quantumfaith
Active Member
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
A Unique and interesting explanation of the Trinity
- Thread starter quantumfaith
- Start date
- Status
:thumbsup::thumbsup:
preacher4truth
Active Member
Well, certainly your words will be rejected. Why? Because sound doctrine is repudiated these days, and so are those who hold to it.
Hebrews 5:12-14 applies here.
"[Modalism] proponents taught that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times. Webster’s metaphysical definition for mode is “the form, or way of being, of something, as distinct from its substance.” Modalism teaches that God has one substance, but several “ways of being.” The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism."
From entry on Modalism from BasicTheology.com
"Theology the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature."
From the Oxford Dictionaries
"Modalism is the theological doctrine that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three distinct Persons, but rather three modes or forms of activity under which God manifests Himself. A modalist is an adherent of the theological doctrine of modalism... Modalism, which is actually a form of unitarianism, denies that God in His own inner being is triune. Rather, it claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are either temporary or successive roles adopted by God in carrying out the divine plan of redemption and that they in no way correspond to anything in the ultimate nature of the Godhead. Modalism does not recognize the independent personality of Christ, but regards the incarnation as a mode of the existence or manifestation of the Father. For the modalists, the Father, Son, and Spirit only refer to the way in which God reveals Himself, but bear no relation to His inner being."
From the Contending for the Faith website
"Modalism, or Sabellianism, is inadequate view of the nature of God. The doctrine arises from a bishop in the early church named Sabellius. Modalism teaches that only one God exists and that the three persons listed in the Bible, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are modes or manifestations of the one God. As one human being may be a father, son, and husband at the same time, yet the person is only one individual, so it is true with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are no distinct persons within the nature of God from the modalistic point of view. It is Unitarian in that it accepts only one Person in the Godhead."
From an article in the Blue Letter Bible
From entry on Modalism from BasicTheology.com
"Theology the doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature."
From the Oxford Dictionaries
"Modalism is the theological doctrine that the Father, Son, and Spirit are not three distinct Persons, but rather three modes or forms of activity under which God manifests Himself. A modalist is an adherent of the theological doctrine of modalism... Modalism, which is actually a form of unitarianism, denies that God in His own inner being is triune. Rather, it claims that the Father, Son, and Spirit are either temporary or successive roles adopted by God in carrying out the divine plan of redemption and that they in no way correspond to anything in the ultimate nature of the Godhead. Modalism does not recognize the independent personality of Christ, but regards the incarnation as a mode of the existence or manifestation of the Father. For the modalists, the Father, Son, and Spirit only refer to the way in which God reveals Himself, but bear no relation to His inner being."
From the Contending for the Faith website
"Modalism, or Sabellianism, is inadequate view of the nature of God. The doctrine arises from a bishop in the early church named Sabellius. Modalism teaches that only one God exists and that the three persons listed in the Bible, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are modes or manifestations of the one God. As one human being may be a father, son, and husband at the same time, yet the person is only one individual, so it is true with God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit. There are no distinct persons within the nature of God from the modalistic point of view. It is Unitarian in that it accepts only one Person in the Godhead."
From an article in the Blue Letter Bible
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Exactly. No, it isn't a biblical view, but it helps them grasp the idea of an infinitely awesome and unknowable God in some finite, knowable way.
Noticed that too, huh? Never saw anyone attempt to confirm their arguments by their degrees alone.Only according to those who are educated theologians.
Oh, never mind, yes I have. But that was a bit over the top.
Last edited by a moderator:
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Oops. sorry. N/M.
Winman in post 59 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...
The very reason the man made the video to try and explain something he feels he must believe but does not understand.
One being , who has Within Himself 3 seperate and distinct Persons...
All 3 share in common being God, yet each one also seperate persons themselves...
Mod teaches all would be same person and being!
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Exactly. And then some self-appointed expert comes along and says he got it wrong. I have yet to see that expert actually explain it himself, however.
Three distinct Persons with One essence.
The Persons are not masks or forms for "our sake" (as the video expresses), but have been and are eternally distinct.
God is spirit and does not have to be anything more than spirit to be superior to the spiritual creatures He has created and sustains.
God is not material (except in the Incarnation and resurrection body of Christ) so spatial terms and multiple dimensions do not apply to God.
The Father is God.
The Son is God.
The Spirit is God.
The Father is not the Son or the Spirit.
The Son is not the Father or the Spirit.
The Spirit is not the Father or the Son.
TND, you continuously accused me of being ignorant. After getting beaten with that stick for a couple of days, I let you know that I was not ignorant because I have formally studied these issues in earning a theology degree. We simply have a difference of opinion that we have the opportunity to sort out together with respect and Christian charity. Since you couldn't beat me with the ignorance stick anymore, you switched to the "he thinks he knows more than everyone else because he has educational credentials" stick and you've been beating me with that. I am in a no win situation since you simply want to beat me with a stick. It doesn't matter what stick it is... I refuse to play that game and I regret anything I said that encouraged that reprehensible behavior.
And I'm not some "self-appointed expert" here. I have provided links to credible sources and have tried to engage in discussion. What makes you or the video more of an expert than anyone else? Who "appointed" you?
I have been trying to give you the last word because apparently you need that because of some ego problem, but you just won't give it up.
Let me see if I can help you:
You win. You are the better rhetorician. You can hold your own in a debate, know all of the rhetorical tricks and seem to have no qualms about using them. However, the video is in error as to this theological position and I cannot back away from that because I will one day be held accountable for what I teach.
quantumfaith
Active Member
The reason is, it is not within our capability to completely explain this (and many other things) about our Creator. But there is often this nagging need within us, to BOLO for other's "error" and correct it.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Then why did you even bother to reply to my post? I would think if you "refuse to play that game" you'd stay off the field. Instead, here you are again, touting degrees and making accusations. So, one last time, and then I will show you what "refusing to play the game" really means.
You have now, three times, publicly trumpeted that "I'm not ignorant because I have these degrees." Fine. I know a lot of men and women in my field -- I'm an LAC and an LMFC -- who have bigger and higher degrees than I do, and they are just as ignorant as the day they were wet-behind-the-ears freshmen. They don't apply the principles of sound psychology -- which in my opinion, and only my opinion -- is cognitive and behavioral in nature. That is the only form of the art -- yes, art, not science -- that can be biblically supported.
The equivalent, in your field, is exactly the same: You have not adhered to the principles you have been taught. I'm not saying you are ignorant as to IQ, and I'm not saying "he thinks he knows more ... " as to number of degrees. What I am saying is that you got a bug up your behind about the video because something in it didn't sit well with you, and you want to pick it apart. In pursuing that goal, you have let emotion overrule your intellect and gone to great lengths to misrepresent it, and along the way you have said some very uneducated things both about the video and about theology. It is those things I have called you on, using harsh language to be sure, some of which I also now legitimately regret. For those, I ask your forgiveness. But when facts and opinions become confused, and when the latter becomes more important to the one expressing them than is the former, correction is called for.
I regret having replied to you, for the same reasons. Misrepresentation, either out of lack of knowledge or sheer emotional upheaval, does not make for an honest discussion, and whether your are able to see that you are guilty of one or the other or not, most everyone else here can. Own it or not, it is no longer of any importance to me.
As I told you earlier, privately, WikiPedia is not a credible resource, and the other links failed to discuss the most prevalent type of Modalism, which as I pointed out to you more than once is best represented by Oneness Pentecostalism. As to the "switching hats" God who is first Father, then Son and later Holy Spirit, I'm sure we are all guilty of falling into that kind of thinking for simplicity's sake on occasion, but we don't really believe that to be a valid description of the Godhead. Yet that type is the one you seemed to earnestly concentrate on, and it is the type discussed at length on the other of your cited sources outside of WikiPedia. There isn't even an organized denomination that describes the Personhood of God in that fashion. It's more red herring than anything else.
See, that's the thing. I never said I was an expert. All I said is that you were misunderstanding -- I don't believe I said "misrepresenting" because of the implications of that statement -- the video and failing to see that it did not promote, teach, or even subliminally suggest Modalism. All it did was attempt to describe the Trinity. It stated quite clearly that is what it was doing. Within the first minute, the narrator very clearly and inarguably stated that God is Three in One Person.
Throughout this discussion, you have ignored that fact. Blatantly. Deliberately. Dishonestly. You insisted it was denying the Trinity. It did not. Not even remotely. Then you attempted to certify your own misappropriated criticism with your degrees. I've not been impressed with your arguments, because they haven't even been about the same subject the rest of us were discussing.
Now, all that said, have a blessed and wonderful life in the Lord. I'm done here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, that's called Sabellianism (aka "modalism"), which has traditionally been condemned as heresy in Christianity.
Yes, I would say that Sabellianism is cause for church discipline.
It works for T.D. Jakes, too, but the fact remains that it's heresy.
You realize that when you say things like this, you're tempting God, right? I don't think He likes that.
How do you know you're moving in His power? How do you reconcile this belief with the Biblical model that one of the signs of "moving in His power" is sound doctrine?
jesus Himself stated that the Father and Him are One, yet distinct, same way the Spirit and Him, so non trinitarian views are heretical, condemned by Jesus Himself, so whatever "power: he has, would not be from the Holy Spirit!
- Status