Ship of Fools: Modalism

Thread: Modalism Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023082

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

Over on another thread about the 'Word of Faith' and 'Signs and Wonders' movements, the subject of modalism came up several times. Some kind of modalism seems common in parts of charasmania and evangelical circles—but I'm not familiar enough with enough of them to understand just how common it is.

This interesting blog has what seem to me to be some clear ideas about modalism. In the thread mentioned at the start of this post, at least one poster claimed that Paul taught modalism and that Jesus himself implies it.

How can modalism be clarified for mere mortals like me? How can we be vigilant against it—and why?

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

Modalists fail to really distinguish between the persons of the Trinity. In modalism, the Father isn't really distinct from the Son, rather the two are different modes or activities of the one Person of God. Modalists will, therefore, say things like "When God is creating the world, He is the Father. When God is saving the world, He is the Son. When He is sustaining the world, He is the Holy Ghost."

A slight variation of the modalist line is the heresy of patripassianism. This means "The Father suffers," and if there is no real distinction between the Father and the Son, then it could be said that the Father suffers with Jesus on the Cross.

Guarding against it is important because God is infinitely important for what He is, in Himself, and not merely what He does. We can guard against it by insisting that the Son is not the Father, the Son is not the Holy Ghost, and so on. The catholic faith presumes that the Trinity revealed to us in God's salvific work in the world (the economic Trinity) actually reveals the truth of the inner life of God (the immanent Trinity). Modalists, on the other hand, propose that God's actions in the world do not really express who or what he is as God. They refuse to grant the Scriptures the status as actual truth.

[ 21. May 2012, 13:22: Message edited by: Zach82 ]

Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Over on another thread about the 'Word of Faith' and 'Signs and Wonders' movements, the subject of modalism came up several times. Some kind of modalism seems common in parts of charasmania and evangelical circles—but I'm not familiar enough with enough of them to understand just how common it is.

This interesting blog has what seem to me to be some clear ideas about modalism. In the thread mentioned at the start of this post, at least one poster claimed that Paul taught modalism and that Jesus himself implies it.

How can modalism be clarified for mere mortals like me? How can we be vigilant against it—and why?

Is this what you mean by "Modalism"? No comments yet, because I need to understand what it is first (apart from a heresy)

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

Its greatest heresy is that it denies the humanity of the Son.

Jesus was only "pretending" to be human in the Gospels if Modalism holds true.

Which is, of course, unbiblical.

[ 21. May 2012, 13:23: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's greatest heresy is that it denies the humanity of the Son.

Jesus was only "pretending" to be human in the Gospels if Modalism holds true.

That's gnositicism, not modalism.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

Modalism is hardly confined to evangelicalism - one of the frequent manifestations is in formulations such as "Creator, redeemer and sanctifier", when used as a trinitarian formulation - which it usually is. Evangelicals are not usually responsible for that one.

I do think that the writer of that article has misunderstood the verse of "Be thou my vision". Surely that one is addressing first the son, then the father, then the holy spirit. It is internally trinitarian, though I guess open to misinterpretation.

Posted by Custard (# 5402) on :

I think one of the reasons that the lighter end of evangelicalism tends to be prone to modalism is that they try to explain things simply. Too simply in this case.

I've heard the whole "water, ice, steam" analogy far too many times. Einstein got it right when he said "Things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler."

It's worth pointing out that the heavier end of evangelicalism (J.I. Packer, Don Carson et al) seem pretty good at avoiding modalism.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
Over on another thread about the 'Word of Faith' and 'Signs and Wonders' movements, the subject of modalism came up several times. Some kind of modalism seems common in parts of charasmania and evangelical circles—but I'm not familiar enough with enough of them to understand just how common it is.

True, explicit modalism is found only within Oneness Pentecostalism, which is only a single denomination within the broader Pentecostal movement, and would be a very small % of evangelicalism as a whole.

More generally, I would say modalism is the heresy Christians of all types are most likely to unintentionally fall into simply because it's so hard to talk about the Trinity. Common analogies, such as the "water/ice/steam" or the 3 parts of an egg, etc. always error in some way, modalism most often.

IMHO, we just need to accept that. Our language always fails us, imagery certainly falls short. We're trying to explain the most transcendent of mysteries, we just don't have good ways to do that. And yet, for all it's shortcomings, the attempt to understand and speak of God and know something of God is a worthy effort.

I usually end up using the best imagery or explanation I can find to talk about God-- then giving out the disclaimers of all the ways that image/explanation errs.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's greatest heresy is that it denies the humanity of the Son.

Jesus was only "pretending" to be human in the Gospels if Modalism holds true.
That's gnositicism, not modalism.

Well, Docetism, to be precise; but there were plenty of Gnostics who held this view as well.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

It's tricky, I understand that. It's one thing to struggle to get it right, it's quite another to set out with the intention of getting it wrong or, more likely, arguing that it doesn't matter.

K.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
It's tricky, I understand that. It's one thing to struggle to get it right, it's quite another to set out with the intention of getting it wrong or, more likely, arguing that it doesn't matter.

True. But I don't think "intentionally wrong" is all that rampant. Again, Oneness Pentecostals are the only group I know that is explicitly modalist. I guess to some degree I am arguing "it doesn't matter", because I think it's more important that we talk about God than it is that we get everything right. I don't think it is possible to talk about God w/o getting it wrong, but I don't want our fear to keep us from wondering, from talking, from sharing. For me it's enough to simply acknowledge the problem.

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Modalism is hardly confined to evangelicalism - one of the frequent manifestations is in formulations such as "Creator, redeemer, and sanctifier", when used as a trinitarian formulation - which it usually is. Evangelicals are not usually responsible for that one.

Is "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" necessarily modalist? Perhaps it's easier to misunderstand than the traditional formulation (or perhaps not, since some apparently misunderstand "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"). This statement doesn't strike me as on its face untrue, as God in three persons is indeed creator, redeemer, and sanctifier. This is a genuine question, as I've heard many object to this formulation, but I don't quite understand why.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Modalism is hardly confined to evangelicalism - one of the frequent manifestations is in formulations such as "Creator, redeemer, and sanctifier", when used as a trinitarian formulation - which it usually is. Evangelicals are not usually responsible for that one.
Is "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" necessarily modalist? Perhaps it's easier to misunderstand than the traditional formulation (or perhaps not, since some apparently misunderstand "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"). This statement doesn't strike me as on its face untrue, as God in three persons is indeed creator, redeemer, and sanctifier. This is a genuine question, as I've heard many object to this formulation, but I don't quite understand why.

If you're using "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" as a stand-in for "Father, Son, and Spirit" than it is explicitly modalist-- in fact, much more explicitly so than ice/steam/water and all the other awkward analogies. You are explicitly defining each member of the Trinity by a particular function/activity, and implicitly suggesting that the other members of the Trinity are not engaged in that function/activity-- that's the very definition of modalism.

otoh, as I indicated before, ANY discussion of the Trinity is going to be rife w/ these sorts of problematic trade-offs. We went to "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" because of the inherent problems with using gender-limited language for God. In so doing, we introduced another ancient problem. No doubt someone will come along with another formulation to correct that-- and we'll find ourselves with Docetism or adoptionism or some other heresy.

Again, I think the best you can do is choose your poison and then add the needed correction.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

When Andrew Walker's book about the UK restorationist or 'house church' movement came out in 1985 and I read it when it had to read within brown covers ( [Biased]

), I was miffed at his suggestion that we were 'nominally Trinitarian.'

I wanted to get hold of him and contend that we were no more nominally Trinitarian than anyone else and that we were thoroughly orthodox in that respect.

But then I started listening to the way people spoke and the way people prayed ...

And I began to realise that on a functional level at least, much of charismatic evangelicalism was almost theologically illiterate when it came to the Trinity.

Now, I would contend that at an 'official' level and at the level of theologians like Carson and Packer, evangelicalism (whether conservative, charismatic, 'open' or whatever else) is just as Trinitarian as any other Christian tradition one might mention.

But there is an overly Christocentric tendency - 'Me and Jesus' - in some evangelical circles and many charismatics seem to regard God the Holy Spirit as some kind of impersonal faith-force at worst or 'small p' person at best ...

It ain't always like that, of course.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

Folks might rightly decry Modalism as a heresy.

It is no less a heresy than the Tritheism which is the only alternative. However this is accompanied by loud shouts of doctrinal orthodoxy and when pressed to explain precisely what the words mean the result is the "goldfish" scenario. Mouth open. Nothing coming out.

I suggest reading McQuarrie "Principles of Christian Theology" for starters.

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Modalism is hardly confined to evangelicalism - one of the frequent manifestations is in formulations such as "Creator, redeemer, and sanctifier", when used as a trinitarian formulation - which it usually is. Evangelicals are not usually responsible for that one.
Is "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" necessarily modalist? Perhaps it's easier to misunderstand than the traditional formulation (or perhaps not, since some apparently misunderstand "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"). This statement doesn't strike me as on its face untrue, as God in three persons is indeed creator, redeemer, and sanctifier. This is a genuine question, as I've heard many object to this formulation, but I don't quite understand why.

Wilfried - I think cliffdweller has already answered the main point of this. Just to say that there is no objection to saying that God creates, redeems and sanctifies. It's the usage, when it replaces Father Son & Holy Spirit, which makes it modalist.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Folks might rightly decry Modalism as a heresy.

It is no less a heresy than the Tritheism which is the only alternative. However this is accompanied by loud shouts of doctrinal orthodoxy and when pressed to explain precisely what the words mean the result is the "goldfish" scenario. Mouth open. Nothing coming out.

I suggest reading McQuarrie "Principles of Christian Theology" for starters.

I don't see Tritheism as the only alternative. I think that frankly admitting that human language approximates ideas that are outside human experience is an option. The Godhead is the epitome of paradox: One God/Three Persons; three (and more) functions, but not divided among the Persons; we see the Godhead's effects on the world, but that doesn't show us Godhead's essence.

To me it's like a leap beyond contemporary physics. I don't have the math to understand even the most basic concepts. Some people in the world do. Then to get into the real nitty-gritty you need even more. A program I saw on Hawkings' latest foray into unified theory said it took his new assistant over a year to study and grasp the math to even begin to be a help on the physicist's new direction. And this is about observable, real world stuff. Me, I just about have grasped that an atom is not really a teeny-weeny solar system with planet electrons circling a nucleus in graceful elliptical orbits. [Biased]

Talking about the Trinity gets us into metaphorical territory, and vocabulary to describe our areas of ignorance. And then there's via negativa, what the Trinity is not: One but not only One, Three but not totally separately Three. The Father is the Creator, but so is the Spirit that hovered over the waters, and so is the Word "through which all things were made". The Father redeems through begetting the Son, and the Spirit redeems by bringing the power of the Most High to Mary, and the Son redeems by living and dying in this world.

It's best to hold theses ideas humbly, lightly and in balance than try to nail down the ineffable, IMO.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

I take it that Jesus ( the 2nd Person of the Trinity) was sincere in reciting " Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is ONE" in his daily devotions.?

Or should he have said "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is Three in One"?

Posted by Ramarius (# 16551) on :

Was it Karl Barth who posited the formulation that God is one essence eternally subsistent in three modes of being, Father Son and Holy Spirit?

What could be clearer......

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:

quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Modalism is hardly confined to evangelicalism - one of the frequent manifestations is in formulations such as "Creator, redeemer, and sanctifier", when used as a trinitarian formulation - which it usually is. Evangelicals are not usually responsible for that one.
Is "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" necessarily modalist? Perhaps it's easier to misunderstand than the traditional formulation (or perhaps not, since some apparently misunderstand "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit"). This statement doesn't strike me as on its face untrue, as God in three persons is indeed creator, redeemer, and sanctifier. This is a genuine question, as I've heard many object to this formulation, but I don't quite understand why.
Wilfried - I think cliffdweller has already answered the main point of this. Just to say that there is no objection to saying that God creates, redeems and sanctifies. It's the usage, when it replaces Father Son & Holy Spirit, which makes it modalist.

Precisely!

And the very fact that Wilfried, in complete and genuine innocence, didn't see this, as I am sure is the case of many who use it and unwittingly subscribe to the modalist teaching that it expresses, suggests that there might well be something to the question that forms the title of this Limbo thread.

I'm not suggesting that we can't discuss these things again but I offer this thread for anybody who wants to see how these things have been thrashed out here in the past. The first two or three pages were a bit boring, and there was a fair amount of wilful obtuseness on the part of some people reading El Greco's posts, although English was not his first language. However, if you can endure past that, it does get interesting and discusses the matter in some depth.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, I think you'll find Ramarius that the Council of Nicea got there before Karl Barth did ...

[Biased]

Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on :

quote:

originally posted by Gamaliel

But there is an overly Christocentric tendency - 'Me and Jesus' - in some evangelical circles

I have never really understood this objection. If the three persons of the Trinity all do all the same things, what difference does it make which one you concentrate on ? If one were doing the creating and another the redeeming etc, I could see the need to give them all attention so as not to miss anything out.

Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on :

Well, all Three Persons of the Trinity act in unison, of course, but I tend to think it's polite and works best in 'economic' terms if we don't go 'Jesus, Jesus, Jesus' all the time or 'Spirit, Spirit, Spirit,' or 'Father, Father, Father ...'

It's hard to define but you recognise it when you hear it.

I can't be the only one whose teeth are set on edge by some of the slipshod language. One of the first things that struck me when I first attended an Orthodox service was how Trinitarian it all was. It was like the Nicene Creed set to chant.

Posted by Triple Tiara (# 9556) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

suggests that there might well be something to the question that forms the title of this Limbo thread.

Beware of quoting andreas/el greco with approbation in these matters. It has already been mentioned here on this thread, and even one of the Orthodox on the thread you cite were able to identify the opposite heresy being espoused by andreas: tritheism. So you may very well suggest that Western Trinitarian theology can slip into Unitarianism if not checked, but the Orthodox emphasis can easily slip into tritheism if not checked.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:
The first two or three pages were a bit boring, and there was a fair amount of wilful obtuseness on the part of some people reading El Greco's posts, although English was not his first language. However, if you can endure past that, it does get interesting and discusses the matter in some depth.

Mmmmm. I'm not so sure about that wilful obtuseness bit. Again, beware of defending and siding with andreas: he did have a tendency to adopt a stance of "J'Accuse" as if his point was self-evident and already proved - and then to squeal when he was called on that style. (I had a lot of time for him, btw, so I am not simply trying to demonise him either).

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Folks might rightly decry Modalism as a heresy.

It is no less a heresy than the Tritheism which is the only alternative.

Talk about false dichotomies...

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I take it that Jesus ( the 2nd Person of the Trinity) was sincere in reciting " Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is ONE" in his daily devotions.?

Or should he have said "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is Three in One"?

Catholic Christians accept that the Lord Our God is One. We just don't think that's all there is to be said about the matter.

Posted by shamwari (# 15556) on :

What else is to be said?

Posted by Michael Astley (# 5638) on :

Oh, I do generally agree with you, Triple Tiara.

My point was that it was quite clear to anybody reading with charity that Andreas (who later changed his screen name to "El Greco", for those who weren't around back then) was using the word "unitarian" in a sense that reflects its plain, etymological, meaning, perhaps not realising the connotations inherent in the way that the word is usually used in English. However, not everybody read with charity, and accused him of making claims that he plainly didn't intend to make.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
What else is to be said?

If we are going to believe that Jesus really is God, then we have the beginnings of Trinitarian theology. Especially the divinity of Jesus implies that "God is One" is not all there is to be said. Trinitarian theology is not an attempt to qualify the unity of God, but an attempt to reconcile the accounts of Scripture with the unity of God.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
I take it that Jesus ( the 2nd Person of the Trinity) was sincere in reciting " Hear O Israel, the Lord our God the Lord is ONE" in his daily devotions.?

Or should he have said "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God is Three in One"?

If you are really interested in what the Shema means, it is worth considering the various ways that it is translated. It is quite common in Jewish prayer books to translate it as something like: "Hear O Israel, Adonai is our God, Adonai alone." In the context of Deuteronomy, it seems more likely to be henetheistic than unitarian.

--Tom Clune

[ 21. May 2012, 21:51: Message edited by: tclune ]

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

So then (following Zach) is there a 'proper balance' to made in prayer? Do some people, as Gam suggests, overplay Jesus? Should there be a distinction in prayer life between God and Lord? Jesus is Lord, the Holy Spirit is Lord, God the Father is Lord?

K.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

I think there may be. D. L. Sayers referred to some people's trinities as being "scalene," and that's certainly the case for me--my conception of the Father is way murkier than that of Jesus or the Spirit, and I tend to pray accordingly. But I figure God knows the reason and forgives me for it--and will remedy it in his own good time.
Still, it's good to be aware of imbalances, and to try not to inflict them on others (such as the congregation one might be caring for).

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's greatest heresy is that it denies the humanity of the Son.

Jesus was only "pretending" to be human in the Gospels if Modalism holds true.
That's gnositicism, not modalism.
Well, Docetism, to be precise; but there were plenty of Gnostics who held this view as well.

Both.

But I think it's the most damning of practical implications of Modalism.

Posted by trouty (# 13497) on :

I always wonder how people can throw terms like 'heresy' and 'heretic' around without feeling a bit of a tw@.

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I always wonder how people can throw terms like 'heresy' and 'heretic' around without feeling a bit of a tw@.

That's mainly a middle of the road C of E attitude my dear. Because we know the truth we find it hard when others scream heresy. They do indeed look like twats.

Still. Doesn't stop others.

Not me of course. I just like to know what kind of heretic I'm being called at any given moment. [Biased]

[ 22. May 2012, 13:52: Message edited by: Evensong ]

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I always wonder how people can throw terms like 'heresy' and 'heretic' around without feeling a bit of a tw@.

Why, though? I think I would rather know if I was getting something major wrong. Heresy is reserved for major errors that distort key teachings. Sure, if people use it as some sort of insult it gets devalued, but it has real value if used properly.

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I always wonder how people can throw terms like 'heresy' and 'heretic' around without feeling a bit of a tw@.

Depends on whether the ultimate authority is Scripture and Tradition or your personal experience. Personally, I am comforted by the idea that God is bigger than my experience.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
Modalism is hardly confined to evangelicalism...

Within the CofE at any rate its more common in the liberal centre than among the evangelicals.

Years ago - in fact decades ago, I think I was still living in Brighton - someone or other said that the average MOTR Anglican was a semi-Pelagian modalist. I'm afraid its partly true.

I think theological orthodixy is more often met with at both ends of the Anglican candle than it is in the middle.

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It's greatest heresy is that it denies the humanity of the Son.

Jesus was only "pretending" to be human in the Gospels if Modalism holds true.
That's gnositicism, not modalism.

Aksherly its Docetism. Which could be considered a sort of Gnosticism. You can be modalist without being docetic.

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I always wonder how people can throw terms like 'heresy' and 'heretic' around without feeling a bit of a tw@.

You make it sound almost attractive. Us middle-aged fat gits rarely get to feel any kind of twat in a month of Sundays. (in the American sense of "twat" anyway. In our British use of the word all we have to do is look in a mirror)

Posted by Honest Ron Bacardi (# 38) on :

ken wrote:

quote:
Years ago - in fact decades ago, I think I was still living in Brighton - someone or other said that the average MOTR Anglican was a semi-Pelagian modalist. I'm afraid its partly true.

I'm increasingly coming to the view that the MOTR is now more deist than theist. Perhaps it always was and I failed to notice it. I guess you can be a semi-pelagian or a pelagian modalist as well as being a deist, though I would need to think about that a bit more.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

And the very fact that Wilfried, in complete and genuine innocence, didn't see this, as I am sure is the case of many who use it and unwittingly subscribe to the modalist teaching that it expresses, suggests that there might well be something to the question that forms the title of this Limbo thread.

Its a long time since I looked at that thread!

I just re-read it. I'm no more impressed by what Andreas was saying I'm afraid. He seems to get bogged down in convoluted definitions of words without saying very much. And what he does say (or at least what is intelligible of it) seems, well, not very Orthodox. And the other Orthodox posters on the thread all more or less disagreed with him.

But its one of the few discussions on this site where I think there was genuine falure to communicate because of language. Andreas seems to have been thinking in Greek, and translating Greek words into English words (or Latin-pretending-to-be English words) like "nature" and "essence" and "substance" and "person". And the result was simply unintelligible in English. He seemed to be writing blatant self-contradictions. And then getting angry when we pointed it out. A very frustrating thread.

Posters with a traditional theological education (not including me) read those words in their technical theological sense - but that seemed to come out wrong as well.

To summarise the thread, not entirely unfairly I think:

Andreas: You protestants are unitarians because you believe X
Others: But we don't believe X we believe Y!
Andreas: That's what I said, you believe Z
Others: Who mentioned Z?

Repeat about seventeen times, then explode into a whinging match.

quote:
Originally posted by Michael Astley:

The first two or three pages were a bit boring...

Nowhere near as boring as the last few pages I think, where most of it bogged down in a personal spat.

Anyway, I rather liked the first few pages, lot it is by me [Big Grin]

More serioulsy, I think the discussion does go off fast because of the mutual incomprehension between Andreas and everyone else posting.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

As with most official heresies, I think that this is something which is important for the church to get right, but less important at the individual level: I don't think anyone is going to lose their salvation because they were a modalist or a docetist or a dualist. As a matter of fact, you can have a diverting hour or so hunting heresies in 'Worship songs' (much less so in proper hymns, but some of them are heretical as well). "Turn your eyees upon Jesus", for example, is pure dualism.

Posted by Wilfried (# 12277) on :

Thanks to those who answered my question; I think I get the point, and I don't disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

otoh, as I indicated before, ANY discussion of the Trinity is going to be rife w/ these sorts of problematic trade-offs. We went to "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" because of the inherent problems with using gender-limited language for God. In so doing, we introduced another ancient problem. No doubt someone will come along with another formulation to correct that-- and we'll find ourselves with Docetism or adoptionism or some other heresy.

Again, I think the best you can do is choose your poison and then add the needed correction.

I think this is sort of what I was getting at. "Creator, redeemer, sanctifier" doesn't strike me as on it's face worse, or more prone to heretical misunderstanding than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Some apparently hear the latter with a modalist or tritheistic understanding. ISTM that what saves "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is that it carries with it all the trinitarian debates that came along with it when it was first formulated, so we think we know what we mean when we say it.

Speaking of squiggle Andrew, or whatever he called himself at the time, I once had a run in with him in another trinitarian debate. I made some point, and then said something to effect that, at the end of the day, the Trinity is a mystery, and any attempt to grasp it in words was grasping at the ineffable, or some such. He jumped down my throat, saying that a proper understanding of the trinity was as clear as day for any right thinking person with proper theological understanding, and my resort to mystery was muddy thinking at best, heresy at worst. Good times.

I'm mostly an off and on lurker, so whatever happened to him?

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
Thanks to those who answered my question; I think I get the point, and I don't disagree.

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:

otoh, as I indicated before, ANY discussion of the Trinity is going to be rife w/ these sorts of problematic trade-offs. We went to "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" because of the inherent problems with using gender-limited language for God. In so doing, we introduced another ancient problem. No doubt someone will come along with another formulation to correct that-- and we'll find ourselves with Docetism or adoptionism or some other heresy.

Again, I think the best you can do is choose your poison and then add the needed correction.
I think this is sort of what I was getting at. "Creator, redeemer, sanctifier" doesn't strike me as on it's face worse, or more prone to heretical misunderstanding than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." Some apparently hear the latter with a modalist or tritheistic understanding. ISTM that what saves "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" is that it carries with it all the trinitarian debates that came along with it when it was first formulated, so we think we know what we mean when we say it.

Just to clarify-- that's not my position. As I said, I do believe "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" is explicitly and necessarily modalist, at least as commonly used, and therefore "worse" or "more heretical" than "Father, Son & Spirit" which has both Scripture and tradition behind it. My point was that I just can't get that worked up about the issue, since we have so much trouble speaking in any length about the Trinity w/o veering into one heresy or another. That's where we agree-- the Trinity is a transcendent mystery that eludes precise description.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

Some elements of the Sabellian/Monarchian/Patripassian/Modalist/Arian/ Socinian/Unitarian tradition regard Christ as divine and some don't.

What tends to be common to all these movements is their emphasis on the Father as the primary name and identity of God.

The Oneness, or Jesus Only, strand in Pentecostalism is interesting because it regards Jesus as the essential expression of God.

There is a big penty church here in Melbourne which used to (don't know whether it still does) baptise members "In the name of the Father , Son and Holy Spirit, even the Lord Jesus Christ".

[ 23. May 2012, 01:57: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Wilfried:
I'm mostly an off and on lurker, so whatever happened to him?

He decided that because St Gregory Palamas didn't know about Darwinian evolution therefore the whole of Christianity was nonsense and became a Dawkinsite before drifting away from the Ship.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I said, I do believe "creator, redeemer, sanctifier" is explicitly and necessarily modalist, at least as commonly used, and therefore "worse" or "more heretical" than "Father, Son & Spirit" which has both Scripture and tradition behind it.

I think it is modalist if it used as the primary way of identifying the persons of the Trinity.

I think that there is a sense in which you can say that 'creator' can be properly used to identify the Father even though all three persons act in the act of creation. And ditto for 'redeemer' and 'sanctifier'. In a similar way, God is spirit and all three persons are 'spirit' yet 'Spirit' may be properly used to identify one of the persons. But I agree that there's a lot of potential for misunderstanding if it's used improperly or too often.

Posted by MSHB (# 9228) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
I think that there is a sense in which you can say that 'creator' can be properly used to identify the Father even though all three persons act in the act of creation. And ditto for 'redeemer' and 'sanctifier'. In a similar way, God is spirit and all three persons are 'spirit' yet 'Spirit' may be properly used to identify one of the persons. But I agree that there's a lot of potential for misunderstanding if it's used improperly or too often.

Yes. Many people will confuse "person" with "function", if all they hear is "creator, redeemer, sanctifier".

To me, a really important thing about the Trinity is the I-You relationship between the Son and the Father which we see in John's gospel (ch.17). God is love, because the Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father, and so too with the Holy Spirit and the other two divine persons.

It is not just that God does three different things, but rather that the divine persons totally and completely love one another and are so totally involved with one another that they are truly and ontologically one - for example: one omnipotence, not three warring wills. There is no distinction in where the Father, Son or Spirit is. There is no difference in what the Father, Son, or Spirit knows. There is no disagreement in what the Father, Son, and Spirit wills. And there is no conflict in what the Father, Son, or Spirit can do. That is a degree of unity beyond anything we have ever experienced. The Father, Son, and Spirit are perfectly attuned to one another. They are totally and infinitely transparent to one another (a corollary of omniscience - they know one another perfectly and totally - in human terms, there is zero privacy, just total and perfect intimacy of heart).

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:
Originally posted by trouty:
I always wonder how people can throw terms like 'heresy' and 'heretic' around without feeling a bit of a tw@.
Depends on whether the ultimate authority is Scripture and Tradition or your personal experience. Personally, I am comforted by the idea that God is bigger than my experience.

No wonder Anglicans have such trouble pointing the finger. We believe in all three (Scripture, Tradition and Experience/Reason).

[Razz]

Posted by Holy Smoke (# 14866) on :

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
...The Father, Son, and Spirit are perfectly attuned to one another. They are totally and infinitely transparent to one another (a corollary of omniscience - they know one another perfectly and totally - in human terms, there is zero privacy, just total and perfect intimacy of heart).

But there isn't a 'one another', that's tritheism, however close they are to each other. As soon as you start talking about relationships between the 'persons', and start using 'person' in its modern sense, instead of it meaning something like a 'face' of God, you are in effect 'dividing the substance' and creating three separate beings. The original model is semi-modalist - I think Macquarrie distinguishes permanent modalism (which that is) from temporary modalism, but he certainly sees polytheism as the greater danger.

The relationship between Jesus of the gospels and God the Father is between a human Jesus (who expresses divinity) and a divine God.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No wonder Anglicans have such trouble pointing the finger. We believe in all three (Scripture, Tradition and Experience/Reason).

What, every one of us? I believe in reason. You can't logically believe in all three. One has to be supreme.

[ 23. May 2012, 20:27: Message edited by: Steve H ]

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:
Originally posted by MSHB:
...The Father, Son, and Spirit are perfectly attuned to one another.
But there isn't a 'one another', that's tritheism, however close they are to each other. As soon as you start talking about relationships between the 'persons', and start using 'person' in its modern sense, instead of it meaning something like a 'face' of God, you are in effect 'dividing the substance' and creating three separate beings.

Language about the Trinity is an approximation to a mystery that cannot be actually expressed.
To say that there is 'one another' is to approach the mystery from the tritheist direction. The mystery can also be approached from the modalist direction. Both modalism and tritheism become heretical when either approach stops in its tracks and declares itself sufficient to the mystery or declares that the other approach is invalid as such. To be valid each must attempt continually to correct itself by accepting the validity of the other approach. The truth of the Trinity is the inexpressible asymptote towards which both approaches converge.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The both are one and related; its a bit like siamese twins, depends how you are looking at it at the time, which answer is correct.

Look something can't be a particle and a wave can it? Well try telling that to light. It manages both even when only releasing one particle at a time. I have seen the "proof" of both concepts, it depends what perspective you take.

No we don't know what God is, so I tend to think of it as God's super-abundance of personhood, it belongs to one being but can't be contained in one being.

Jengie

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No wonder Anglicans have such trouble pointing the finger. We believe in all three (Scripture, Tradition and Experience/Reason).

Those three are often quoted by Anglicans and Episcopalians as "Hooker's Three-Legged Stool." What Hooker actually has to say about them, though, is this :

quote:
"What Scripture doth plainly deliver, to that first place both of credit and obedience is due; the next whereunto is whatsoever any man can necessarily conclude by force of reason; after these the voice of the Church succeedeth. That which the Church by her ecclesiastical authority shall probably think and define to be true or good, must in congruity of reason over-rule all other inferior judgments whatsoever" (Laws of Ecclesiastical Polity, Book V, 8:2).

Note that he places Scripture first, (right) Reason second, and "the voice of the church" (i.e. Tradition) third. Not a three-legged stool at all, really--more like a stepladder. And Experience (which is dangerous to confuse with Reason) doesn't even rate in Hooker's model.

Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :

Experience was added as a source of truth by Wesley in the famous Wesleyan Quadrilateral.

Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on :

I'm still not much clearer on 1) explicit expressions of modalism (apart from the downright wacky ones) 2) how can these be avoided.

1. Praying to Jesus isn't modalism.
2. Praying to God the Father isn't modalism.
3. Praying to the Holy Spirit isn't modalism.
4. Praying to God isn't modalism.
5. Conflating God with Jesus, Jesus with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Sprit with God the Father are all examples of modalism.

K.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No wonder Anglicans have such trouble pointing the finger. We believe in all three (Scripture, Tradition and Experience/Reason).

What, every one of us? I believe in reason. You can't logically believe in all three. One has to be supreme.

"Reason" is a red herring here. Its just a word that means thinking that isn't broken. Its not a source of information. You read Scripture with your reason, you hear the teaching sof your church with your reason, you interpret your own experience with your reason.

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
I'm still not much clearer on 1) explicit expressions of modalism (apart from the downright wacky ones) 2) how can these be avoided.

I've heard Anglican vicars preaching on Trinity Sunday say that God the father is how we experience God in creation, God the Son is how the first Christians experience God in Jesus, God the Spirit is how we experience God in the church. That's an explicit expression of modalism. How can that be avoided? Take the weekend off and let the curate preach. Or better still a lay reader. (*)

But if they had said that the way we learn about God the Father is by creation theology, the way we learn about God the Son is by the scriptual account of Jesus, and the way we learn about God the Spirit is through the church, then they might be wrong, but that wouldn't be explicitly modalist. (**)

If someone takes a phrase like "Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier" and pastes it into liturgy in place of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" as if to imply that it meant the same thing, than that's an explicit expression of modalism. Those are not names for the Persons of the Trinity. How can that be avoided? Don't mess with the liturgy.

But if they had said that those are descriptions of the works or actions of God, maybe only three of many possible ones, then that wouldn't be explicitly modalist. God the Father is Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. God the Son is Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. God the Holy Spirit is Creator, Redeemer, and Sanctifier. (***)

(*) because 19 times out of twenty they'd be too cautious to address the subject directly, and preach on some other topic instead. And the other time they'd probably say what it says in their theology textbooks and get it right.

(**) Come to think of it it would also be that three-legged stool again. conflating the Father with experience, the Son with Scripture, and the Spirit with tradition = but then a Pentecostalist will come along and say, no, no, the Spirit is about experience not tradition, direct revelation from God in our lives, not just reading the words of dead preachers... anyway, it might be wrong, but it isn't explicitly modalist.

(***) If someone said that they were names for uncreated attributes or characteristics of God, or even uncreated energies of God, then they might be wrong (and they'd better hope there are no argumentative Greeks in the congregation) but they still wouldn't be being explicitly modalist.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:

quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No wonder Anglicans have such trouble pointing the finger. We believe in all three (Scripture, Tradition and Experience/Reason).

What, every one of us? I believe in reason. You can't logically believe in all three. One has to be supreme.
"Reason" is a red herring here. Its just a word that means thinking that isn't broken. Its not a source of information. You read Scripture with your reason, you hear the teaching sof your church with your reason, you interpret your own experience with your reason.

You do, I'm glad to see, and so do I, but many people think reason is a dirty word. I don't see why it's a red herring. It's my primary authority. If something in the Bible, or some tradition or church doctrine, is illogical, out it goes.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
You do, I'm glad to see, and so do I, but many people think reason is a dirty word. I don't see why it's a red herring. It's my primary authority. If something in the Bible, or some tradition or church doctrine, is illogical, out it goes.

So long as you keep Jesus Christ around to put the crown on the conclusions of your powers of reason, that's Christian, eh?

Posted by Fr Weber (# 13472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
If something in the Bible, or some tradition or church doctrine, is illogical, out it goes.

Could you give examples of things you consider illogical?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
... many people think reason is a dirty word. I don't see why it's a red herring. It's my primary authority.

But reason, like fire, needs something to work on. Reason can't be a source of information or knowledge or doctrine or authority. Fire needs something to burn and reason needs something to think about.

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
You do, I'm glad to see, and so do I, but many people think reason is a dirty word. I don't see why it's a red herring. It's my primary authority. If something in the Bible, or some tradition or church doctrine, is illogical, out it goes.
So long as you keep Jesus Christ around to put the crown on the conclusions of your powers of reason, that's Christian, eh?

If that's meant to be sarcastic, I could make a similar sarcastic jibe at Biblical literalists and traditionalists.

Posted by Zach82 (# 3208) on :

quote:
If that's meant to be sarcastic, I could make a similar sarcastic jibe at Biblical literalists and traditionalists.

Go right ahead.

Posted by the long ranger (# 17109) on :

Reason should be the day-to-day way to make moral decisions but should not exclude the possibility of the divine/prophetic ethic breaking into the story.

Sorry, should have said that it my understanding based on thinking about Kierkegaard.

[ 25. May 2012, 18:16: Message edited by: the long ranger ]

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But reason, like fire, needs something to work on.

Nicely put.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Zach82:

quote:
If that's meant to be sarcastic, I could make a similar sarcastic jibe at Biblical literalists and traditionalists.
Go right ahead.

I'd prefer to have a proper debate. Sarcasm is for hell, I'd've thought.

Posted by tclune (# 7959) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Steve H:
I'd prefer to have a proper debate. Sarcasm is for hell, I'd've thought.

Then go ahead and debate instead of whinge.

--Tom Clune

Posted by Steve H (# 17102) on :

Whingeing.

OK, I can see that reason, as such, is contentless, and needs something to work on, so it's not on a par with either the Bible or tradition, but unless you just accept everything in either the Bible or tradition absolutely uncritically, you use your reason to decide what makes sense and what doesn't, in which case your ultimate authority in matters of faith is reason (well, your penultimate authority, really, the ultimate authority being God, but the question is precisely how God talks to us). Even if you argue for an uncritical acceptance of either the Bible or tradition, you are making reason your (pen)ultimate authority, because if the Bible or tradition needs to be justified by reason, then it is subservient to reason.
Whatever you accept as your [pen]ultimate authority has to be accepted arbitrarily, because if you use it to justify it, e.g. if I use reson to justify making reason my authority, I am making a rather obvious circular argument; and if I justify it by means of something else - for example, if I justify using reason by saying that church tradition tells me to - then I am really making the other thing my authority.

[ 25. May 2012, 21:26: Message edited by: Steve H ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But reason, like fire, needs something to work on. Reason can't be a source of information or knowledge or doctrine or authority. Fire needs something to burn and reason needs something to think about.

Excellent point and the reason I still enjoy hearing sermons.

I have lost pretty much all the 'faith' I ever had in the Bible. But listening to, or reading sermons still helps me to navigate through life.

As far as the OP goes - I am a modalist. I believe that father, son and holy spirit are all 'faces' of the one 'God'. I also believe that there are many, many more.

God works in and through creation - so s/he is bound to have many modes of communication. As many as there are ways to live and love.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0