|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Modalism
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
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
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
No wonder Anglicans have such trouble pointing the finger. We believe in all three (Scripture, Tradition and Experience/Reason).
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
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.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Experience was added as a source of truth by Wesley in the famous Wesleyan Quadrilateral.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Zach82
Shipmate
# 3208
|
Posted
quote:
If that's meant to be sarcastic, I could make a similar sarcastic jibe at Biblical literalists and traditionalists.
Go right ahead.
Posts: 9148 | From: Boston, MA | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
the long ranger
Shipmate
# 17109
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
"..into the outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth,” “But Rabbi, how can this happen for those who have no teeth?”
"..If some have no teeth, then teeth will be provided.”
Posts: 1310 | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
But reason, like fire, needs something to work on.
Nicely put.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
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
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve H
Shipmate
# 17102
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Hold to Christ, and for the rest, be totally uncommitted.
Herbert Butterfield.
Posts: 439 | From: Hemel Hempstead, Herts | Registered: May 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
