Thread: "Jesus is Lord"--Modalism Revisited? 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=024185
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
No, I am not suggesting that declaring that Jesus is Lord is a modalist position. I am wondering that, as a slogan (nota bene--as a slogan) it is indicative of modalist or even oneness doctrines? I had understood the passage in Romans 10:9 to confirm (reinforce) the deity of Jesus--in our understanding, to confirm his place in the Trinity.
Does this make any sense?
K.
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I think you are over-analysing a rather vapid slogan.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What, made vapid by Paul? And displacing Caesar is vapid?
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on
:
I mean that as a "slogan" I think it's vapid theology; not that Paul's assertion in context is vapid.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
No, I am not suggesting that declaring that Jesus is Lord is a modalist position. I am wondering that, as a slogan (nota bene--as a slogan) it is indicative of modalist or even oneness doctrines? I had understood the passage in Romans 10:9 to confirm (reinforce) the deity of Jesus--in our understanding, to confirm his place in the Trinity.
Does this make any sense?
K.
"Jesus is Lord', which like any bit of Scripture can be parroted thoughtlessly and shallowly is, of course, not in itself modalistic.
The ancient heresy of Modalism, or Modalistic Monarchianism, refers to a form of unitarianism which sees the Father as God, and the Son and Spirit as modes, hence its other name, Patripassianism.
Jesus Only, or Christological Unitarianism, is a much more recent phenomenon, which is associated with some forms of American Pentecostalism.
I know of a large church founded by American Pentecostalists which uses the baptismal formula: “I baptize you in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, even the Lord Jesus Christ”.
[ 26. November 2012, 20:44: Message edited by: Kaplan Corday ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Indeed Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras.
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
As I understand Modalism, the heresy is that God is only one thing at a time - so when he became the Son he was no longer the father, and when she became the Spirit he was no longer the Son.
The idea that God is one, and is experienced as Father, Son and Spirit is a sort of halfway house between full on Modalism and Trinitarian theology that God is Father, Son and Spirit in one God. I have to admit I have some sympathy for that middle position.
But the statement Jesus is Lord fits into all three positions, it isn't specific to Modalism.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
We had a decent modalism thread a while back--I learned a lot on that one. I guess what I'm getting at is that some churches have that phrase on the front of their churches or displayed where most churches might have a cross. It strikes me that the phrase is taken out of context and that declaring that 'Jesus is Lord' is only part of it, not all of it. So it seems strange to me for this fragment of a verse to become a dictum for an entire congregation. Balaam certainly spotted the similarity with Oneness Pentecostals (or 'Jesus only' churches) that you tend to find Stateside, but I've seen this slogan a lot here in the UK--even at C of E churches. It suggests to me a slack and rather lazy approach to understanding the Trinity and more likely, a way to avoid the latter altogether.
K.
Posted by Chief of sinners (# 8794) on
:
Interestingly on Trinity Sunday Roots the magazine to help Methodist lay preachers prepare sermons gave this illustration:-
I am a father to my children, a son to my parents a husband to my wife. In different circumstance I am three persons but I am one.
Anyone spot the problem?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I've taken flak on these boards for saying this, Komensky, but it is long been my contention that, to all practical intents and purposes, popular evangelicalism - particularly in its charismatic form - is becoming lazy in its catechesis and can be inclined towards Modalism.
That's not the intention of the slogan you've quoted and if you pointed it out to most charismatic evangelical church leaders they'd be horrified at what they'd see as calumny.
Nevertheless, Sydney-style Anglicanism does appear to be moving towards a Subordinationist position and whilst I've not encountered that among conservative evangelicals here in the UK, I would suggest that it is prevalent among many ill-taught charismatic evangelicals. It's certainly something I've heard from time to time among new converts and recent Alpha participants at my local evangelical/wannabe charismatic Anglican parish.
That said, I'm not overly convinced that more sacramental Christians are that well catechised in these issues either. I attended one day of the Antiochian Orthodox Deanery conference last year and the Dean - well known to many posters here as a one-time regular contributor - upbraided someone for referring to God the Holy Spirit as 'it' rather than 'he'.
Ok ... ok ... I know the likes of Shamwari and others would object that the scriptures don't indicate a personal pronoun necessarily ... but you get my point.
I've also come across plenty of nominal or fringe RCs who don't appear to have the first idea about these things either - as well as Anglicans and others.
Sure, I'm not saying that everyone ought to be a walking compendium of Nicene and Chalcedonian formularies but I do think there's a certain laxness all round.
I s'pose I object to it whereever its found but I have less of an issue with it in liberal settings where they've adopted a quasi-unitarian approach out of conviction than I do in conservative settings - whether evangelical or more sacramental - where they're supposed - in theory at least - to sign up for the traditional formularies.
I don't think this is a stick that should be used exclusively to beat evangelical settings that declare 'Jesus is Lord' - but I agree it should be applied to them as they really ought to know better.
I suspect though, that the kind of fine distinction you're making would be lost on many of them - particularly charismatics - he said patronisingly - where it's certainly still generally the case that it's a 'spirituality in search of a theology.'
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
popular evangelicalism - particularly in its charismatic form - is becoming lazy in its catechesis and can be inclined towards Modalism.
Really? What follows would suggest the opposite to me.
quote:
It's certainly something I've heard from time to time among new converts and recent Alpha participants at my local evangelical/wannabe charismatic Anglican parish.
No problem with that.
quote:
I've also come across plenty of nominal or fringe RCs who don't appear to have the first idea about these things either - as well as Anglicans and others.
No problem with that either.
That new converts and nominal Christians are saying something does not make it a problem. If this is the official line of the leadership, which you allege for Sydney, then it would be a big problem. In my experience of UK evangelicalism that is not happening.
That you're hearing this from new Christians in Evangelical Charismatic churches shows that these churches are doing something right, they are attracting new members. That you are not hearing it from the established members of these churches shows that they are doing something right, they are continuing to teach those who were once the new members. The problem with the churches with a large number of nominal Christians is that they have failed to teach anything beyond the basics.
Perhaps they should learn something from the Evangelicals?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Interestingly on Trinity Sunday Roots the magazine to help Methodist lay preachers prepare sermons gave this illustration:-
I am a father to my children, a son to my parents a husband to my wife. In different circumstance I am three persons but I am one.
Anyone spot the problem?
Yes, it's still only one person? Jesus is not the Father 'in different circumstances.'
[ 27. November 2012, 10:22: Message edited by: Mudfrog ]
Posted by Matt Black (# 2210) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Interestingly on Trinity Sunday Roots the magazine to help Methodist lay preachers prepare sermons gave this illustration:-
I am a father to my children, a son to my parents a husband to my wife. In different circumstance I am three persons but I am one.
Anyone spot the problem?
Oops!
Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on
:
Yes but no but yes but - I have some sympathy. Preaching on the Trinity is not unlike balancing on the Crib Goch - diverge but a little to look at the view and you fall a thousand feet onto rocks.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
balaam - you are missing my point entirely.
I'd agree that everyone else can learn from the evangelicals, but what I'm suggesting is that the evangelicals themselves can squander whatever advantages they have by failing to catechise their people properly.
Don't get me started ...
I've actually heard a discussion group during a church service (you know, how it's trendy to break people up into groups to discuss things) which opined that 'Jesus wasn't God' without the vicar - a card-carrying evangelical/charismatic - attempting to put the record straight.
He wasn't best pleased with me either when I took one of the ring-leaders aside after the service and tried to put them right - albeit clumsily - on basic Trinitarian doctrine.
I only presumed to do so because he'd said knack-all about it.
He said afterwards that he hadn't remonstrated as it might have frightened them off and they might not have come back. He also subsequently warned me to keep away from his precious new converts lest I frighten them away ...
Even though this group DID contain long standing church-goers and people who really ought to have known better. It's pants.
Sure he's getting bums on seats - but that's all he's getting - poorly catechised bums.
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
I'd be all for other people learning from the evangelicals if the evangelicals could blinkin'-well get it right themselves in the first place ...
Posted by the giant cheeseburger (# 10942) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Chief of sinners:
Interestingly on Trinity Sunday Roots the magazine to help Methodist lay preachers prepare sermons gave this illustration:-
I am a father to my children, a son to my parents a husband to my wife. In different circumstance I am three persons but I am one.
Anyone spot the problem?
It implies that Methodist lay preachers should not also be a friend to their mates?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
And another thing balaam ... these lovely new converts and all are still coming out with half-baked or inadequate Trinitarianism a few years down the line ...
I'm not great shakes but very soon after my evangelical conversion I said something that betrayed a level of deficiency about the Trinity - and someone put me straight immediately and I went away and looked it all up so I could get my head into gear on the issue.
That was 30 years ago.
I rather suspect that had I been converted earlier this year I might still be none the wiser ...
You've got me on my hobby-horse now, balaam ...
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Gam, that sounds about right. I also think that you are right that this is 'a problem', but as we can see here, not everyone thinks so. Should you try to mention the absence or misunderstanding of the very basics of the Trinity in some evangelical settings, the response might be hostile (not common at all, in my experience) but more likely you'll get a shrug of the shoulders and something like: "well, it's OK, you know, it's really only Jesus that matters in the end.. this other stuff can be so divisive" -- and so on.
I'm just not clear on why a C of E vicar would have feature the slogan 'Jesus is Lord' in such a way. It's hardly something that keeps me awake, but I think it's indicative of the broader problem of theological meltdown in the evangelical fringes. Thinking back to my years at HTB, for example, I can't remember a single service where Sandy Millar or Nicky G. *didn't* end with the Trinitarian blessing. Our local C of E vicar has *never* done so, never used the Creed, and has never said a single explicitly Trinitarian formulation.
K.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ours does - here it's the liberal catholic parish that goes in for vague formularies such as 'in the name of God our Creator, Redeemer and Friend' and so forth. Nothing wrong with that in and of itself, but if we're supposed to be Creedal then let's bloomin' well act as if we are ...
I don't think our vicar (nor the wider church leadership) are that shaky on the Trinity - at least, not when you press them on it - but I do wonder sometimes whether they see it as some kind of optional and complicated 'extra' that the mere mortals in the pews shouldn't trouble themselves with.
I was shocked and outraged, as I've said on these boards before, when Andrew Walker described the charismatic 'restorationists' as 'nominally Trinitarian.' I had a good mind to track him down and punch him on the nose ...
But then I started listening to the way people prayed and what was said and I could see why he'd formed that opinion.
These days, I'm not sure he was that wide of the mark and instead of punching him on the nose I'd shake him by the hand for pointing out something that all too many evangelicals and charismatics are oblivious to themselves.
Watch out evangelicals and charismatics! The serpent of Socianism is in your midst and spreading its poison and yet you remain blissfully unaware of it. For all your lively choruses and new members you are nursing the seeds of your own downfall ...
Repent ... Repent (dons sackcloth and ashes) ...Woe to thee! Woe unto thee!
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
Dear Jeremaliel ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I don't think it's full blown Socinianism (may well be the seed as you indeed warn, brother)- strikes me that what you (and many others of us) perceive is that unholy cocktail of pragmatism, laziness, lack of historical awareness and anti-intellectualism - some of the besetting sins of Pop Evo-dom (IMHO)!
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Indeed. I don't think all is lost, Twangist, but there is a need for vigilance. The older, historical churches have other problems of course - a different set to the evangelicals ... it ain't that I'm singling them out. If I were in a different tradition I'd be singing a different Jeremiad over different issues ...
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
aye – vigilance, nurture and teaching.
Posted by Basilica (# 16965) on
:
The trouble is that the phrase "Jesus is Lord" had quite different cultural connotations to St Paul in the first century to what it means to us today. St Paul in general was speaking to a religious cultural context.
Paul was essentially saying "You know this God that we have that we call the Lord? Well, Jesus is this God." (Obviously this is a clumsy paraphrase, but it's not too far off the truth.) Paul's audience—and the early Christian community that clearly adopted kyrios Iesous as a credal slogal—generally understood kyrios to have a particular religious meaning, identifying Jesus with the focus of wider Jewish theology and worship.
However, in our own cultural milieu, there is no such particular association with "Lord". It has a variety of meanings in secular culture. To say "Jesus is Lord" invites the response "Lord of what?" Without its Jewish context, I'm not sure this phrase has any useful theological meaning. I very much doubt that it is a useful summary of the Christian gospel today.
Posted by Komensky (# 8675) on
:
Nicely put, Basilica--thanks.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
In the epistles, Jesus Christ is called Lord ("Kyrios" in Greek). In the Old Testament, God is called Lord ("Adonai" in Hebrew) in place of saying the Name of God. Is the Greek attribution of Jesus Christ as Lord a deliberate evocation of the Hebrew attribution of God as Lord?
In the New Testament, is God called Lord other than when speaking of Jesus Christ?
[cross-posted... Basilica has answered my first question.]
[ 27. November 2012, 16:05: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]
Posted by balaam (# 4543) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
You've got me on my hobby-horse now, balaam ...
Your talk of discussion groups instead of a sermon nearly got me onto mine, but that's off topic, and this is not Hell. Another time perhaps.
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
another important aspect of confessing "Jesus as Lord" in NT times is the implied flipside that "Ceasar isn't"
Posted by moonlitdoor (# 11707) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel
I do wonder sometimes whether they see it as some kind of optional and complicated 'extra' that the mere mortals in the pews shouldn't trouble themselves with.
I am sympathetic to clergy if they don't spend much time on it as it seems to me they are onto a bit of a loser with the subject. If their listeners don't get much understanding from the historic phrases, there's not much the clergy can do as any sort of explanation or analogy always turns out to be some heresy or other.
I am one of those for whom the phrase 'one God in three persons' conveys no meaning whatsoever. I don't trouble myself about how properly Trinitarian I am, because I can't compare my beliefs against something I have no understanding of. That seems to me like common sense rather than laziness.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
He wasn't best pleased with me either when I took one of the ring-leaders aside after the service and tried to put them right - albeit clumsily - on basic Trinitarian doctrine.
I'm having trouble understanding why you thought that was the appropriate response on your part. Was the ring-leader you took aside a new convert or one of the people who really ought to have known better?
Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Basilica:
Paul was essentially saying "You know this God that we have that we call the Lord? Well, Jesus is this God."
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist: [QB]another important aspect of confessing "Jesus as Lord" in NT times is the implied flipside that "Ceasar isn't"[QB]
This.
Posted by angelfish (# 8884) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
quote:
originally posted by Gamaliel
I do wonder sometimes whether they see it as some kind of optional and complicated 'extra' that the mere mortals in the pews shouldn't trouble themselves with.
I am sympathetic to clergy if they don't spend much time on it as it seems to me they are onto a bit of a loser with the subject. If their listeners don't get much understanding from the historic phrases, there's not much the clergy can do as any sort of explanation or analogy always turns out to be some heresy or other.
I am one of those for whom the phrase 'one God in three persons' conveys no meaning whatsoever. I don't trouble myself about how properly Trinitarian I am, because I can't compare my beliefs against something I have no understanding of. That seems to me like common sense rather than laziness.
This is precisely what I wanted to say, but couldn't think how to. Every time I think I've got it, I find out I have become a heretic - so I keep my mouth shut, in case someone tries to burn me.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0