- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 6 hours, 24 minutes ago by
.
- Posts
No, I sure don’t think I’m one step ahead of God. In fact, I don’t think, I know, I am right in step with both God and Scripture here. However, when it comes to stepping in or around or aside from things here, God isn’t my worry. I’m very good at stepping aside and stepping off. So when you get on the high horse here, I am more than willing to quickly step off and to the side and get as far away as I can, believe me.
Hello, Andrew,
Quite right, modalism has played a very large role in Trinitarian thinking. Although many Christians have denounced modalism as a major heresy, the fathers and many contemporary theologians do follow modalism in one form another. Tertullian himself was essentially modalistic, in his psychological model of the trinity. This is also true of both Augustine and also Calvin. So I just walk right b past this “heresy” change. I think “heresy” is an outmoded concept, to begin with. All it means is that you don’t agree with what some church teaches, it says nothing about the validity of your beliefs. Often, the heretics ended up being the ones proven right, anyway. As I indicated in my previous post, modalism does have its advantages.
Quite right, the Trinity entails many contradictions, which are generally written off as due to the transcendence and mystery of God. I disagree. I believe these so-called mysteries actually are the result of muddled thinking n the part of the fathers. Now, I certainly do not wish to write off the fathers as all idolaters or liars or an engage in the various other forms of name-calling that I find in this forum. That is total recklessness and ignorance. However, I do believe the Trinitarian formulations are not above reproach and responsible criticism. In that spirit, I think the problem is that the fathers first defined God as a wholly simple, immaterial, immutable, nonrelational being. Next, they tried to introduce the complex, relational machinery of the Trinity into this monad. The result was contradiction and confusion.
I m trying to avoid two irrational extremes. On is to simply sit back and accept the Trinitarian doctrines, writing off all problems as simply due to the mystery of God. The other is to argue we should throw the whole thing out the window, on the grounds it was never in the Bible and that the fathers were all liars. The fathers were no perfect, but did the best they could with the available metaphysical systems they had. The Bible very clearly affirms the Deity of the Father, Son, and Spirit, period. The problem is that the Bible provided no systematic metaphysical account how this could be and left us with only conflicting snap shots.
My way of approaching the problem is to move out of substance metaoysics and into relational metaphysics. For example, the question arises as to whom Christ is praying when he prays to the Father? My answer is that God can have internal, complex social relationships with himself or herself that strongly parallel our internal conservations. That’s what I like about Tertullian’s psychological model, where he likes the dialogue between the Father and Son to the internal conversations we have between ourselves and our reason. And then there is Augustine’s psychological model, where the trinity is understood in terms of the mind, the mind’s knowledge of itself, and the mind’s love of itself. As I think I pointed out in an earlier post, I am open to the possibility that two full-blown personalities could be involved when Christ prays. WE are all social-relational beings. If you could open up anyone’s head and see what’s really inside, you would see a picture of every single person they have ever met. WE are al a synthesis of the personalities of others. So, yes, the Father is one personality, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit a third. And yes, the is still only one God, one al inclusive mind or personality which includes all three and transcends any one of them.
Hello, Gene,
I simply find too many inflammatory remarks in your recent post, such as your last sentence, for me to take it seriously. As I said before, you really need to tone it down.
Hello, Marty,
It seems you are appealing to biblical passages that suggest subrodinationism among the Father, Son, and Spirit. As such, they do appear to contradict the Trinity; what appears to be the case is that the Son and Spirit are lesser lieutenants sent to do the Father’s bidding, the latter alone being the Boss of bosses, God, strictly speaking. That is precisely why I have said so many times already that the Bible is not a book of metaphysics, just provides snap shots of the ontological structure of God that often do conflict. Here we have a prime example. What should you do ? See if you can piece these together into a meaningful whole. If you can’t find a way to do that, then you fell feel compelled to conclude the Bible is contradictory. That shouldn’t be surp9irsing,. There are around 100 major contradictions in the Bible that simply cannot be explained away. However, I believe it is possible to bring into play more recent schools of metaphysics that will enable one to reconcile such discrepant passages on the persons of the Trinity. That’s what I was trying to do is some of my recent posts yesterday.
Hi Hoghead,
You agree that simplicity must be set aside in defence of your foundation of a theoretical trinity god.
Why not come back to the loving Father God that His son revealed to us?
Hi, Ed,
If you feel you have something important to say, then just out and say it. It’s that simple.
I already have…
hoghead1…..I went back and read the last thread i posted you ,there is not a single inflammatory word in it. So to me the only conclusion I can drive at, is you simply have no answer to the questions posed there, and would rather skirt the issues it seems to me, you just needed an excuse to not address the issues mentioned there. Why is that?, Those thing I wrote are completely SCRIPTURIAL, and using the inflamorty card just doesn’t work, address the issues or at least have the decency to admit you simply don’t have an answer.
The scriptures do give a METAPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION OF GOD, as well as many other things.
Simple definition of the word metaphysics :”the part of philosophy that is concerned with the basic causes and nature of things”, Does not the Bible deal with these thing? contridictions come to play when not a proper understanding is applied to those scriptures, or a translation error has occured. words in GREEK can take on many different meannings andcan cause confusions, but if a person has the basic core of his understanding right, and guided by the spirit of God, he can get it right IMO.
peace and love to you and yours. ………gene
Sorry, but I was raised in a strict Judeo-Christian culture and I wouldn’t feel comfortable joining the Church of NickH.
Hi, Gene,
I hate to say it, but you are doing it again, right here in your present post. The goal of your post is to attack me personally. That’s the problem. My response is , “Oh, well, more hate mail. How boring.”
Dear Hoghead,
First off please realize I made no “heresy” charge at you but simply pointed out that what you describe as trinity is modalism and not trinitarianism. And I also could care less about being called a heretic by anyone. And what you further say about God having internal social relationships within himself is clearly modalistic and not trinitarian. God in three persons is trinity,not three personalities in God.
And I have read and own a copy of Calvin’s Institutes but I admit it’s been years since I’ve opened it,but I don’t recall Calvin ever being accused of modalistic thought like Augustine on the Trinity, although Calvin was a follower of Augustine as was Luther which was mostly on sovereignty and predestination.
Trinitarianism does not teach the Father is one personality,the Son another and the Spirit another but they are separate persons within themselves which you accuse of being tritheism. You are not a trinitarian my friend but clearly a modalist.
And when you say ” And yes, there is still only one God, one all inclusive mind or personality which includes all three and transcends any one of them.” that is what I consider far out trinitarianism,at least in your wording which is essentially saying there are four not three since there is one that includes the three yet transcends them all. So is this one that transcends them all an essence or being or person? 🙂
Hi hoghead,
Can the culture that raised you save you?
Break away from tradition and it’s vanities and seek the living God.
Hello, Andrew,
I didn’t say anything abut Augustine or Calvin being “accused” of anything. I said Augustine is modalistic in his psychological models of the Trinity. No doubt about it. I would suggest you read Calvin. He suggests a psychological model of the Trinity, in which the Father denotes will, the Son denotes Reason, and the Holy Spirit denotes energy. In both cases, the Trinity is understood as referring to key dimensions of one personality. Many contemporary theologians follow similar, modal models, such as Karl Barth. The Trinity 9is seen as three ways God has of being God.
Granted, other Trinitarians insist on three separate, unique personalities. However, that inevitably leads to tritheism. Early on, the Cappadocians held with teh notion that there are three separate, unique personalities. Hence, Gregory of Nazianzus asked how this can be and yet there is only one God. After all, here men have in common human nature, but there are still three men. His answer was that they work together in a perfect harmony or unity. The mystery of the Trinity is, then aesthetic in nature, as we never obtain such a perfect harmony. That calls out to me, but still seems tritheistic. 120 symphonic musicians working in unity are still 120 musicians. However, I do see a possibility here. I understand reality relationally, the many become one. Hence, I could go with the idea of three personalities in such a harmony as to constitute a fourth, the whole, which is always greater than the sum of it parts., group mind or meta-personality. So yes, I am open to the possibility of a fourth person here.
hoghead1..another good copout to avoid answering my posts, O well, concerning your last post are you open to not just 3 or 4, but “all”, dosen’t scripture say, “that God may be in all and through all”, and christ (the christo’s or anointing spirit) in you is our hope of glory? many read that as meaning the man Jesus in you, but it says the christo’s in you. That same anointing spirit was in the wilderness following the childern of ISREAL, it wasn’t Jesus following them as many assume it was the spirit of the living God, and God who is spirit puts his spirit in his chosen leaders also. GOD’S spirit is the christo’s and canbe in everyone just as it is in theanointed MAN JESUS.
Bottom line, GOD is not limited to a group of three or four or thousands upon thousands. so why limit him with a group of three as trinitarians do?
peace and love to you and yours. …….gene
Look, Gene, whether you want to admit it or not, your posts to me show you have some real personal issues concerning effective communication skills, anger management, and interacting with members of the Christian religion, who do not share your particular beliefs. You really need to work on these issues. Until you do, I really have nothing more to say to you.
hoghead1,.. and is that not an inflammatory response? why not just forget my as you say, “anger management issues ect”, then and simply address the point made in the response. By changing subject matter simply leads us to believe you have no real response to those thing posted, and you chose to use a side issue to get out of any real answers, clever.
Peace and love to you and yours. ………gene
Hi Hoghead,
You claim God is a Trinity yet offer no biblical evidence.
In so doing you deny God has a son and deny He has a Spirit.
Take you imaginary God elsewhere.
@hoghead1
I take it you do not believe these words of eternal life that Jesus himself spoke:
John 17:3
Now this is eternal life: that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom you have sent.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
