At the 13:30 ff. mark of the NCE-E1 video linked to in my previous thread, James White said:
And it would be very easy—would have been absolutely simplistic—to, to press T. D. Jakes to come up with a meaningful response to one simple question—which I would think would be just obvious to a church leader at least—uhh, and that is this: Did the Son as a divine person pre-exist his birth in Bethlehem? Not as an ideal idea; not as, as concept in the mid of the Father; but, did the Son as a divine person exist prior to his birth in Bethlehem? Did he have interaction with the Father...
And a bit later at 15:00 ff.:
All you have to do to recognize modalism, and to, and to unmask modalism, is to, is to say: Do you believe that the Son as a divine person pre-existed his birth in Bethlehem? Was in relationship with the Father; there was communion and love between the Son and the Father before the incarnation. That question was not asked.
I discern two significant problems with the above comments by James: first, modalists believe "the one Being that is God" (I am using James' own phrase, from his book The Forgotten Trinity, here) pre-existed His incarnation, "as Father, Word, and Spirit." James' "absolutely simplistic" question is easily side-stepped by historic/traditional modalists. Second, a number of Evangelical theologians (including Reformed folk) deny that the second person of the Trinity existed as the Son prior to the incarnation !!! (See THIS THREAD for documentation.)
Maybe it was just on 'off-day' for James (I sincerely hope that in his debates with modalists his arguments were substantially more accurate and solid); but with that said, I shall end this post by recommending that a good portion of his presentation in the NCE-E1 video should be Forgotten as soon as possible...
Grace and peace,