Volume 2, Issue 2 – May 2025

A Theological Defense of Trinitarian Doctrine, the Eternal Sonship of Christ, and the True Incarnation: A Rebuttal of the Heretical Teachings of Bright Romance

Author: Dr. Chansamone Saiyasak (Professor of Religious Studies and Missiology), Theological Commissions of Evangelical Fellowship of Thailand & Asia Evangelical Alliance (a WEA-Regional Alliance) | Author’s Profile

Date: 19 May 2025

Abstract

This article offers a biblical and historical-theological refutation of the public teachings of Bright Romance (Sittichoke Sereethoranakul), a Thai preacher whose ministry reflects multiple heresies long condemned by the Church. In particular, the article evaluates his denial of the personal distinctions within the Trinity, the eternal generation of the Son, and the true Incarnation of Christ. Drawing from Scripture, the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds¹, and patristic sources such as Tertullian, this study shows that Bright Romance's theology closely mirrors ancient errors like Modalism, Patripassianism, and Adoptionism. These errors, revived under a modern charismatic guise, mislead thousands and threaten the doctrinal foundation of Thai Protestant Christianity. A pastoral warning is also issued to Thai Protestant leaders.

Introduction

In the long history of the Christian Church, heresies², have often resurfaced under new names and in new contexts, challenging the Church to defend the faith once for all delivered to the saints. One such challenge has emerged in Thailand through the ministry of Bright Romance (Sittichoke Sereethoranakul), based in Bangkok, Thailand, whose sermons have gained widespread traction through mass gatherings and social media. Behind the emotional intensity of his ministry lies a theology that recycles and reasserts doctrinal errors the Church has long rejected. These include the denial of the Trinity’s personal distinctions, the claim that the Father became incarnate, and the reduction of the Sonship of Christ to a mere role or assignment. Such views reflect classic Modalism, Patripassianism, and Adoptionism—heresies refuted by early Church fathers like Tertullian, and guarded against in creeds like the Nicene and Athanasian. This article provides a theological and historical defense of the biblical doctrine of the Triune God, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the true Incarnation, while responding directly to Bright Romance’s most troubling claims.

The Heretical Core of Bright Romance’s Theology

This article provides a biblical and historical-theological defense of the doctrines of the Trinity, the eternal Sonship of Christ, and the true Incarnation, in light of recent public statements by the Thai preacher of Bright Romance (แสงสว่างแห่งรักที่แท้จริง), Sittichoke Sereethoranakul (known as Champ). His teachings collapse the personal distinctions within the Godhead, misrepresent the eternal relationship between the Father and the Son, and distort the Incarnation. These teachings echo ancient "heresies"—Modalism, Patripassianism, and Adoptionism—which were condemned by the early Church for undermining the very essence of Christian theology.

The Collapse of Trinitarian Distinctions: Modalism and Patripassianism

Modalism, as Kelly and Berkhof both explain, arose as a form of monarchianism—concerned with defending divine unity, but at the expense of personal distinction. Berkhof observes that modalism “conceived of the three Persons in the Godhead as so many modes in which God manifested Himself… It was also known as Patripassianism in the West” (Berkhof, 1969, pp. 78–79). Olson (1999) further explains the theological consequences, writing, “Modalism had never been officially condemned and still seemed a great threat to orthodox teaching about the Trinity. It reduced Father, Son and Holy Spirit to three modes or aspects of God and implied patripassianism—the idea that the Father suffered on the cross” (p. 153).

A Biblical Response to Modalism

Bright Romance claims that “He came to take on the role of Son, while in reality, He is God, who is the Father... The Spirit of the Father came to be born as human [Jesus] and called Himself Father”(พระองค์ลงมาสวมบทลูกทั้งๆที่พระองค์เป็นพระเจ้าผู้เป็นบิดา...วิญญาณของพระบิดามาเกิดเป็นสภาพของมนุษย์และเรียกพระองค์เองว่าพ่อ) (Bright Romance, 2025, 3:41:00–3:47:30). These statements reflect a complete collapse of Trinitarian distinction, affirming the heresy of Modalism, in which Father and Son are not distinct persons but merely phases or roles of a single divine person. This contradicts Jesus’ own words in John 17:5: “Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (ESV), which clearly affirms His preexistent and eternal Sonship. Tertullian defended this reality, stating, “The Father is other than the Son, since He is greater than the Son, since it is one that begets, another that is begotten” (Tertullian, 1920, pp. 46-47), and further clarifying that the Trinity is one in essence, but three in person (Tertulian, 1920, p. xviii). As Olson explains, “Praxeas denied that Christians believed in three distinct identities… reducing the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to three aspects or roles of the one-person God” (Olson, 1999, p. 92). In contrast to both confusion and fragmentation in understanding the Godhead, the Protestant Formation theologian and framer, John Calvin, rightly asserts: “We do not disjoin the persons from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it” (Calvin, 2008, p. 181). The divine persons are not separate beings, but fully share the one divine essence while remaining personally distinct.

The Absurdity of the Suffering Father: Ancient and Modern Patripassianism

Bright Romance compounds this theological error by teaching that God promised Abraham to complete the redemptive work, and thus “I had to come down to take on the role of a human and complete it myself” (เราเลยต้องลงมาสวมบทบาทมนุษย์และทำให้มันจบด้วยตัวของเราเอง) (Bright Romance, 2025, 3:41:00–3:47:30). This is a textbook case of Patripassianism—the idea that the Father suffered and died on the cross—which Tertullian vigorously rejected: “If the Father is the one crucified, it is not only improper—it is absurd” (Olson, 1999, p. 96). These teachings not only deny the coherence of the gospel but unravel the ontological foundation of the Trinity and the historic doctrine of the Incarnation.

Tertullian’s Rebuke of Praxeas

Tertullian rebuked this very error in his classic work Adversus Praxeam, identifying it not only as heresy but as a deception masked in orthodoxy. He opened his treatise with this incisive warning: “Manifold are the ways in which the devil has shown his enmity to the truth. He has at length striven to shatter it by defending it. He claims that there is but one God, the all-powerful Creator of the universe, in order to make a heresy even out of that one. He says that the Father Himself descended into the virgin, that He likewise was born of her, and Himself suffered; even that He Himself is Jesus Christ” (Tertullian, 1920, p. 25).

The Distortion of the Incarnation

The modern expression of this heresy is no different. Bright Romance teaches that the Father Himself became incarnate and suffered—a view Tertullian recognized and condemned nearly 1,800 years ago. Roger Olson (1999) provides further clarity on the heresy of Praxeas, writing, “Praxeas denied that Christians believed in three distinct identities… he reduced the Father, Son and Holy Spirit to three aspects or roles of the one-person God” (p. 92). Tertullian famously summarized the danger in these words: “Praxeas did a twofold service for the devil at Rome: he drove away prophecy, and he brought in heresy; he put to flight the Paraclete and crucified the Father” (Olson, 1999, p. 92). This statement captures the pastoral and doctrinal urgency that orthodox theologians felt in responding to modalistic errors.

Sabellian Echoes and the Breakdown of Gospel Logic

Bright Romance’s view of the Incarnation further compounds these errors. He claims, “I will take on human form to obey God, which is to obey myself. And I was born into this world for 33 years…I myself came to be born as a human” (เราจะสวมสภาพของมนุษย์ เพื่อเชื่อฟังพระเจ้า คือ เชื่อฟังเราเอง และ เราเกิดมาบนโลกมาเนี่ย 33 ปี…เรามาเกิดเป็นมนุษย์เอง). (Bright Romance, 2025, 3:41:00–3:47:30). In the same sermon, Bright Romance elaborates further on his theology by stating that believers cannot see the Father because “the Father is spirit…If you go up to heaven, you will only see Jesus” (พระบิดาเป็นวิญญาณ...คุณขึ้นไปบนสวรรค์ คุณจะเห็นแต่พระเยซู), asserting that Jesus is the very manifestation of the Father (Bright Romance, 2025, 4:01:40–4:09:10). He further claims that the term “seated at the right hand of the Father” does not reflect a relationship between two divine persons, but merely symbolizes power or delegated authority—because “Jesus is one with the Father because He Himself is the Father who came to be born in human form, and He Himself is the Spirit who was born in Mary's womb” (พระเยซูดันเป็นหนึ่งเดียวกันกับพระบิดา เพราะพระองค์เองก็คือพระบิดาที่มาเกิดในร่างกายของมนุษย์ และพระองค์เองก็เป็นพระวิญญาณที่มาเกิดในครรภ์ของนางมารี) (Bright Romance, 2025, 4:01:40–4:09:10). This is a clear reiteration of Sabellian Modalism, denying the ontological distinction between Father and Son. As Grudem warns, “Modalism must deny the personal relationships within the Trinity that appear in so many places in Scripture… and ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement” (Grudem, 2002, p. 340).

Such conflation continues as Bright Romance teaches since Jesus was the Father, He “chose Himself” to be the atoning sacrifice— “I myself will be the sacrifice instead of goats and sheep. Whose blood? My own blood. Whose blood? God's own blood. And how is it God's blood” (เราเองนั่นแหละจะเป็นเครื่องบูชาแทนแพะแทนแกะ เลือดใคร เลือดเราเอง เลือดใคร เลือดพระเจ้าเอง แล้วเลือดพระเจ้าได้ยังไง) (Bright Romance, 2025, 3:41:00–3:47:30—which once again erases the distinction between the sender (the Father) and the sent (the Son). The Athanasian Creed clarifies: “The Son is of the Father alone, not made nor created but begotten… although he be God and man, yet he is not two, but one Christ” (The Athanasian Creed, 2025, lines 20–30). In this modalistic construction, the gospel’s logic of substitution and covenantal mediation collapses into theological incoherence.

Theological and Pastoral Consequences of Modalistic Confusion

This is not merely unorthodox; it is a theological conflation of divine persons that echoes Patripassianism, the belief that the Father Himself was incarnate and suffered. As Berkhof (1969) explains, “Modalistic Monarchianism… held that the Father Himself had become incarnate in Christ, and therefore also suffered in and with Him” (p. 79). Tertullian found such conclusions absurd and contrary to Scripture, declaring, “If it is true… then the Father died on the cross, and that is not only improper to the Father but absurd” (Olson, 1999, p. 96). Grudem (2002) reinforces this in his treatment of modalism, stating that it “must deny the personal relationships within the Trinity that appear in so many places in Scripture… it must say that all those instances where Jesus is praying to the Father are an illusion or a charade” (p. 340). He adds, “Modalism ultimately loses the heart of the doctrine of the atonement… that God sent his Son as a substitutionary sacrifice, and that the Son bore the wrath of God in our place” (Grudem, 2002, p. 340).

Why This Matters: The Church's Urgent Responsibility

Olson (1999) further warns, “Sabellianism was still alive and well… many bishops and other Christians still could not distinguish between modalism and Nicene orthodox Trinitarianism” (p. 175). As John Calvin reminds us, debates over a “single word” such as homoousios are not pedantic distractions but crucial for preserving the purity of faith. In refuting the Arians, he wrote: “Who dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife and contention...?” (Calvin, 2008, p. 150). Thus, theological clarity is a pastoral duty, not merely a scholarly concern. This concern is echoed today in movements like Bright Romance, where large segments of the Thai Christian public, including vulnerable seekers, are drawn to teachings that appear spiritually powerful but are theologically unsound.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the public sermons and statements of Bright Romance reflect multiple heresies condemned throughout Church history. His theology mirrors the errors of Praxeas, Sabellius, and adoptionist monarchians, in denying the distinction and co-eternity of the divine persons. These are not peripheral errors—they are distortions that threaten the very identity of the gospel and the Triune God.

It must be stated unequivocally: regardless of denomination, worship style, or movement affiliation—whether Baptist, Reformed, Lutheran, Anglican, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Neo-Charismatic, Independent, or otherwise—any rejection of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines as affirmed in the Nicene and Athanasian Creeds is not merely a theological misstep, but a mark of heresy. The historic creeds do not represent optional theological traditions; they articulate the core of biblical orthodoxy recognized by the global Church. To deny the full divinity and co-eternality of the Son, the eternal distinction of the divine persons within the one essence of God, or the true Incarnation of the Son of God as fully God and fully man, is to depart from the Christian faith altogether. Such denial disqualifies one from being counted among biblical Christians, and most certainly from being identified as Protestant Christians, whose theology was born from a return to the Scripture and a reaffirmation of these creedal truths. As the Athanasian Creed rightly asserts, “Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic [universal] faith... And the catholic faith is this: that we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity...this is the catholic faith, which except a man believe faithfully, he cannot be saved” (The Athansian Creed, 2025, lines 1, 3, 30). The Protestant Reformation never abolished these creeds—it stood firmly upon them. Therefore, those who teach otherwise are not merely in error; they are heretics, and they forfeit the right to speak as representatives of the Christian faith.

Today’s Thai Protestant Church must do no less. The biblical and historical witness—faithfully maintained through figures like Tertullian, the Cappadocians, and the Reformers—demands clarity and courage from contemporary pastors and leaders. The defense of the Trinity is not a theoretical exercise; it is a pastoral necessity. In this critical hour, Thai Protestant churches must rise to guard the truth of the Triune God and the saving work of the eternal Son, made flesh for our redemption. As Scripture reminds us, “Contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3, ESV).

Endnotes