A Unique and interesting explanation of the Trinity

[Yeshua1]

"Very popular?" How many Oneness Pentecostals are in the world, anyway? Those are the only ones who truly teach and believe Modalism.

And still, you indicate you don't really understand Modalism, by agreeing that with Yeshua1 that RD2 is espousing it. He isn't. Modalism is not the manifestation of God as either the Father, the Son, or the Holy Spirit at differing times, varying the way He appears according to His whim. Modalism is the Oneness belief that God manifested Himself as the Father to Israel, as Jesus to first-century would-be believers, and as the Holy Spirit to the church since, up to now. Modalism does not teach He puts on and takes off those "hats" as He sees fit. Modalism teaches He was first the Father, then the Son, and now the Holy Spirit. No matter. Either view is wrong.

Again, the video doesn't teach Modalism. RD2 isn't teaching Modalism.

If you're going to criticize a false teaching, please make sure you actually know what it is first.

We are all saying the same thing here, as we all agree that God appeared at different times in History per that view as a different role...

In Ot, he made Himself known as Father, in NT Gospels as Jesus, Acts forward as the Holy Spirit, and that is the role that He has for now assumed in the Church, as per their view!

Point is that regardless of which label/role he assumed, He still was always SAME Person each time, not 3 seperate and distinct persons existing eternally same time!

Oneness pentacostals see God as being 'all of the Godhead is in Jesus, as he is the father/Son/Holy Spirit!"

 

[percho]

The main point of the video is that God is hyper-dimensional. I can grasp and understand that concept. He must be beyond our three dimensions because he is all knowing and omnipresent. God describes Himself in the Bible as, "I AM".

But then the video breaks down trying to expound on this concept of hyper-dimensionality. Statements like:

"God must be more than a spirit because He created the angels."
"Lucifer may have had a chance in the war in heaven, if God was just a unitarian spirit"
"If God is Omniscient, then He must see everything." [followed by]
"If He can see everything, He must be everywhere at once."

This is simply extra Biblical clap-trap. It's ironic that in trying to point out that God is hyper-dimensional the video actually dumbs God down by employing anthropomorphisms.

As much as I liked the premise of the video the execution of the explanation was weak and created more problems than trying to understand the Trinity.

Maybe we should be trying to understand God as stated in Deut 6:4 rather than trying to understand God as Trinity in Deut 6:4.

I have a question for all. Was a woman absolutely necessary for the Son of God to come into the world? Did she really play a part in this?

 

[quantumfaith]

Maybe we should be trying to understand God as stated in Deut 6:4 rather than trying to understand God as Trinity in Deut 6:4.

I have a question for all. Was a woman absolutely necessary for the Son of God to come into the world? Did she really play a part in this?

I honestly don't know... at first "guess" I would say God (the Triune) could have "engaged" Jesus (the Christ) in any manner of His choice. One might argue, that the redeemer "needed" some identification with humanity, and this was how that was accomplished.

 

[preacher4truth]

I have a question for all. Was a woman absolutely necessary for the Son of God to come into the world? Did she really play a part in this?

God decreed that it should be so, thus it was then absolutely necessary. She played a part only because God determined it to be so.

Interestingly you ask others to try to understand God not in the triune sense, but according to Dt. 6:4, then you try to think of His decreed will outside of Scripture in the next sentence, and question the necessity of His plan to use a woman. That is an interesting engagement of thought.

 

[HankD]

If you want to see what a two dimenional world would be like shut one eye.

HankD

 

[percho]

God decreed that it should be so, thus it was then absolutely necessary. She played a part only because God determined it to be so.

Interestingly you ask others to try to understand God not in the triune sense, but according to Dt. 6:4, then you try to think of His decreed will outside of Scripture in the next sentence, and question the necessity of His plan to use a woman. That is an interesting engagement of thought.

Actually what was decreed before the foundation of the world was, that the Christ, who also is the Son of the living God would shed his blood, that is die.

Die for the very purpose of destroying death and him who had the power of death, Satan the Devil.

How before the foundation of the world was, God is a Spirit John 4:24, literally, Spirit the God whom Jesus calls The Father in this passage, going to destroy him who has the power of death, that is the devil thus destroying death being God could not die?

Could he have determined to create a man in his image, make a help meet for the man from the man, woman and bring forth a man child Son with a virgin woman, sinless yet for the purpose of death?

Would not Spirit the God be the Father of this Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth?

Does Jesus not say this very thing in John 8:54? That the one they call their God is His Father?

 

[preacher4truth]

Actually what was decreed before the foundation of the world was, that the Christ, who also is the Son of the living God would shed his blood, that is die.

Ya think? The details were also planned as well, as it would happen through a woman. It wasn't made up as He went along.

Die for the very purpose of destroying death and him who had the power of death, Satan the Devil.

Yep, that's part of it too, yet it doesn't do away with the above truth.

How before the foundation of the world was, God is a Spirit John 4:24, literally, Spirit the God whom Jesus calls The Father in this passage, going to destroy him who has the power of death, that is the devil thus destroying death being God could not die?

That's another issue and off topic of your previous point and my rebuttal. We already know how, and that He used the woman.

Could he have determined to create a man in his image, make a help meet for the man from the man, woman and bring forth a man child Son with a virgin woman, sinless yet for the purpose of death?

Would not Spirit the God be the Father of this Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth?

These two sentences are seriously jumbled bro. Regardless, they don't prove anything against what we were discussing.

Does Jesus not say this very thing in John 8:54? That the one they call their God is His Father?

More off topic. Should I answer this with 'Did not Noah build the ark'? It follows your same reason bro. I probably would be wise to not put a spin on something that you were incorrect in in the first place. Just sayin'. God decreed it would be through a woman, Gen. 3:15, Isaiah 7:14, The Gospels &c.

I hope you're OK bro, your sentences are somewhat incoherent this morning, not the usual for you.

 

[Baptist Believer]

That's been explained to you, and you deny that God is "more than spirit" yet He must be, or He absolutely cannot be greater than the angels, His created beings, for they, too, are spirits.

Just because the uncreated God Who has created and sustains all is spirit doesn’t mean that created beings (even though they are also spirit) are somehow equivalent. God is superior because of His nature (beyond the question of spirit) and His being. Your view has a far too low view of God and a much too high view of angels.

There is no basis for ranking of superiority between various natures (material, spirit, etc.) except in Gnosticism.

I do not believe your opinion, and the assertion of the video, has a biblical basis. If you think it does, please point me to the relevant passage(s).

John told the woman at the well in Sychar, "God is spirit," but that word -- the Greek pneuma -- is also used of demons, angels, the human spirit, and a host of other uses.

I am well aware of the Greek word used. (You need to know I have studied Greek and Hebrew and have a theology degree.)

In the context of this passage, the woman had just asked a theological question – the proper location for worshipping God, which is a spatial question. Jesus pointed out that although the Temple in Jerusalem was the legitimate place for worship, the location was not terribly important because God is spirit.

It does not limit God to simply being "spirit" but describes only one attribute of God.

So tell me, if God is more than “spirit”, then what is He also (beyond the Incarnation, which was/is material)?

You're right. It is used twice, not to describe God, but to state emphatically that God cannot be understood in human, spatial terms.

Except it does it with the assertion that God must be everywhere at once in order to be omniscient, as well as the illustration with the two-dimension creature and the cube. The video contradicts itself in some fundamental ways.

You have spent all these posts claiming the video says something it absolutely does not say. Once would be a misunderstanding. The number of times you have declared this is not misunderstanding, it is pure ignorance.

Because I am a theology teacher and create Bible study literature for adults and youth, I have a theological accountability group who reviews what I prepare and gives me honest critique and points out any errors or places where I need to clarify a position.

I took a break from this discussion and ran the video by two of the three members of my theological accountability group (two systematic theologians – one former seminary professor who is now my pastor and the other a patristics scholar who happened to be covering the Doctrine of the Trinity this week in his classes) and both of them had exactly the same issues with the video – they were actually more critical of it than I was.

So what we have is a difference of opinion, not “pure ignorance.” Do you have a theological accountability group or a trusted theologian who can give you an honest critique without worrying about offending you? Are you humble enough to consider that you might be mistaken?

Despite linking websites earlier in this thread that explain modalism, you have proven you didn't read them, and you do not understand modalism. Modalism denies the eternal Triune nature of God. You obviously do not understand that.

I understand modalism. The video makes a big point that God manifests Himself in three Persons for “our sake”, not because God is eternally three unified Persons. That is a form of modalism, although not the most popular express that is found in “Oneness” theology.

Modalism is the claim that God does not simultaneously manifest Himself as Father, Son and Holy Spirit, but took first the Person of the Father as His expression of self, then took the Person of the Son when Jesus was incarnate, thus abandoning the "Father manifestation," and finally abandoned the "Jesus manifestation" to adopt the image of the Holy Spirit. That is modalism. What you describe is not.

That is sequential modalism. Another version of modalism teaches that God does simultaneously manifest Himself at Father, Son and Spirit, but simply wears different “masks.”

You need to take a look at the Wikipedia article again.

Here are some relevant quotes that you need to read in context:

"God was said to have three "faces" or "masks" (Greek πρόσωπα prosopa; Latin personae)."

"Modalism teaches that the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son and Holy Spirit identified by the Trinity Doctrine are different modes or aspects of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three coeternal persons within the Godhead. In passages of scripture such as Matthew 1:16-17 where the Son, Father, and Holy Spirit are separated in the text, they view this phenomenon as confirming God's omnipresence, and His ability to manifest himself as he pleases."

I have nothing to say. You have said it all, proving what a giant waste of time attempting to edify you has been.

If your relentless tirade of insults and accusations is an attempt to “edify” me, I’d prefer not to be edified anymore.

You seem to have some sort of personal issue with me that is clouding your judgment. This issue is far too important for you to dig in your heels and embrace a heretical teaching simply because you don’t like me. Please put your feelings of animosity toward me aside and reconsider this issue. It is much more important than you or me.

 

[percho]

And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth. Gen 1:28

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. Hebrews 2:6-8

But now we see not yet all things put under him. Hebrews 2:8

Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again. John 3:7

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death. Hebrews 2:9 The Son of God born of woman, the Christ.

Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; Romans 1:3

Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead; ) Gal 1:1
And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead: Romans 1:4
crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. Hebrews 2:9,10


Before the foundation of the world were these many sons going to come from the, be fruitful and multiply? Before the foundation of the world were they going need to be redeemed before they could become sons?

Were they going to be redeemed which required shed blood, that is death, by a Triune God who cannot die or through the Son of the living God who would be subject to death which brings corruption yet he would not see the corruption?

 

[Yeshua1]

Just because the uncreated God Who has created and sustains all is spirit doesn’t mean that created beings (even though they are also spirit) are somehow equivalent. God is superior because of His nature (beyond the question of spirit) and His being. Your view has a far too low view of God and a much too high view of angels.

There is no basis for ranking of superiority between various natures (material, spirit, etc.) except in Gnosticism.

I do not believe your opinion, and the assertion of the video, has a biblical basis. If you think it does, please point me to the relevant passage(s).


I am well aware of the Greek word used. (You need to know I have studied Greek and Hebrew and have a theology degree.)

In the context of this passage, the woman had just asked a theological question – the proper location for worshipping God, which is a spatial question. Jesus pointed out that although the Temple in Jerusalem was the legitimate place for worship, the location was not terribly important because God is spirit.


So tell me, if God is more than “spirit”, then what is He also (beyond the Incarnation, which was/is material)?


Except it does it with the assertion that God must be everywhere at once in order to be omniscient, as well as the illustration with the two-dimension creature and the cube. The video contradicts itself in some fundamental ways.



Because I am a theology teacher and create Bible study literature for adults and youth, I have a theological accountability group who reviews what I prepare and gives me honest critique and points out any errors or places where I need to clarify a position.

I took a break from this discussion and ran the video by two of the three members of my theological accountability group (two systematic theologians – one former seminary professor who is now my pastor and the other a patristics scholar who happened to be covering the Doctrine of the Trinity this week in his classes) and both of them had exactly the same issues with the video – they were actually more critical of it than I was.

So what we have is a difference of opinion, not “pure ignorance.” Do you have a theological accountability group or a trusted theologian who can give you an honest critique without worrying about offending you? Are you humble enough to consider that you might be mistaken?


I understand modalism. The video makes a big point that God manifests Himself in three Persons for “our sake”, not because God is eternally three unified Persons. That is a form of modalism, although not the most popular express that is found in “Oneness” theology.


That is sequential modalism. Another version of modalism teaches that God does simultaneously manifest Himself at Father, Son and Spirit, but simply wears different “masks.”

You need to take a look at the Wikipedia article again.

Here are some relevant quotes that you need to read in context:




If your relentless tirade of insults and accusations is an attempt to “edify” me, I’d prefer not to be edified anymore.

You seem to have some sort of personal issue with me that is clouding your judgment. This issue is far too important for you to dig in your heels and embrace a heretical teaching simply because you don’t like me. Please put your feelings of animosity toward me aside and reconsider this issue. It is much more important than you or me.

The viewpoints of the Oneness pentacostal would be that Jesus is at the same time father, Son/Spirit, sothey are really "jesus Only", while views like TD Jakes of God expressing Himself as father, and then Son, then Spirit the other classic view on this!

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

The viewpoints of the Oneness pentacostal would be that Jesus is at the same time father, Son/Spirit, sothey are really "jesus Only", while views like TD Jakes of God expressing Himself as father, and then Son, then Spirit the other classic view on this!

You're wasting your time. If he didn't say it, it isn't right. :sleep:

 

[Winman]

I used to tell my kids that God is like water. Water can come in three forms, a gas (water vapor or steam), a liquid (water), or solid (ice) yet it is still just water or H2O to be specific.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I used to tell my kids that God is like water. Water can come in three forms, a gas (water vapor or steam), a liquid (water), or solid (ice) yet it is still just water or H2O to be specific.

**POOF!** You are now (in BB's eyes) a Modalist.

 

[Yeshua1]

**POOF!** You are now (in BB's eyes) a Modalist.

trinitarians would hold that same water exists all 3 forms at SAME time, while non see it as existing in those forms at DIFFERENT times!

 

[Winman]

**POOF!** You are now (in BB's eyes) a Modalist.

Well, I explained to my kids that this was an analogy only, a way to understand how 3 different things can be 1 thing. Ice is not steam, but both are water.

 

[Winman]

trinitarians would hold that same water exists all 3 forms at SAME time, while non see it as existing in those forms at DIFFERENT times!

Water does exist as a gas, liquid, and solid at the same time.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Water does exist as a gas, liquid, and solid at the same time.

Key to this view is that molecular structure -- the nature of the water -- doesn't change in the forms described. Neither does God. And yes, ice, liquid water and steam/vapor can exist simultaneously in the same environment, under the same conditions. God has proven He does as well.

 

[Yeshua1]

Key to this view is that molecular structure -- the nature of the water -- doesn't change in the forms described. Neither does God. And yes, ice, liquid water and steam/vapor can exist simultaneously in the same environment, under the same conditions. God has proven He does as well.

Think many christians say they ghold to the trinity,but act as if they really hold to Mod version, or else a "jesus only", as they rarely talk to or about the father and Spirit, just Jesus!

 

[Winman]

Key to this view is that molecular structure -- the nature of the water -- doesn't change in the forms described. Neither does God. And yes, ice, liquid water and steam/vapor can exist simultaneously in the same environment, under the same conditions. God has proven He does as well.

Well, I'm glad you like the view, but I in no way presented this as biblical truth of any kind to my kids, I told them plainly that I do not truly understand the trinity, but this was a way to sort of grasp it in our limited minds.

I have seen similar arguments like matter has three dimensions, length, width, height, xyz...

 

[quantumfaith]

**POOF!** You are now (in BB's eyes) a Modalist.

Only according to those who are educated theologians.