|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Trinitarianism
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Why do I get an email form rather than a link to a thread?
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Good question.
Well, if one agrees with Newman, 'Firmly I believe and truly, God is Three and God is One' then God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
It was a bit trite and sentimental, but I reckon the old-style Pentecostals back in my home town in South Wales were onto something when they used to sing:
'Thank you God for sending Jesus
Thank you Jesus that you came,
Holy Spirit won't you tell me,
More about that lovely Name?'
You can certainly apply Trinitarian doctrine in a soteriological sense - the Reformed tradition does that a lot. God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit forming the plan of salvation in some secret and eternal conclave ...
Apart from anything else, there's a great richness in Trinitarian theology and spirituality - although the two really go together of course and shouldn't be separated out.
For a start, the Son our Saviour is not just man but God - the God-Man - fully God and fully man. Consequently he is able to 'save to the uttermost' all who come to him.
And the Holy Spirit of Truth, the Comforter, the One who draws alongside us to help us in our weakness, who indwells us, who takes of the things of Christ and makes them more real to us and 'applies' them to us, as it were - He is not some kind of vague faith-force or impersonal influence but Himself Very God of Very God just as the Father and the Son are God.
The whole thing is pretty mind-blowing, of course, and beyond all imperfect analogies and frameworks.
Consequently, it's fiendishly difficult to explain and to state exactly why it's so important in any way that doesn't sound all sound-bitey and inadequate.
But I couldn't really imagine being Unitarian or non-Trinitarian. Not that I'd be nasty to anyone who was. But I dunno ... the alternatives don't seem so 'three-dimensional' somehow, if that makes any sense. There's a warmth about the Trinity as well as a great Mystery.
'God is in Himself a sweet society,' as John Wesley put it.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Why do I get an email form rather than a link to a thread?
Probably because I f*cked up!
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
This may work better?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I suppose my problem with this is: why must it be a trinity?
That God is essentially a community (in the beginning was the conversation?) is easy for me to accept. But... why (if it has to be more than one) must it be limited to three?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
A question full of awesomeness.
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I suppose my problem with this is: why must it be a trinity?
That God is essentially a community (in the beginning was the conversation?) is easy for me to accept. But... why (if it has to be more than one) must it be limited to three?
Because Jesus limited to three when he revealed the name of God as "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in his commission to the disciples after the Resurrection.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
So the entire thing is dependent on Matthew 28:19?
It's a bit weak isn't it?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
The truth?
The fullest revelation of God?
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
So the entire thing is dependent on Matthew 28:19?
It's a bit weak isn't it?
Well, if you accept that the risen Lord is God, then when he says something, we have to at least pay attention.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
Yeah... but it's reported speech and he said a hell of a lot more than that.
Is it really worth getting hung up on it?
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
If Jesus is incarnate God; if the Holy Spirit is also God, then there is no question of there being a Trinity. The absence of another divine person in Scripture suggests heavily that there are only 3 persons in the Godhead.
If you would like there to be 4 or more, it might be helpful if you might suggest his/her identity and purpose within the divine plan.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Yeah... but it's reported speech and he said a hell of a lot more than that.
Is it really worth getting hung up on it?
Well, you have the witness of St John which declares the Son as God (John 1), and mentions the Holy Spirit as the other Advocate (John 14:26), the witness of St Paul (2 Corinthians 13:13), plus the Church Fathers, plus the ecumenical councils which upheld the teaching as authoritative, plus the historic consensus of church theologians from the Patristic and medieval ages, plus the fact that both Protestants and Catholics, while bitterly battling each other over soteriology, accepted the Trinity as doctrine...plus countless other saints who saw this teaching as important.
I consider this historic testimony as impressive in upholding Trinitarian belief as core Christian doctrine.
[ 02. November 2012, 23:31: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.
Later, as I became more conventionally Anglican in my faith, I struggled with the notion of a trinity. 'Three in one' sounded like sleight of hand to me, an eliding of logical nonsense.
Now I feel differently. We know now that the human mind is not a simple unity, consciousness is divided. So what's so incomprehensible about a divided god? 3 in 1 perhaps, though if it's 2 or 4, I'm not worried.
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ruudy
Shipmate
# 3939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.
Later, as I became more conventionally Anglican in my faith.
If you don't mind my asking, what kind of congregation or tradition were you raised in that held these beliefs? Or were these the beliefs of your household?
--------------------
The shipmate formerly known as Goar.
Posts: 1360 | From: Gatorland | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
God's very nature is Trinitarian and so one would necessarily be 'missing out' if one didn't believe and engage with that.
I suppose my problem with this is: why must it be a trinity?
That God is essentially a community (in the beginning was the conversation?) is easy for me to accept. But... why (if it has to be more than one) must it be limited to three?
Because in the story of salvation history (the bible) only three were revealed.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.
The Holy Spirit has been missing in the western theological tradition for a while.
It was only "rediscovered" by many theologians about the middle of the 20th century.
Pentecostals have taken off and run with it.
[ 03. November 2012, 04:42: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Jesus is incarnate God; if the Holy Spirit is also God, then there is no question of there being a Trinity. The absence of another divine person in Scripture suggests heavily that there are only 3 persons in the Godhead.
If you would like there to be 4 or more, it might be helpful if you might suggest his/her identity and purpose within the divine plan.
Holy Sophia (Wisdom)? ![[Biased]](wink.gif) Personally, I could use some Wisdom whispering in my ear. But, no, I don't actually consider Sophia the Fourth Member of the Godhead.
Sometimes I've seen images of her as a symbolic guise of Christ, which I kind of like. And I've also heard her referred to as an emanation of the grace of God. This illumination from Hildegard of Bingen's visions is evocative. And so is this contemporary image painted by Betsy Porter. Note the seven pointed crown (seven rays, a symbol of the Spirit), but that the halo is not the one worn by members of the Trinity in iconography.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
Wisdom (as conveyed in the Old Testament) is the second person of the trinity: the logos ( as conveyed in the New Testament).
[edited to include:
I think. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) ]
[ 03. November 2012, 05:33: Message edited by: Evensong ]
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
[Oh, andreas1984 (Andrew, El Greco) would that you were an active Shipmate at this hour!]
Historical Christianity has been confirmed as essentially Trinitarian since the 4th/5th Century Councils settled the issue out of controversy. Which is why the historical beliefs of Orthodox, Catholics and Protestants concur on this. (There are some differences over detailed interpretation of the meaning of the Trinity).
Which doesn't mean that all self-identifying Christians are trinitarian, or have a very good grasp of the meaning of the doctrine. Its detailed interpretation was essentially a defence against what was regarded as a departure from the the "handed down" witness of the Apostles.
Because the study of early church history is often regarded as "dry as dust", then the controversies surrounding the doctrine and the reason for its wording are often very little understood. Personally, I think that is a pity.
I think the OP is asking about its current value. If one accepts the doctrine as revealed truth (as I do, and I'm a nonconformist protestant), what difference does that acceptance make in practice.
Well, I think the truth sets you free! I think there was considerable wisdom (as well as a good deal of politicking) in the work of the ecumenical councils on this matter. In general, I think the doctrine continues to act as a defensive guard against errors in belief and behaviour and a real positive help in worship and prayer.
I'm going on shore leave today so I don't have time to unpack that statement. When I get back, I'll have a go if the thread is still live.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Garasu
Shipmate
# 17152
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
If Jesus is incarnate God; if the Holy Spirit is also God, then there is no question of there being a Trinity. The absence of another divine person in Scripture suggests heavily that there are only 3 persons in the Godhead.
So do you believe in the trinity or not? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
quote:
If you would like there to be 4 or more, it might be helpful if you might suggest his/her identity and purpose within the divine plan.
I don't particularly care, since it doesn't seem to make any real difference. If I did, I could work my way through the
Sephirot...
I still don't get what I'm missing... The original claim that sparked this off wasn't anything about having to accept the imparted tradition just because; or even trusting the word of Jesus or the Bible. It was the claim that the trinitarian had more of something than the non-trinitarian...
quote:
Foster: I'm still a bit hazy on the trinity.
Headmaster: Three in one and one in three, perfectly straightforward; any doubts about that, see your maths master.
--------------------
"Could I believe in the doctrine without believing in the deity?". - Modesitt, L. E., Jr., 1943- Imager.
Posts: 889 | From: Surrey Heath (England) | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Of course I believe in the trinity.
What you would be missing, self-evidently, if there was no Trinity, is the divinity of Jesus.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Wisdom (as conveyed in the Old Testament) is the second person of the trinity: the logos ( as conveyed in the New Testament).
[edited to include:
I think. ]
I can live with that. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
And Mudfrog, now I'm waiting for Freddy of the New Church to appear. I was struck when he said IIRC that Jesus Christ was the only God.
Frpm the New Church site: quote:
God is one: Traditional Christianity says that God is one, yet insists that there are three distinct Divine persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When you have three persons who are all knowing, all powerful, and all present it makes three Gods. New Christianity says that God is one (Mark 12:32, Isaiah 44:6, Zecheriah 14:9). The one God of all, out of love and concern for the human race and the state of humanity at that time, took on a physical human conceived of the Divine and born of the virgin Mary. Within the human of Jesus was the Divine itself. Throughout His lifetime Jesus gradually got rid of what was merely human and took on more and more of the Divine within Him until He made His human completely Divine. This means, God is one, within whom is the Divine Trinity, and He is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18). Just as we all have a soul, a body and the actions of our life (and are one person) so it is with God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are names given for the soul, body and activity of the one God. One God, one divine person.
In other words a modal Trinity.
Who was minding the store -ie the rest of the universe(s)- while was He was Incarnate? To me that is just as confusing a concept as the one saying that God is One in Three persons, which I don't totally grasp but believe. No wonder Mohammed cut that particular Gordian knot and declared that "there is only One God and his name is Allah". And that Jesus was a prophet (but not as good as Mohammed). Much simpler.
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
I still don't get what I'm missing...
A completely fair statement and very good question!
God is Trinity. So what? What does that tell us about God and about us?
Two main issues arise:
1) The incarnation. God becomes man. What are the implications of this for us?
It effects quite a few things. The most popular one at the time was sotierology. If Jesus was not God then man would not be saved.
This is based on atonement by Athanasius - the main proponent of the trinity in its initial stages of construction.
2) If God is three "persons" then God is in relationship. Augustine was the main proponent of the idea that God is defined by relationship. God the father is only God the father in relation to the son. The son is only God the son in relation to the father etcetc.. (this is the western tradition developed by Augustine - the eastern is a bit different) and they are completely equal.
So if God is in relationship, what does that say about our relationships?
That kind of thing......
So that's the longish answer.
The short answer is:
1) It affects how God "saves" us.
2) It affects how God relates to us in the world.
The main thing it tells us is that God is both active in the world and present in the world.
God is not a million light years away in heaven.
Oh, and also that God gives a shit.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I agree with Mudfrog. One of the key things that would 'go' if one didn't have a Trinitarian understanding of the Godhead is the divinity of Christ - as well as the divinity of God the Holy Spirit, of course.
I think Evensong is on the money, in her own idiosyncratic way, by saying it affects our understanding of salvation ('Jesus is God, he can save us') and of God's economy, if you like, His continuing involvement in the world.
That said, I think that Evensong caricatures things to some extent by saying that the Holy Spirit was largely absent in Western theology until the mid-20th century. The Pentecostals were early 20th century, for a kick-off, and weren't particular influenced by developments in academic theology - but arguably only reacted to them in a similar way to the way that non-Pentecostal fundamentalists reacted to liberal theology. But that's another issue.
I've often heard the Orthodox say that the Holy Spirit was downplayed in the West for centuries, with the notorious 'filioque clause' to blame for that. Consequently, in their view, the Western churches descended into a dry Scholasticism ... with occasional 'enthusiastic' movements such as Wesleyanism to bring back some warmth ...
I suspect there is some truth in this, but there is a rich vein of Trinitarian theology in the Reformed tradition too and also in the RC Church no doubt ... although in both it might sometimes end up being expressed in somewhat abstract ways ...
It is a tricky one to pin down, better 'felt than tell't' as it were.
I often say that I'm so Trinitarian that I'm like a stick of rock. You could cut me anyway and find the Nicene formularies running through the very fibre of my being.
But when I'm asked to explain or articulate why, I find it quite difficult.
I can certainly understand why it wouldn't make any sense at all to a Muslim or to someone from Freddy's 'New Church' or to a non-Trinitarian Quaker. But then, I'm not that 'modalism' fits the available scriptural and traditional evidence either. You've also got those intriguing verses in Acts where the disciples appear to be able to differentiate when it is the Father, the Son or the Holy Spirit who is 'speaking' or communing with them ... I'm not sure how far to take some of that but it is interesting that the author of Luke/Acts does draw/hint at some of these concepts in embryonic form, rather than simply saying 'God' and leaving it at that.
I could cite chapter and verse if you're interested.
I am happy to accept Trinitarian formularies as revealed truth. That doesn't mean that I don't believe that aspects of truth and other truths aren't to be found elsewhere. But in terms of how I 'relate' to God in prayer and so on, I adopt a Trinitarian model - for want of a better word. I address God the Father as God, God the Son as God and God the Holy Spirit as God.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I was brought up with the belief that "There is one God, in whom is the divine trinity"
That'll do me. First and foremost there is one God. Jesus was human, full to overflowing with the Divine (The Holy Spirit, the Spirit of God)
(Modalism, I know, but - as I said - it'll do for me)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Garasu:
Sioni Sais said in another context that the "rejection of Trinitarianism is regrettable ... they miss out on a lot..."
I'm just wondering what it is that one misses out on by rejecting trinitarianism?
Being a Christian.
--------------------
"Even if Catholics faithful to Tradition are reduced to a handful, they are the ones who are the true Church of Jesus Christ." - Athanasius of Alexandria
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
It might 'do' for you, Boogie, but it wouldn't do for the delegates at the Council of Nicea.
Since when has 'it'll do for me' been the yardstick for determining Christian doctrine?
(Ducks as the brick-bats come in ...)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I'm not trying to determine Christian doctrine Gamaliel. I'm just trying to explain why I don't feel I'm missing out by rejecting traditional trinitarianism.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lyda*Rose
Ship's broken porthole
# 4544
|
Posted
I think the "me" in "it will do for me" is a get-out-of-jail-free card as far as official Christian doctrine goes. Now if she were a teacher of doctrine...but she's just a happy artist.
ETA: Obviously she can speak for herself.
[ 03. November 2012, 16:18: Message edited by: Lyda*Rose ]
--------------------
"Dear God, whose name I do not know - thank you for my life. I forgot how BIG... thank you. Thank you for my life." ~from Joe Vs the Volcano
Posts: 21377 | From: CA | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
It might 'do' for you, Boogie, but it wouldn't do for the delegates at the Council of Nicea.
Since when has 'it'll do for me' been the yardstick for determining Christian doctrine?
(Ducks as the brick-bats come in ...)
Well, there are people who say that they disbelieve in much of Christianity, but still go to church every Sunday. I might question their cognitive dissonance, but it's their prerogative to attend or not.
It's when people start demanding that the Church be changed to suit their views (dropping the Creeds, denying the deity of Christ and the Incarnation), that I start to protest.
Frankly I don't know if it is all that healthy to cross one's fingers every time one recites the Creeds in church.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ok, fair do's, Boogie, but you were framing it in theological terms rather than saying it was simply your particular position, ie. as if it were an inherited body of doctrine, 'There is one God in whom there is the divine Trinity'.
See the difference?
No?
Oh, I'll shut up then ...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
You added a word, Gamaliel.
I was brought up in the New Church (Freddy's denomination) and this is their declared faith.
"There is one God in whom is the divine trinity, and he is the Lord God and saviour Jesus Christ"
I then became pretty much an atheist/agnostic from age 18 to 30. Then had a sudden conversion and joined the Methodist Church - quickly becoming a con/evo/charismatic.
Since then I have calmed down into a mish mash of liberal/unitarian/modalist/univeraslist kind of a Christian.
I still pray in tongues, which is pretty much all that's left of my charismatic days.
I still attend my (pretty evangelical) Methodist Church as I love the people there - they are very much my second family. We have a new minister and I explained that I no longer lead worship due to my shift in beliefs. She was more understanding, she was great.
(I'm now techy person doing the full AV job - and I love it!)
Sorry if this was a big tangent, Garasu ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
[ 03. November 2012, 16:42: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Boogie admits to a 'modalist' stance and is jumped on from a great height.
Pity. Because a modified modalism has been the hallmark of many a theologian past and present. Including one whose text book on theology was 'standard' for many a year in Anglican circles.
And I. for one, am happier with a modified modalism than I am with an implicit Tritheism which all the mental contortions of Nicea and Chalcedon cant avoid.
But then I am not much persuaded by formulations in terms of Greek concepts.
[ 03. November 2012, 17:38: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But, shawari, while agreeing that people shouldn't get "jumped on" if that means bullied, the thread is about trinitarianism, and modalism, in spite of its long and illustrious history, isn't trinitarianism.
[ 03. November 2012, 17:41: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But, shawari, while agreeing that people shouldn't get "jumped on" if that means bullied, the thread is about trinitarianism, and modalism, in spite of its long and illustrious history, isn't trinitarianism.
The thread is about rejecting trinitarianism. So, surely, alternatives to it can be discussed?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I didn't jump on Boogie from a great height, Shamwari. Besides, she's big enough to tell me to get lost herself if she found my comments at all great heightful.
I was merely trying to establish where she was coming from ... which I s'pose I pretty much knew anyway, although I hadn't known that she was brought up a Swedenborgian.
At one time I might have had a go at her for hanging onto the 'tongues' thing whilst not being a fully-orbed Trinitarian - but I wouldn't do so these days, partly because I think the whole 'tongues' thing is neutral and doesn't necessarily have a great deal to do with Trinitarian faith anyway - hence you find Sufists and animists and all sorts of people who can apparently 'speak in tongues.'
I'd also suggest that you probably don't even need faith to do it in the first place as it is, by a large, a form of learned behaviour or at least something that tends to rub-off on people when they knock around in places that go in for that sort of thing.
But that's another issue ...
I can see why you might object to aspects of Trinitarianism and what to ease things towards a more modalist model, Shamwari, but I'm not sure I'd want to follow you in that direction. If that makes me all great height-ish then so be it.
Just because I don't agree with Boogie on this particular issue doesn't mean that I'm 'against' her or don't value her contributions here aboard Ship. On the contrary, I tend to enjoy reading her posts.
In a similar way, I enjoy reading Freddy's posts and W H Hyatt's posts. I don't disrespect them because they are not Trinitarians.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Boogie:
I was brought up in the New Church (Freddy's denomination) and this is their declared faith.
"There is one God in whom is the divine trinity, and he is the Lord God and saviour Jesus Christ"
Well this is interesting...
You claim to be a Modalist but really aren't. Your particular heresy is closer to Arianism but isn't (has a technical name but I'd have to look it up). Freddy, who believes what you just quoted, is a Modalist but claims he isn't a Modalist. In fact, what Swedenborgians believes, sounds close enough to Modalism that coining a different term isn't necessary. In any event, Freddy admits what the New Church teaches isn't orthodox Christianity.
On the other hand, Freddy is more orthodox than many mainline Protestant pastors I know. We might as well work on a full communion agreement with The New Church. Don't let that go to your head, Freddy. Rastafarians are also more orthodox than many mainline pastors I know.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Let's get down to details.
The Hebraic view of God is that, amongst other things he/she is everywhere present, all powerful and all knowing. The OT is full to overflowing with evidence of this.
Jesus was not any of these things.
So to say Jesus = God is stretching things.
Jesus once defined God. " God is Spirit" he said.
If a human being is full of the Spirit ( as Luke said of Jesus at the beginning of His ministry) then why shouldn't he be described as Divine?
P.T. Forsyth who advocated a kenotic Christology argued that some of the attributes of God are retracted into potentiality in Jesus. This doesn't make Him less than Divine . For divinity consists not in omnipotence or omni-presence or omniscience but in Holy Love and Jesus embodied that. Or Holy Love was incarnate in Him.
McQuarrie spoke of God as Being; Jesus as Expressive Being and the Holy Spirit as Unitary Being. Just because this does not conform to the Chalcedon categories of 'substance' and the Latin categories of 'persona' or the like does not disqualify it as being heretical and non-Trinitarian.
There is room for elaboration here but it does not advance understanding to rule out of order anything which is not Chalcedonian Greek in conceptual terms.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
Let's ask Paul then - "Jesus who, being in very nature [permanent and real essence and form] God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped (i.e. possessively, to himself), but made himself nothing, taking the very nature [temporary though real, essence and form] of a servant, being made in human likeness.
Jesus was not merely a man filled with the Spirit of God, he was the very essence of God in human form.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
balaam
Making an ass of myself
# 4543
|
Posted
I agree with what I understood in that, shamwari. Not sure about the rest. Could you simplify?
--------------------
Last ever sig ...
blog
Posts: 9049 | From: Hen Ogledd | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Mudfrog
A little basic research on the Philippians 2 passage which you quote will indicate that an alternative view is equally ( and much more likely)
The template which the early hymn uses ( and supported by Paul in quoting it) might well be that of Adam and the Garden of Eden story rather than a pre=existent Divine Redeemer coming down from heaven.
Do your homework before you launch into Papal infallibility from a Sally Ann perspective.
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
And Mudfrog, now I'm waiting for Freddy of the New Church to appear. I was struck when he said IIRC that Jesus Christ was the only God.
Frpm the New Church site: quote:
God is one: Traditional Christianity says that God is one, yet insists that there are three distinct Divine persons of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. When you have three persons who are all knowing, all powerful, and all present it makes three Gods. New Christianity says that God is one (Mark 12:32, Isaiah 44:6, Zecheriah 14:9). The one God of all, out of love and concern for the human race and the state of humanity at that time, took on a physical human conceived of the Divine and born of the virgin Mary. Within the human of Jesus was the Divine itself. Throughout His lifetime Jesus gradually got rid of what was merely human and took on more and more of the Divine within Him until He made His human completely Divine. This means, God is one, within whom is the Divine Trinity, and He is the Lord God the Savior Jesus Christ (Matthew 28:18). Just as we all have a soul, a body and the actions of our life (and are one person) so it is with God. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are names given for the soul, body and activity of the one God. One God, one divine person.
In other words a modal Trinity.
Who was minding the store -ie the rest of the universe(s)- while was He was Incarnate? To me that is just as confusing a concept as the one saying that God is One in Three persons, which I don't totally grasp but believe. No wonder Mohammed cut that particular Gordian knot and declared that "there is only One God and his name is Allah". And that Jesus was a prophet (but not as good as Mohammed). Much simpler.
I don't mind my beliefs being labeled as heresy, but I do prefer that they be labeled accurately. New Church (aka Swedenborgian) beliefs about the Trinity are definitely not modalist. Insisting that they sound modalist or deciding that they lead to a question of who was minding the store just make it clear that these beliefs are being misunderstood.
It's true that some of the words that can be used to help describe New Church beliefs about the Trinity can also be used to help describe Modalism, but I can assure you that Swedenborg presents a doctrine that is very different from all the other doctrines that mainstream Christianity has labeled as heresy (as far as I've been able to determine).
In fact, I've done a fair amount of research to find the best-fitting labels for what we believe, and I've identified two that come the closest: Monothelitism and Miaphysitism. What we believe about Jesus from his birth to his resurrection can be somewhat accurately described as Monothelitism (the belief that Christ was 2 natures in 1 person except that he only had a divine will and no human will) while what we believe about him after his resurrection is more accurately described as Miaphysitism (in the one person of Jesus Christ, Divinity and Humanity are united in one or single nature ("physis"), the two being united without separation, without confusion, and without alteration). However, the primary thing about our view of the Trinity that differs from mainstream Christianity and from almost all other heresies is that while both of these labels normally apply to ideas about God the Son, with our beliefs, they would apply to God as a single person.
So if you want a short label to use for our beliefs about the Trinity, my suggestion would be temporal unitarian (with a lower case "u") Monothelitism leading to unitarian Miaphysitism. Even then, it wouldn't be entirely accurate, but it would be close enough to satisfy me.
And to your earlier point, Mudfrog:
quote:
What you would be missing, self-evidently, if there was no Trinity, is the divinity of Jesus.
we hold the divinity of Jesus Christ to be the core of our religion.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by shamwari:
Mudfrog
A little basic research on the Philippians 2 passage which you quote will indicate that an alternative view is equally ( and much more likely)
The template which the early hymn uses ( and supported by Paul in quoting it) might well be that of Adam and the Garden of Eden story rather than a pre=existent Divine Redeemer coming down from heaven.
Do your homework before you launch into Papal infallibility from a Sally Ann perspective.
Nowhere have I read that rather strange interpretation.
And as for Papal infallibility! I have never mentioned it, what are you on about??
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
shamwari
Shipmate
# 15556
|
Posted
Not a strange interpretation Mudfrog.
It all depends on the meaning of the verb in v 6
It can mean "retained" ( which is the meaning you give)
Or it can mean "grasped / snatched at" which is the "strange interpretation" you attribute to me.
If the latter then consider the Garden of Eden story.
Did not "Adam" grasp at the opportunity of being God-like?
Was he not disobedient at sntaching at the chance?
Did not Christ reject that? in the Philippians 2 meaning of the v 6 verb?
was not Jesus obedient ( Phil 2) even unto death?
so we have here Jesus reversing Adam
And did not Paul often speak of Jesus as a 2nd Adam reversing the first Adam's sin and its consequences?
As by one man came death so by one man came life?
as in adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive?
as by one man's disobedience came death so by one man's obedience came life?
a little more involvement in the scriptures would indicate that this is no mere "strange" interpretation.
do a bit of biblical research for yourself.
[ 03. November 2012, 21:34: Message edited by: shamwari ]
Posts: 1914 | From: from the abyss of misunderstanding | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I think Shamwari has been flitting between this thread and the one on Papal Infallibility and has consequently got his wires crossed ...
Nevertheless, I'm learning a lot on this thread.
I would accept that the full Chalcedonian formularies were a development from what was current at the time of Paul and the disciples - but they were based on scripture and tradition. We can't prove one way or the other that the apostle Paul would have signed up to them himself ... but (and perhaps it's my Trinitarian bias) I can't see that the NT simply indicates that Jesus was simply a man who happened to be particularly 'full' of the Holy Spirit - the Incarnation surely represents a lot more than that.
I don't see Mudfrog as representing a purely Salvation Army perspective here, what he is articulating is common to creedal Christianity across all Churches and denominations.
I'm with Beeswax Altar on this one. The Swedenborgians are up front about how their views differ from that of 'mainstream', creedal Christianity.
I might be naive and I might be simplistic, but what Shamwari seems to be suggesting is something that uses the same language but means something entirely different ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I cross-posted with Shamwari ...
Sure, I can see that this interpretation holds water, but it isn't the only 'witness' on the matter, as it were.
Call us naive, but in the circles I was involved in for many years we always asserted that Jesus (unlike the first Adam) did not see Godhead as a thing to be grasped as he already possessed it ... but I can see that this interpretation also begs a few questions.
How, Shamwari, would you deal with Thomas's 'My Lord and my God?' comment in John's Gospel?
I don't want to get into bald proof-texting but there are plenty of NT references that can be used to assert the divinity of Christ.
How do you read those, Shamwari?
Is it your instinct or inclination to elide them or to suggest that the Church later put too much weight on them and read more into them than was intended by the original authors?
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bean Sidhe
Shipmate
# 11823
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ruudy:
quote:
Originally posted by Bean Sidhe:
I was raised as a non-trinitarian. Jesus, I was taught, was God come to earth, he left Elijah minding the shop. No Holy Spirit entered the picture in my upbringing.
Later, as I became more conventionally Anglican in my faith.
If you don't mind my asking, what kind of congregation or tradition were you raised in that held these beliefs? Or were these the beliefs of your household?
My family were the last remnants of a 16th century religious sect. I fell out with them as a child because they were geocentrists who insisted that heaven was at most 15 miles up, while I knew that rockets were flying to the moon and taking as long as you'd expect to get there! Discussion was subsequently impossible, so I can't say any more about their beliefs than I already have. Eventually I discovered the CofE :-)
--------------------
How do you know when a politician is lying?
His lips are moving.
Danny DeVito
Posts: 4363 | From: where the taxis won't go | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
