Christ is to undermine the very ground upon which sinners are justified—by faith in the true, divine, and sufficient Savior.
In Galatians 3:1–5, Paul asks rhetorically, “Did you receive the Spirit by works of the law or by hearing with faith?” He emphasizes that the Galatians began their Christian lives not through effort or ritual, but by believing the crucified Christ as preached to them. If the Christ preached is false—ontologically subordinate, merely human, or modalistic—then the one believed upon is not the true Christ, and the spirit received is not the Spirit of the true God, but a deception empowered by error. Justification by faith collapses, not into grace, but into idolatry.
Modalism: One Person, Three Modes, Manifestations, or Forms
Modalism—also known as Oneness theology or the Jesus-Only movement—claims that God is one person who manifests in different modes or forms (as Father, Son, and Spirit) rather than existing eternally as three distinct persons simultaneously. This theology often employs language that resembles orthodox Trinitarian expressions—such as "Jesus is fully God and fully man" or "we believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"—which may initially sound biblical. However, upon closer theological examination, these statements reflect a Modalist interpretation rather than a truly Trinitarian one. Modalism was formally denounced in the third century by Tertullian (Tertullian, 1920, p. 25), who defended the personal distinctions within the Godhead.
The Nicene Creed affirmed that Jesus Christ is "begotten of the Father before all worlds, God from God, Light from Light… of one substance with the Father" (Anglicans Online, n.d.). The Council of Constantinople (381) further clarified the personal distinctions of the Holy Spirit.Wayne Grudem (2011), a prominent evangelical theologian and author, best known for his work in systematic theology and his influential textbook Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine, clearly expresses the concern that modalism eliminates real interpersonal relationships within the Godhead,
“The fatal shortcoming of modalism is the fact that it must deny the personal relationships within the Trinity that appear in so many places in Scripture (or it must affirm that these were simply an illusion and not real)” (p. 340). He further argues that, as a result, this undermines the heart of the gospel, particularly the doctrine of substitutionary atonement — a core of Protestant theology: “Finally, modalism ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement — that is, the idea that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place, and that the Father, representing the interests of the Trinity, saw the suffering of Christ and was satisfied (Isa. 53:11)” (p. 340).John Calvin, a leading Reformation theologian and pastor whose writings, particularly The Institutes of the Christian Religion, profoundly shaped Protestant theology, insisted, “In this one essence are three persons, yet so that neither is there a triple God, nor is the simple essence of God divided” (Calvin, 1845, p. 144). A Modalistic Jesus cannot be the mediator between God and man (1 Tim. 2:5) if He is merely a temporary manifestation, not a distinct eternal Son.
Adoptionism: A Man Elevated to Divinity
Adoptionism teaches that Jesus was a mere man who became divine— at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension. This contradicts both Scripture and Creedal theology. John 1:1 states, "The Word was with God, and the Word was God." Galatians 4:4 affirms that "God sent forth His Son," indicating pre-existence. The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325 and expanded at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 381, affirming the full divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit and articulating the doctrine of the Trinity, declares Jesus is ‘begotten, not made’ (Anglicans Online, n.d.). The Athanasian Creed, a theological summary strongly affirming the doctrines of the Trinity and the incarnation and serving as a detailed exposition of orthodox Christian belief, particularly in response to Trinitarian and Christological heresies, insists that Christ is "God, of the substance of the Father, begotten before the worlds; and man, of the substance of His mother, born in the world" (Christian Reformed Church in North America, n.d.). Michael Horton (2011), a Reformed theologian and professor of systematic theology, widely known for his emphasis on covenant theology, sola scriptura, and the recovery of confessional Reformed doctrine in the modern church, particularly through his writings such as The Christian Faith, contends that Adoptionism falsely teaches that Jesus was a mere man who became divine (or God’s Son) at His baptism, resurrection, or ascension. His theology affirms the preexistence and full deity of the Son from eternity, “God prepared a body for the eternal Son to be given not only for atonement but for that living obedience for which humanity was created” (Page 490).
Grudem shows how the atonement requires that Jesus be eternally divine: “If Jesus is merely a created being… how could he bear the full wrath of God?... Could any creature… really save us?” (Grudem, 1994, p. 345). If Jesus only became divine later (as Adoptionism claims), He would not be qualified to bear God’s eternal wrath or offer infinite satisfaction. Hence, Adoptionism not only contradicts the Incarnation but also collapses the gospel itself. Millard Erickson (2013), a distinguished evangelical theologian best known for his comprehensive work Christian Theology, in which he presents a systematic and accessible articulation of evangelical doctrine grounded in biblical authority and theological clarity, similarly notes, "Adoptionism has made recurrent appearances during the history of Christianity. Those who take seriously the full teaching of Scripture, however, are aware of major obstacles to this view, including the preexistence of Christ, the prebirth narrative, and the virgin birth" (p. 775).
Subordinationism: A Lesser Son
Subordinationism asserts that the Son is inferior to the Father in essence or authority. While Jesus, in His incarnate role, submits to the Father (Phil. 2:6–8), He is fully equal in being. The Council of Nicaea (325) explicitly condemned Arian Subordinationism, affirming that the Son is "true God from true God… of one substance (homoousios) with the Father" (Anglicans Online, n.d.). The Chalcedonian Definition (451) further proclaimed that Christ is "perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity… consubstantial with the Father according to divinity" (The Chalcedonian Creed, n.d.).
Grudem (2020) affirms that during His earthly ministry, Jesus submitted to the Father (e.g., in prayer, obedience, and mission); however, this was a functional submission, not an ontological subordination, “He did not give up any of his deity when he became man” (p. 804). He further explains, “The assertion that ‘Jesus was fully God and fully man in one person,’ though not a contradiction, is a paradox… and it is true” (Grudem, 2020, p. 792). This functional submission flows from the voluntary obedience of the Son in time, not from an eternal hierarchy of being.
Millard J. Erickson affirms the full ontological equality of the three persons of the Trinity, both in essence and, ideally, in authority, citing scriptural and historical support: “He [Son] and the Father are one (John 10:30)... none of the members of the Trinity is superior to the others” (p. 637).K. Scott Oliphint, a Reformed theologian and apologist known for his contributions to presuppositional apologetics and for his work on the relationship between theology and philosophy within a confessional Reformed framework, warns that any form of ontological subordination constitutes heresy: “Subordinationism is a heresy within the early church that holds that the Son and the Spirit are subordinate to the Father in terms of essence or being. This view denies the co-equality and co-eternality of the divine persons, thus striking at the heart of orthodox Trinitarian doctrine” (Oliphint, K. S., n.d.). It is crucial to distinguish between “functional subordination” (Christ submitting to the Father in the incarnation) and “ontological subordination” (claiming the Son is lesser in being or nature). The former is biblical; the latter is heretical. (“Ontological subordination” means being lesser in essence—heresy. “Functional subordination” refers to voluntary submission in the incarnation—orthodox.) Some Thai modern errors even suggest the Son is subordinate to the Spirit in essence or authority—another form of ontological subordination without biblical warrant.
Doctrinal Discernment Is Not Pharisaism
A common accusation against those who challenge unbiblical Christologies or questionable revival movements is that they are behaving like Pharisees. However, this is a false equivalence. Jesus did not rebuke the Pharisees for defending doctrinal truth, but for rejecting Him, distorting God’s law with human traditions, and pursuing power over truth (Matt. 23).
As D.A. Carson, a prominent New Testament scholar and theologian, known for his extensive work in biblical exegesis, hermeneutics, and the defense of evangelical orthodoxy, particularly through his writings on the authority of Scripture and the challenges of postmodernism, rightly notes that “Christians ought to be simultaneously arguing for the truth of the gospel” (Carson, 1996, p. 134) and warn against false teaching is not mean-spirited or intolerant. It is an essential part of Christian ministry. The frequent accusation that those who challenge unbiblical Christologies or questionable revival movements are behaving like Pharisees is, therefore, a false equivalence. R.C. Sproul, a renowned Reformed theologian, pastor, and founder of Ligonier Ministries, widely respected for his clear teaching on the holiness of God, biblical inerrancy, and the recovery of classical Christian doctrine for the contemporary church, consistently critiques the misuse of the Pharisee label, emphasizing that Jesus did not condemn the Pharisees for their concern with sound doctrine, but rather for their hypocrisy, distortion of God’s truth, and self-righteousness. Sproul underscores that Jesus’ rebukes were directed not at a love for truth, but at those who substituted human tradition for divine revelation while maintaining an outward appearance of piety (Sproul, 2010, pp. 76–78, 198).
Far from being Pharisaical, those who defend the eternal Sonship, full deity, and saving sufficiency of Christ are upholding the very foundation of the gospel (1 Cor. 15:1–4; Col. 2:9–10). To label every concern for truth as "Pharisaism" is itself a manipulative tactic, often used to silence legitimate, biblically grounded critique. The apostles named false teachers, warned the flock, and preserved the faith handed down by Christ (Jude 3; 1 Tim. 6:3–5). The modern impulse to avoid doctrinal discernment in the name of "Spirit-led openness" ironically resembles the very error of the Pharisees: a rejection of truth while maintaining an outward show of spirituality (2 Tim. 3:5).
Theological precision is not an intellectual luxury; it is a gospel necessity. When churches drift into Modalism, Adoptionism, or Subordinationism, they are not merely making minor theological errors. They are preaching a different Christ. This means that well-meaning churchgoers who follow such teachings are being led away from the only gospel that saves. Error at the level of Christ's person is not theoretical—it is eternally consequential. And as Paul warns, a different Christ means no gospel at all.
Another Christ, Another Gospel
Although Paul directly confronts legalistic distortions in Galatians, the heart of his warning concerns anything that alters the foundation of justification—namely, faith in the true and eternal Christ. Christological heresies such as Subordinationism, Adoptionism, and Modalism (Oneness/Jesus-Only) do not merely err in abstract doctrine; they deny or distort the divine identity of Jesus Christ, thereby presenting a different Jesus and, by consequence, "another gospel". These are not minor theological disagreements but fundamental departures from the apostolic gospel. A Christ who is not fully divine, eternally begotten of the Father, and personally distinct within the Godhead cannot save. As such, these distortions constitute false gospels that cannot reconcile sinners to God.
These Christological errors do not merely confuse theology—they corrupt salvation. As Paul makes clear, preaching “another gospel” (Gal. 1:6) leads souls away from the grace of Christ. Horton (2011) emphasizes that a different Christ means a different gospel, “The Father gives the gospel, the Son is the gospel, and the Spirit creates faith in our hearts to receive it” (p. 158). This is extremely important: the Son (Christ) is the gospel.If Christ is anything less than fully equal with the Father in essence and glory, then the Thai people do not have the gospel. A subordinate Christ cannot save, for only God Himself can reconcile sinners to Himself. If the Thais’ Christ was merely a man adopted by God rather than the eternal Son who became incarnate, they do not have the gospel. The good news rests on the fact that God Himself took on flesh to save us. If Thais’ Christ is just a mode or appearance of God rather than the distinct, eternal Son in loving communion with the Father and the Spirit, they do not have the gospel.
The gospel is Trinitarian from beginning to end. In other words, the gospel stands or falls with the true Christ: co-equal with the Father (contra Subordinationism), eternally divine (contra Adoptionism), and personally distinct within the Trinity (contra Modalism). A different Christ means a different gospel—and no salvation. Such a Christ cannot save. Such a gospel cannot mediate reconciliation, impute righteousness, or defeat death. In short, every Christological heresy is also a soteriological heresy. A Christ who is not truly God cannot accomplish true salvation. Only the eternal Son, consubstantial with the Father and incarnate for our sake, is sufficient for redemption (Heb. 7:25; John 17:5).
The Council of Nicaea & Nicene Creed directly rejected Arianism (which said Christ was a created being), insisting that only one consubstantial (homoousios) with the Father could save humanity. “[Jeus Christ] Begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; by whom all things were made… who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven” (Anglicans Online, n.d.).
Conclusion: Guarding the Apostolic Gospel
As previously argued, these teachings distort the foundation of justification by offering a different Christ, and thus a different gospel. Teachings such as those in Bright Romance's public sermons (Saiyasak, 2025a; 2025b) and any other groups in Thailand that embrace Modalism (also Oneness, a modern-day Modalism), Adoptionism, or Subordinationism (ontological) must be recognized as departures from the biblical and apostolic faith and classified under Paul's category of “another gospel.” These are not harmless errors but heresies that destroy the integrity of the gospel. The Nicene, Athanasian, and Chalcedonian Creeds were formulated precisely to guard against such deviations, and the Protestant tradition continues this defense of orthodoxy.
The gospel of salvation depends on the real Christ—God incarnate, eternally begotten, truly human, and perfectly able to save.
There is no good news apart from Him.
To reject His eternal Sonship, full deity, or personal distinction is to proclaim another Jesus—and thus, another gospel.
As Paul warned in 2 Corinthians 11:4, some preach “another Jesus… a different spirit… a different gospel”—a pattern that continues today under new names but old errors.
Let every Thai pastor, theologian, and believer rise to the sacred task of proclaiming the true Christ with clarity and conviction—not merely to correct error, but to offer the saving beauty of the gospel in its fullness.
The purity of the gospel and the salvation of souls depend on it.
To Him who is eternally God, eternally Son, and eternally Savior—be glory forever. Amen.
References
- Anglicans Online. (n.d.). The Nicene Creed. In Anglicans Online: Basics. Retrieved June 16, 2025, from https://anglicansonline.org/basics/nicene.html
- Calvin, J. (1845). Institutes of the Christian religion (H. Beveridge, Trans.). Calvin Translation Society. (Original work published 1536)
- Christian Reformed Church in North America. (n.d.). Athanasian Creed. Retrieved June 16, 2025, from https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/creeds/athanasian-creed
- Council of Constantinople. (381). Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed. In P. Schaff (Ed.), Creeds of Christendom (Vol. 2). Harper & Bros.
- Carson, D. A. (1996). The gagging of God: Christianity confronts pluralism. Zondervan.
- Erickson, M. J. (2013). Christian Theology (3rd ed.). Baker Academic.
- Grudem, W. A. (1994). Systematic Theology: An Introduction to Biblical Doctrine. Zondervan.
- Horton, M. (2011). The Christian Faith: A Systematic Theology for Pilgrims on the Way. Zondervan.
- Letham, R. (2015). Eternal generation in the Church Fathers. In B. A. Ware & J. Starke (Eds.), One God in three persons: Unity of essence, distinction of persons, implications for life (pp. 109–126). Crossway.
- Oliphint, K. S. (n.d.). Subordinationism. Monergism. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://www.monergism.com/subordinationism
- Sproul, R. C. (2010). The holiness of God.. Ligonier Ministries.
- Saiyasak, C. (2025a). A Theological Rebuttal to Bright Romance's Heretical Christology: Upholding the Eternal Sonship and Divine Sufficiency of Christ. Journal of Thai Protestant Theology, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.thaiprotestanttheology.mf.or.th/journal/article7.html
- Saiyasak, C. (2025b). A Theological Defense of Trinitarian Doctrine, the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and the True Incarnation: A Rebuttal of the Heretical Teachings of Bright Romance. Journal of Thai Protestant Theology, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.thaiprotestanttheology.mf.or.th/journal/article6.html
- Tertullian. (1920). Against Praxeas (A. Souter, Trans.). Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge; The Macmillan Company. https://dn790007.ca.archive.org/0/items/tertullianagains00tertrich/tertullianagains00tertrich.pdf
- The Chalcedonian Creed. (n.d.). The Westminster Standard. Retrieved June 19, 2025, from https://thewestminsterstandard.org/the-chalcedonian-creed/
About the Author
💬 Join the discussion: Comment on Facebook
Cite this Reflection in APA format:
Saiyasak, Chansamone. (2025, June 21). Another Gospel: The Threat of Christological Heresies in Modern Thai Movements. Journal of Thai Protestant Theology 3(2). Retrieved from http://www.thaiprotestanttheology.mf.or.th/journal/article8.html