|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Male language, male Jesus
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I also don't see why formulas like "creator, redeemer, sustainer" would necessarily be heretical or modalistic (or for that matter, why "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" necessarily implies orthodox Trinitarianism). "Creator, redeemer, sustainer" acurately describes the different roles of the three persons in the Trinitarian model, and can easily be supported from scripture.
The problem is that all three persons are creator, redeemer, and sustainer.
We can easily support the involvement of all three persons in creation from Scripture: See John 1:3 for the Son, and Genesis 1:2 for the Spirit. Redeemer and sustainer is perhaps a bit less amenable to proof-texting, but I haven't checked. (I think it's in Hebrews that it says of the Son that all things hold together in him: i.e. the Second person is also sustainer.) When it comes to Redeemer this is important: a view of the Trinity in which only the Second person redeems hints at a view where the Judgmental First Person has to be appeased by the merciful Second Person. The First Person initiates redemption and the Third Person makes it effective.
You can make a case that as titles, 'Creator', 'Redeemer', and 'Sustainer' can be most appropriately applied to each of the three persons. But if that is taken to imply that they can only appropriately be applied to one of the three persons then there's a problem.
Yes, there is a problem, and we've already correctly identified it: modalism. But again, there's also a problem with Father, Son, Spirit-- because God is not male.
So we have images that fall apart at some point, requiring us to explain how/why all metaphors fall short. I don't see why saying "'Father, Son, Spirit' are good ways to understand God, even though God is not male" is inherently different from saying "'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' are good ways of understanding God, even though all 3 persons of the Trinity are involved in all these actions."
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
This
"Blessed be God: eternal Majesty, incarnate Word, abiding Spirit."
from MW 3053 may be worth thinking about. Not enough time for me now, but shall later.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see why saying "'Father, Son, Spirit' are good ways to understand God, even though God is not male" is inherently different from saying "'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' are good ways of understanding God, even though all 3 persons of the Trinity are involved in all these actions."
Because the first distinguishes persons; the latter distinguishes actions or operations and could equally be true of a monopersonic* God. It does not specify a Trinity.
_____
*or whatever the right term is
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I don't see why saying "'Father, Son, Spirit' are good ways to understand God, even though God is not male" is inherently different from saying "'Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer' are good ways of understanding God, even though all 3 persons of the Trinity are involved in all these actions."
Because the first distinguishes persons; the latter distinguishes actions or operations and could equally be true of a monopersonic* God. It does not specify a Trinity.
_____
*or whatever the right term is
Yes, again, you are correctly identifying the heresy involved. That wasn't my point-- we've agreed it's modalism. Rather, what I'm saying is that when we're using metaphors (as we must) for God they all will fall short, and it's important to note that. The "falling short" part is always a "heresy"-- a misrepresentation of God. So why not deal with the modalism the same way we deal with other misrepresentations-- name it, explain it, and move on? Why is this image disallowed because it falls short, but not others? To me it's only heresy if we allow the metaphor to stand w/o noting where it falls short.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So why not deal with the modalism the same way we deal with other misrepresentations-- name it, explain it, and move on? Why is this image disallowed because it falls short, but not others?
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: three persons. The Trinity. The fact that there are three identifiable persons says something true about God.
Creator / Redeemer / Sustainer: Three of the things that God does. Why are there three in this list? Why not two or four? There isn't a reason, except for the artificial one that you want to write down three names to match the Trinity, which as we have said leads you directly to modalism. Do not pass Go!
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128
|
Posted
While I absolutely agree about the dangers of both modalism and the lack of personality in our "labels" for God, I'm not convinced that there is a complete distinction between them. So, then, to what extent do the "traditional" names refer to the "Father-ly", "Son-like" and "Holy Spirit-ish" actions and aspects of the Divine as much as they do to the Persons themselves?
The previous post seems to so separate the three Persons of the Trinity that they almost appear to end up with Tritheism - which, I'm sure, isn't what they intended!
One thing I am sure about is that the names of the three Persons define their relationship with each other; indeed I understand that some theologians say it is these very relationships, rather than the more static "beings" of the Person, which actually define and describe them.
Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So why not deal with the modalism the same way we deal with other misrepresentations-- name it, explain it, and move on? Why is this image disallowed because it falls short, but not others?
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: three persons. The Trinity. The fact that there are three identifiable persons says something true about God.!
Yes, it does. And it needs to be retained/celebrated for that reason-- as well as the even more significant reason that it is the most prominent biblical image and one that seems important to Jesus, and to the generations of Christians that followed.
And yet, it falls short. It says something true about God, but it also says something not true-- it suggests that God is male, or exclusively male. That's unavoidable-- it's a metaphor, and metaphors always fall short. But metaphors are the only way we can talk about God. So we don't discard the metaphor for falling short, we simply note it-- "yes, God is Father, Son and Spirit-- but God is not male."
So, again, how is this any different from the problematic modalism of creator/redeemer/ sustainer?
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Creator / Redeemer / Sustainer: Three of the things that God does. Why are there three in this list? Why not two or four? There isn't a reason, except for the artificial one that you want to write down three names to match the Trinity, which as we have said leads you directly to modalism. Do not pass Go!
Yes, again, we all know it's modalism. We know why it's modalism. You're not saying anything new here, you're not answering my question:
Why is THIS heresy more problematic as a metaphor's shortfall than the heresy of presenting God as male? Why is it more of a problem to say the members of the trinity are limited by functions than it is to say the members of the trinity are limited by gender roles? Like all metaphors, both say things that are true and things that are untrue about God. As we have seen on this thread, both require some teaching, some unpacking, to counteract those untrue things and enable believers to worship God as revealed in Scripture and in Christ Jesus.
There is a traditional answer to that question-- again, we have a history of using Father/Son/Spirit and a history of opposing modalism. There is somewhat of a biblical reason-- Father is the most common image for God in the Bible, although Father/ Son/ Spirit shows up in only a few places, and referring to God by functions like Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer is at least as common. There is a linguistic reason-- we have a word for the error of limiting God by function and we don't have a word for limiting God by gender.
None of these really seem to fully answer the question mm is asking about why Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer, given proper teaching to correct for the inherent modalism, cannot be a useful and biblical adjunct to Father/ Son/ Spirit.
--------------------
"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
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This
"Blessed be God: eternal Majesty, incarnate Word, abiding Spirit."
from MW 3053 may be worth thinking about. Not enough time for me now, but shall later.
Oh, I like that one. It manages to avoid suggesting tritheism, anthropomorphism (including both gender identity and ancestral generation), and modalism all at the same time.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So, again, how is this any different from the problematic modalism of creator/redeemer/ sustainer?
Because Father/Son/Holy Spirit are describing the three persons of God - one name per person. As is Gee D's "Blessed be God: eternal Majesty, incarnate Word, abiding Spirit."
And yes, "Father" might contain an incorrect assumption of maleness, but it's still a reasonable-but-imperfect descriptor. God the Father is "Father" in a way that the Son and the Holy Spirit aren't.
But the Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer formula attempts to separate the three persons by function, and that's wrong. It is not true that one person of the Trinity Creates, one Redeems and one Sustains.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Honest Ron Bacardi
Shipmate
# 38
|
Posted
cliffdweller wrote: quote:
There is a traditional answer to that question-- again, we have a history of using Father/Son/Spirit and a history of opposing modalism. There is somewhat of a biblical reason-- Father is the most common image for God in the Bible, although Father/ Son/ Spirit shows up in only a few places, and referring to God by functions like Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer is at least as common. There is a linguistic reason-- we have a word for the error of limiting God by function and we don't have a word for limiting God by gender.
None of these really seem to fully answer the question mm is asking about why Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer, given proper teaching to correct for the inherent modalism, cannot be a useful and biblical adjunct to Father/ Son/ Spirit.
I see what you are saying, cliffdweller, but the church has also always taught that God (as in the Father) is not male, and is a Spirit. You could only assume he was male by going against a separate teaching. Which come to think of it is the definition of a heresy.
--------------------
Anglo-Cthulhic
Posts: 4857 | From: the corridors of Pah! | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nick Tamen
Ship's Wayfaring Fool
# 15164
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You could only assume he was male by going against a separate teaching.
Assuming you're aware of and understand the separate teaching. And that's a major part of the problem—many people go to church and hear "Father" over and over and over, without hearing and understanding adequate separate teaching on the nature of God. Hence, on some level they think of God as male, even if they know that's not quite right. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
--------------------
The first thing God says to Moses is, "Take off your shoes." We are on holy ground. Hard to believe, but the truest thing I know. — Anne Lamott
Posts: 2833 | From: On heaven-crammed earth | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Nick Tamen:
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
You could only assume he was male by going against a separate teaching.
Assuming you're aware of and understand the separate teaching. And that's a major part of the problem—many people go to church and hear "Father" over and over and over, without hearing and understanding adequate separate teaching on the nature of God. Hence, on some level they think of God as male, even if they know that's not quite right. Lex orandi, lex credendi.
And it is reasonable to try to find a way to present the baptismal formula that doesn't lend itself to this mistake. But a modalist formula is not the answer.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Honest Ron Bacardi:
cliffdweller wrote: quote:
There is a traditional answer to that question-- again, we have a history of using Father/Son/Spirit and a history of opposing modalism. There is somewhat of a biblical reason-- Father is the most common image for God in the Bible, although Father/ Son/ Spirit shows up in only a few places, and referring to God by functions like Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer is at least as common. There is a linguistic reason-- we have a word for the error of limiting God by function and we don't have a word for limiting God by gender.
None of these really seem to fully answer the question mm is asking about why Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer, given proper teaching to correct for the inherent modalism, cannot be a useful and biblical adjunct to Father/ Son/ Spirit.
I see what you are saying, cliffdweller, but the church has also always taught that God (as in the Father) is not male, and is a Spirit. You could only assume he was male by going against a separate teaching. Which come to think of it is the definition of a heresy.
But again, that's precisely my point. I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way-- by using the imperfect yet helpful & biblical language, and then teaching to the limitations of the language.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
I think that the answer is no, for the reasons Mousethief gives. The more I think about it, the more I like that formulation from the Mystery Worshipper. It preserves the 3 different persons, does not limit them in what they do, and is gender-neutral.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again, that's precisely my point. I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way-- by using the imperfect yet helpful & biblical language, and then teaching to the limitations of the language.
But it's not biblical to refer to the Trinity with that formula. You're replacing one formula, which is used in the Bible and has 2000 years of bona fides, with a made-up formula that introduces errors not in the first formula. We're going from imperfect to out-and-out heretical, and what's the point of that?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This
"Blessed be God: eternal Majesty, incarnate Word, abiding Spirit."
from MW 3053 may be worth thinking about. Not enough time for me now, but shall later.
Oh, I like that one. It manages to avoid suggesting tritheism, anthropomorphism (including both gender identity and ancestral generation), and modalism all at the same time.
But it does risk confusing the Persons. Both the Son and the Spirit are eternal, and both share equally in the Majesty of the Godhead with the Father. (As the Quincum Vult puts, 'co-equal in Majesty'). It also depersonalises the Persons, in that 'Majesty' is an attribute and not a personal title like 'Father' is.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's not biblical to refer to the Trinity with that formula.
You could leave out "with that formula" and your statement would still be true.
The Trinity is a theory and doctrine derived from scripture, but not an absolute truth unequivocally revealed by scripture. And so, for that matter, is modalism. Accepting one and rejecting the other doesn't make either one more or less "biblical" than the other.
As discussed above, both formulas to identify the three persons of the Trinity are metaphors of human language that are capable of being misinterpreted. "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" does not necessarily connote only the Trinity and "creator, redeemer, sustainer" does not necessarily connote only modalism. If anything, referring to two of the three persons as "Father" and "Son" more explicitly contradicts the Trinitarian principle that both are eternal, co-equal, and uncreated, (as well as asexual, although that isn't a specifically Trinitarian proposition,) than referring to them by the primary function through which we experience them contradicts the Trinitarian principle that they are distinct.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
You're replacing one formula, which is used in the Bible and has 2000 years of bona fides, with a made-up formula that introduces errors not in the first formula. We're going from imperfect to out-and-out heretical, and what's the point of that?
Yes, it's novel and non-traditional, but that's all. The traditional formula was just as much an invention when it was adopted as the novel one, it's just that the invention is older. And just like the older invention, the newer one is not heretical if it is capable of being understood correctly on its own intended terms. It doesn't replace correctness with heresy; it merely substitutes one imperfection for another in the hope of promoting clearer understanding overall.
Here's a list that purports to offer over 900 scripturally-derived names of God. They are all imperfect in one way or another, because they are all human language and cannot comprehensively describe all that God is. But that doesn't mean they are not also useful for promoting understanding when used appropriately.
[ 17. August 2016, 12:23: Message edited by: fausto ]
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This
"Blessed be God: eternal Majesty, incarnate Word, abiding Spirit."
from MW 3053 may be worth thinking about. Not enough time for me now, but shall later.
Oh, I like that one. It manages to avoid suggesting tritheism, anthropomorphism (including both gender identity and ancestral generation), and modalism all at the same time.
But it does risk confusing the Persons. Both the Son and the Spirit are eternal, and both share equally in the Majesty of the Godhead with the Father. (As the Quincum Vult puts, 'co-equal in Majesty'). It also depersonalises the Persons, in that 'Majesty' is an attribute and not a personal title like 'Father' is.
True enough. I don't think it is realistic to expect to completely avoid all possible shortcomings, given the limitations of human language. But this formula seems to offer some advantages that others lack, and overcome some shortcomings that others possess. Whether it is on balance better or worse than any other formula is a subjective judgment.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
And it is reasonable to try to find a way to present the baptismal formula that doesn't lend itself to this mistake. But a modalist formula is not the answer.
If the question is, very narrowly, what words to use in the baptismal ceremony, I agree that "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" are specifically recited in scripture as being appropriate for that particular purpose.
But it seems to me that the discussion here turns on a much broader question -- which is, how to address the gender identity problems that are necessarily connoted by the use of that language.
Those are two different questions with potentially two different answers.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by Gee D:
This
"Blessed be God: eternal Majesty, incarnate Word, abiding Spirit."
from MW 3053 may be worth thinking about. Not enough time for me now, but shall later.
Oh, I like that one. It manages to avoid suggesting tritheism, anthropomorphism (including both gender identity and ancestral generation), and modalism all at the same time.
But it does risk confusing the Persons. Both the Son and the Spirit are eternal, and both share equally in the Majesty of the Godhead with the Father. (As the Quincum Vult puts, 'co-equal in Majesty'). It also depersonalises the Persons, in that 'Majesty' is an attribute and not a personal title like 'Father' is.
True enough. I don't think it is realistic to expect to completely avoid all possible shortcomings, given the limitations of human language. But this formula seems to offer some advantages that others lack, and overcome some shortcomings that others possess. Whether it is on balance better or worse than any other formula is a subjective judgment.
But then, as with 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer', you are replacing a formula that has clear Scriptural roots as a whole formula (Mt. 28.19), not merely in its constituent parts, with one that is without roots as a formula that requires significant work to demonstrate its orthodoxy.
Whereas Scripture gives us clear foundations in how to understand the traditional formula as it describes the relations of the persons. Sure it is imperfect, but that must give it priority in theological discourse.
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
But then, as with 'Creator, Redeemer and Sustainer', you are replacing a formula that has clear Scriptural roots as a whole formula (Mt. 28.19), not merely in its constituent parts, with one that is without roots as a formula that requires significant work to demonstrate its orthodoxy.
We cross-posted, it seems. See my post immediately prior -- I think some of us are talking narrowly about appropriate words for the baptismal rite, while others are talking more broadly about finding ways to avoid the particular misunderstandings that the baptismal formula can suggest.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again, that's precisely my point. I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way-- by using the imperfect yet helpful & biblical language, and then teaching to the limitations of the language.
But it's not biblical to refer to the Trinity with that formula. You're replacing one formula, which is used in the Bible and has 2000 years of bona fides, with a made-up formula that introduces errors not in the first formula. We're going from imperfect to out-and-out heretical, and what's the point of that?
As a formula, neither one exists in the Bible, other than a single place (and that possibly a scribal gloss) where we find Father/Son/Spirit. The individual elements of both formulas are present in Scripture in roughly equal terms. God is "Creator" about as often as he is called "Father". So "Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer" is no more "made-up" than "Father/Son/Spirit."
There is, of course, a difference in tradition-- which I noted above. Yes, obviously, Father/Son/Spirit has a much longer and stronger tradition in it's use behind it than Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer. But then, I'm not suggesting anything be "replaced." I said specifically in the post you quoted:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way
I'm NOT doing away with the tradition formulation or suggesting we use it less. I'm suggesting that we handle the limitations of other metaphors in the same way we handle the limitations of the traditional formula.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
fyi: I agree with fausto that there's a bit of a disconnect here re whether we're talking specifically about the baptismal formula or more generally about liturgical or other uses of different formulations. Again, I'm not suggesting "replacing" the traditional formula, and certainly not for baptism-- which, as noted above, is the only place in Scripture we find the traditional formulation (although I would note, as Oneness Pentecostals would point out, that Matthew seems to contradict Acts on this point. But I think Matthew gets it right and the Oneness folk are in "heretical" territory, so I'm with the traditional gang on baptismal formulas).
What I and fausto and mm are suggesting, I think, is not replacing traditional language, but broadening it with other equally biblical images. More specifically, I'm arguing that when we do that we should handle the inevitable shortfalls of the metaphors (which, again, are biblical) in the same matter-of-fact way we handle the shortfalls of the traditional formula, rather than clutching our pearls and crying "modalism!" (iow, calmly and quietly say "modalism" without the pearl-clutching).
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
But it seems to me that the discussion here turns on a much broader question -- which is, how to address the gender identity problems that are necessarily connoted by the use of that language.
Those are two different questions with potentially two different answers.
But they are very very closely related questions, and what we say about one directly affects the range of what we can say about the other.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As a formula, neither one exists in the Bible, other than a single place (and that possibly a scribal gloss) where we find Father/Son/Spirit.
This one doesn't exist in the Bible. Except where it does. Huh?
quote:
The individual elements of both formulas are present in Scripture in roughly equal terms.
But not to distinguish the Persons.
quote:
God is "Creator" about as often as he is called "Father". So "Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer" is no more "made-up" than "Father/Son/Spirit."
God is spoken of as creating the world? Or God is called "Creator" (or the Greek/Hebrew equivalent)? I confess I'd be surprised if the latter were the case.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way
I'm NOT doing away with the tradition formulation or suggesting we use it less. I'm suggesting that we handle the limitations of other metaphors in the same way we handle the limitations of the traditional formula.
And I'm saying the limitations of a modalist formula are far greater than those of the traditionalist formula, and unnecessary. If we were deciding today ex nihilo on a formula to name the Trinity, for baptism or other purposes (I fail to see why distinguishing these is such a big deal, but then that's not your bailiwick, it's fausto's), we may not choose the F/S/HS formula at all. But that's not where we are at. We have a time-tested formula and a newly coined formula that claims to be just as good. It's not. Why introduce NEW problems when we've already got problems as it is? If we have to come up with a formula to augment (I don't say replace) the F/S/HS formula, let's at least come up with one that doesn't create new rabbit trails.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What I and fausto and mm are suggesting, I think, is not replacing traditional language, but broadening it with other equally biblical images. More specifically, I'm arguing that when we do that we should handle the inevitable shortfalls of the metaphors (which, again, are biblical) in the same matter-of-fact way we handle the shortfalls of the traditional formula, rather than clutching our pearls and crying "modalism!" (iow, calmly and quietly say "modalism" without the pearl-clutching).
Nobody, I don't think, has said coming up with another formula is an evil thing. Just that "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" ain't it. For reasons stated. Huge swathes of the church have fallen into modalism. Why should we make things worse? Why have you (all) become so fixated on this particular formula that you are all set on dying on this hill, rather than trying to find another?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The individual elements of both formulas are present in Scripture in roughly equal terms. God is "Creator" about as often as he is called "Father".
I think this is precisely the risk of the 'creator' formula: it implies that 'God' only refers to 'Father'. That the Father is more God than the Word and Wisdom.
The Word/Wisdom and Spirit are biblically as much creator as the Father is. And both are God.
--------------------
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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As a formula, neither one exists in the Bible, other than a single place (and that possibly a scribal gloss) where we find Father/Son/Spirit.
This one doesn't exist in the Bible. Except where it does. Huh?
Sorry, that WAS awkward! What I meant to say is, as a formula Father/Son/Spirit appears only once in Scripture-- and that is probably a scribal gloss. Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer is not present as a formula anywhere in Scripture to my knowledge. But the three elements of each formula are found in Scripture, in roughly equal numbers. So individually, both are biblical, as a formula, only a slight difference. (As I said before, in terms of tradition in the orthodox Church, obviously a huge-- and important-- difference).
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The individual elements of both formulas are present in Scripture in roughly equal terms.
But not to distinguish the Persons.
Yes. The score is 1-0 on that. A slim margin for the traditional formulation.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
God is "Creator" about as often as he is called "Father". So "Creator/Redeemer/Sustainer" is no more "made-up" than "Father/Son/Spirit."
God is spoken of as creating the world? Or God is called "Creator" (or the Greek/Hebrew equivalent)? I confess I'd be surprised if the latter were the case.
Gen. 14:9, 22; Deut. 32:6; Ecc. 12:1; Is:27:11; 40:28; 43:15; Matt. 19:4; Rom. 1:25; Col. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:19
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way
I'm NOT doing away with the tradition formulation or suggesting we use it less. I'm suggesting that we handle the limitations of other metaphors in the same way we handle the limitations of the traditional formula.
And I'm saying the limitations of a modalist formula are far greater than those of the traditionalist formula, and unnecessary. If we were deciding today ex nihilo on a formula to name the Trinity, for baptism or other purposes (I fail to see why distinguishing these is such a big deal, but then that's not your bailiwick, it's fausto's), we may not choose the F/S/HS formula at all. But that's not where we are at. We have a time-tested formula and a newly coined formula that claims to be just as good. It's not. Why introduce NEW problems when we've already got problems as it is? If we have to come up with a formula to augment (I don't say replace) the F/S/HS formula, let's at least come up with one that doesn't create new rabbit trails.
I do think distinguishing between the language of the baptismal liturgy from our language in general is important-- for both biblical reasons and for the sake of tradition-- the long history of use in the Christian Church.
My overall point was that we should treat a modalistic metaphor the exact same way we treat the limitations of Father/ Son/ Spirit. We can all agree that any language we use for God is going to be limited and will have shortfalls that distort the trueness of God. This is true of F/S/S the same as C/R/S. What I don't agree is that modalism is so much a greater problem then the problem of, for lack of a better word, "genderism". I'm not suggesting that we ignore the problems of modalism. I'm suggesting that we respond to it in the same matter-of-fact way that we respond to the "genderism" of F/S/S. We all know that F/S/S misrepresents God in ways that have been described upthread. But we can be calm and matter-of-fact with that. We continue to use F/S/S for all the reasons you affirm, which I agree with. And we simply teach to what is distorted-- we make sure to find places/spaces to remind ourselves that F/S/S are metaphors and God is not male. I think we can do the same with modalism-- take a deep breath, calm down, and just handle it matter-of-factly. Use the language-- which again, is highly biblical language-- and the calmly and matter-of-factly teach to the limitations of the language-- what is misrepresented by the modalism.
I would agree that modalism is prevalent in the church. It has been prevalent since the very beginning, and in all cultures. Which I think tells us that it is in some sense "natural". I don't mean that it is true, I just mean it is a natural way that our finite brains try to make sense of the infinite. Which I think is a good reason to calm the heck down. Again-- good teaching. Clear, direct, explicit. But calm the heck down. Stop treating modalism like ebola. We can come near it, we can explore it, we can say what's right and true about a modalistic metaphor as well as highlight what is not, and the sun will still come up tomorrow. (And the Son will come tomorrow).
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
The individual elements of both formulas are present in Scripture in roughly equal terms. God is "Creator" about as often as he is called "Father".
I think this is precisely the risk of the 'creator' formula: it implies that 'God' only refers to 'Father'. That the Father is more God than the Word and Wisdom.
The Word/Wisdom and Spirit are biblically as much creator as the Father is. And both are God.
Which is another way of saying it is modalist. I agree.
btw, I'm not suggesting a primacy of C/R/S. I rarely use it myself, and use F/S/S fairly regularly. I'm just arguing:
1. In general for broader language about God-- more metaphors, more descriptors, more differing ways of expressing what we know and experience to be true.
2. Having a calmer, more matter-of-fact approach to the over-hyped danger of modalism.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What I meant to say is, as a formula Father/Son/Spirit appears only once in Scripture-- and that is probably a scribal gloss.
So the entire pericope -- the last 12 verses in the KJV -- are a "gloss"? I am used to "gloss" meaning a few words added into the text either subconsciously because of memorized liturgy, or intentionally to make clear (the scribe thinks) what the "actual" meaning is. But 12 verses a gloss? I mean I know there is question about its originality (as with the pool-at-Bethesda pericope in John). But it doesn't make sense to me to call it a gloss. It doesn't just change things. It adds the whole post-resurrection scene not present without it. This is perhaps a tangent. But I don't think the F/S/HS formula can be dismissed as a "gloss."
quote:
So individually, both are biblical, as a formula, only a slight difference. (As I said before, in terms of tradition in the orthodox Church, obviously a huge-- and important-- difference).
Yes, your "slight" difference, at least in terms of the worship of the Orthodox Church, is gigantic. We probably use the traditional trinitarian formula 25 to 50 times over the course of typical Sunday worship. (hours-matins-liturgy; although some do matins the night before.) It's not just for baptism. Everything we do is in the name of the F/S/HS, and more prayers than not end in it.
quote:
Gen. 14:9, 22; Deut. 32:6; Ecc. 12:1; Is:27:11; 40:28; 43:15; Matt. 19:4; Rom. 1:25; Col. 3:10; 1 Pet. 4:19
I stand instructed.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way
Again, why borrow trouble? Especially trouble that two ecumenical councils worked hard to stamp out? If we're going to borrow trouble, let's borrow smaller trouble.
quote:
I do think distinguishing between the language of the baptismal liturgy from our language in general is important-- for both biblical reasons and for the sake of tradition-- the long history of use in the Christian Church.
I do not, as noted above, and think that the long history of use points in exactly the opposite direction. The trinitarian F/S/HS formula is used for a whole lot more than baptism. No disrespect intended, but can it be that a Protestant would not realize how much the formula is utilized in the worship of the Orfies and Caffix?
quote:
My overall point was that we should treat a modalistic metaphor the exact same way we treat the limitations of Father/ Son/ Spirit.
I would argue we cannot. The genderism does not deny one of the two core beliefs of our faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation). Modalism does.
quote:
What I don't agree is that modalism is so much a greater problem then the problem of, for lack of a better word, "genderism".
Here is probably the root of our disagreement. I think the whole history of Christian thought and worship -- at least since the Nicene Council, and probably well before (somebody upthread alluded to Justin Martyr which pushes it back into the mid-second century) tells against the light importance you put on countering modalism.
quote:
I think we can do the same with modalism-- take a deep breath, calm down, and just handle it matter-of-factly.
But why handle it at all, if we don't have to?
quote:
Use the language-- which again, is highly biblical language-- and the calmly and matter-of-factly teach to the limitations of the language-- what is misrepresented by the modalism.
It is NOT biblical language used to refer to the trinity when used in that formula. Just because I can find three words to describe God doesn't mean I can put them together and pretend it's a Trinitarian formula. The very order that this formula is listed in tells against this. It is pretending to be Trinitarian, and it is not.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
What I meant to say is, as a formula Father/Son/Spirit appears only once in Scripture-- and that is probably a scribal gloss.
So the entire pericope -- the last 12 verses in the KJV -- are a "gloss"? I am used to "gloss" meaning a few words added into the text either subconsciously because of memorized liturgy, or intentionally to make clear (the scribe thinks) what the "actual" meaning is. But 12 verses a gloss? I mean I know there is question about its originality (as with the pool-at-Bethesda pericope in John). But it doesn't make sense to me to call it a gloss. It doesn't just change things. It adds the whole post-resurrection scene not present without it. This is perhaps a tangent. But I don't think the F/S/HS formula can be dismissed as a "gloss."
I'm not sure which periscope you're referring to? I'm referring to Matt. 28:18-20-- the only place where the F/S/S formulation occurs. Of that, only 19b would be considered a scribal gloss. Although, to be fair, that's really predicated by a priori assumptions on the part of scholars who assume trinitarian formulas are later, so I'm not going to die for that hill. My point is simply that there is only one biblical use of the F/S/S formula. Although I agree it's an important one, particularly in the context of baptism.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
So individually, both are biblical, as a formula, only a slight difference. (As I said before, in terms of tradition in the orthodox Church, obviously a huge-- and important-- difference).
Yes, your "slight" difference, at least in terms of the worship of the Orthodox Church, is gigantic.
I said "huge" and "important"-- those are, I think, synonyms for "gigantic."
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
I do think distinguishing between the language of the baptismal liturgy from our language in general is important-- for both biblical reasons and for the sake of tradition-- the long history of use in the Christian Church.
I do not, as noted above, and think that the long history of use points in exactly the opposite direction. The trinitarian F/S/HS formula is used for a whole lot more than baptism. No disrespect intended, but can it be that a Protestant would not realize how much the formula is utilized in the worship of the Orfies and Caffix?
Oh, no disrespect, and you're absolutely correct. I am not advocating any specific use or disuse. I'm certainly not suggesting rewriting ancient and historic liturgy. I'm simply advocating broadening our language about God in whatever ways are appropriate/ available within our traditions.
Even though I come from a non-liturgical tradition, I can at least agree that there are good reasons for fixed liturgy. I would not advocate altering that. I'm talking about the other areas where you have freedom--whether that's in sermons or meditations, or teaching or writing.
otoh, I think, as you suggest this is overall a discussion that makes a lot more sense within the Protestant tradition than within the Orthodox or Catholic traditions, for the reasons below:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm certainly not arguing against using Father/ Son/ Spirit. I'm simply suggesting that we handle the modalistic problems of Creator/ Redeemer/ Sustainer in precisely the same way
Again, why borrow trouble? Especially trouble that two ecumenical councils worked hard to stamp out? If we're going to borrow trouble, let's borrow smaller trouble.
quote:
I do think distinguishing between the language of the baptismal liturgy from our language in general is important-- for both biblical reasons and for the sake of tradition-- the long history of use in the Christian Church.
I do not, as noted above, and think that the long history of use points in exactly the opposite direction. The trinitarian F/S/HS formula is used for a whole lot more than baptism. No disrespect intended, but can it be that a Protestant would not realize how much the formula is utilized in the worship of the Orfies and Caffix?
quote:
My overall point was that we should treat a modalistic metaphor the exact same way we treat the limitations of Father/ Son/ Spirit.
I would argue we cannot. The genderism does not deny one of the two core beliefs of our faith (the Trinity and the Incarnation). Modalism does.
quote:
What I don't agree is that modalism is so much a greater problem then the problem of, for lack of a better word, "genderism".
Here is probably the root of our disagreement. I think the whole history of Christian thought and worship -- at least since the Nicene Council, and probably well before (somebody upthread alluded to Justin Martyr which pushes it back into the mid-second century) tells against the light importance you put on countering modalism.
The obvious difference here, as you noted, is that the Protestant church historically feels much freer to depart from patristic decrees than the Orthodox or Catholic traditions. We have a different (sometimes conflictual, often capricious) relationship to "tradition" as a source of authority.
Again, I'm not arguing for jettisoning F/S/S or for allowing for modalism-- both are disallowed in the Apostle's and Nicene Creeds, which even us free-wheeling Protestants feel are authoritative-- and imho, the definition of small-o orthodox Christianity. I am arguing for breaking with patristic tradition in having a less anxious response to modalism (and possibly some other heresies). Not in advocating or affirming them, simply in responding to them in a less anxious and fraught way than we have since those early church councils.
But again, as you suggest, this is something that makes a lot more sense within the Protestant tradition.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not sure which periscope you're referring to? I'm referring to Matt. 28:18-20-- the only place where the F/S/S formulation occurs.
You're right, I had the wrong gospel. I knew the tail end of Mark is thought by some to have been slapped on later, and I mistakenly remembered the trinitarian formula to be located there.
I am looking for evidence online that the F/S/HS was added to Matt 28:18, and am not finding it. This site claims all ancient manuscripts save one include the formula, and suggests the theory it's a gloss came from a questionable interpretation of Eusebius.
All the sites I could find that argue it is not authentic argue not from textual evidence but from first principles. It can't be authentic because it's not true therefore it can't be authentic. Which fails to move me as convincing hermeneutics.
These came from the usual expected sources: oneness Pentecostals, Muslims, and a strange (to me) group of monopersonal Jewish-Christians with a really poorly designed website, so I couldn't read a lot before my eyes crossed. Some of the more fanciful sites even have Constantine himself inserting the formula into the manuscripts. I didn't read far enough to see if their conspiracy theory includes his destroying the earlier mss.
I didn't find any evidence mooted by "liberal" but more-or-less traditional websites (e.g. Episcopalians, mainstream Protestant churches).
In short it looks like assigning Matthew 19 to "gloss" status was something of a fad that has faded. I am open to correction in the form of not-obviously-whackjob websites which give good reason to think it's an addition.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
So individually, both are biblical, as a formula, only a slight difference. (As I said before, in terms of tradition in the orthodox Church, obviously a huge-- and important-- difference).
Yes, your "slight" difference, at least in terms of the worship of the Orthodox Church, is gigantic.
I said "huge" and "important"-- those are, I think, synonyms for "gigantic."
I'm afraid you've confused me, then. How can something be both "slight" and "huge and important" at the same time? A most ingenious paradox, to quote G&S.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again, as you suggest, this is something that makes a lot more sense within the Protestant tradition.
So, y'all are already so far from the forms and usage of the original traditions of Christianity, what's one more thing? Is that what you're saying?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
I am still struggling to understand why "creator, redeemer, sustainer" and similar newly-minted formulas are being discussed as if they were necessarily modalistic. Yes, I understand that "c/r/s" ascribes to each person a primary function that the other two can also perform. I do see how that can be potentially misunderstood as a misleading limitation of each one's power, but I still don't see how it even suggests (much less necessarily implies) that the distinction among the three persons must therefore be illusory -- which is what would it have to (not merely suggest or allow for, but) require, if it were to be an effective modalistic formula.
If merely allowing the possibility of modalism were enough to render an otherwise triune formula modalistic, then the traditional "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" formula must be even more strongly Arian (and antitrinitarian) than the "c/r/s" formula is modalistic. After all, it is simply impossible for a pre-existent, uncreated father to have generated a son who is equally pre-existent and uncreated. That in turn would mean that Arianism is scriptural and Trinitarianism is not.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I am still struggling to understand why "creator, redeemer, sustainer" and similar newly-minted formulas are being discussed as if they were necessarily modalistic. Yes, I understand that "c/r/s" ascribes to each person a primary function that the other two can also perform.
I fail to see how you can describe it thus and then turn around and say it's not modalist. Describing God in terms of functions and not persons is the very essence of modalism.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I am looking for evidence online that the F/S/HS was added to Matt 28:18, and am not finding it. This site claims all ancient manuscripts save one include the formula, and suggests the theory it's a gloss came from a questionable interpretation of Eusebius.
All the sites I could find that argue it is not authentic argue not from textual evidence but from first principles. It can't be authentic because it's not true therefore it can't be authentic. Which fails to move me as convincing hermeneutics...
In short it looks like assigning Matthew 19 to "gloss" status was something of a fad that has faded. I am open to correction in the form of not-obviously-whackjob websites which give good reason to think it's an addition.
Isn't that EXACTLY what I just said??? Specifically, in this statement:
quote:
Although, to be fair, that's really predicated by a priori assumptions on the part of scholars who assume trinitarian formulas are later, so I'm not going to die for that hill. My point is simply that there is only one biblical use of the F/S/S formula
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
So individually, both are biblical, as a formula, only a slight difference. (As I said before, in terms of tradition in the orthodox Church, obviously a huge-- and important-- difference).
Yes, your "slight" difference, at least in terms of the worship of the Orthodox Church, is gigantic.
I said "huge" and "important"-- those are, I think, synonyms for "gigantic."[/qb][/QUOTE]I'm afraid you've confused me, then. How can something be both "slight" and "huge and important" at the same time? A most ingenious paradox, to quote G&S.? [/qb][/QUOTE]Simple. As I said (I thought, rather clearly) the difference in biblical witness is slight (a score of 1-0, to be precise). The difference in terms of historic Christian tradition is both "huge" and "important." What's unclear or paradoxical about that?
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But again, as you suggest, this is something that makes a lot more sense within the Protestant tradition.
So, y'all are already so far from the forms and usage of the original traditions of Christianity, what's one more thing? Is that what you're saying?
No, it's not. I think you know that.
[ 17. August 2016, 18:33: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
sorry for the messed up html. I'm not good at tracking these multiple quotes. Time ran out while I was trying to fix it. : (
--------------------
"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
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I am still struggling to understand why "creator, redeemer, sustainer" and similar newly-minted formulas are being discussed as if they were necessarily modalistic. Yes, I understand that "c/r/s" ascribes to each person a primary function that the other two can also perform.
I fail to see how you can describe it thus and then turn around and say it's not modalist. Describing God in terms of functions and not persons is the very essence of modalism.
Modalism as I understand it denies a triune Godhead and instead affirms the absolute unity of God. It supposes that the seeming distinctions among the three hypostases of the Trinitarian Godhead are illusory, that they are merely different aspects or manifestations of a single undivided deity. "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" attributes different primary functions to each of the different hypostases, perhaps misleadingly, but it does not necessarily deny any real distinction whatsoever among them as modalism does. If anything, by so starkly assigning the divine roles it separates the hypostases even more clearly than Trinitarianism does -- to me it seems to suggest tritheism more than modalism.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I said (I thought, rather clearly) the difference in biblical witness is slight (a score of 1-0, to be precise). The difference in terms of historic Christian tradition is both "huge" and "important." What's unclear or paradoxical about that?
Okay so we appear to have arrived at:
Protestant: the difference is minor because the Biblical witness, although of great importance, is minimal, and the witness of tradition, although huge, is of minimal importance.
Orthodox: Both matter a hell of a lot and the question is therefore rather not an open one.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, y'all are already so far from the forms and usage of the original traditions of Christianity, what's one more thing? Is that what you're saying?
No, it's not. I think you know that.
Then if this is not what you're saying, is what I said above what you're saying? Or am I just wholly failing to see why you poo-poo something that to me seems of great importance?
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
If anything, by so starkly assigning the divine roles it separates the hypostases even more clearly than Trinitarianism does -- to me it seems to suggest tritheism more than modalism.
But it starkly assigns them wrongly. The Father is not the only person that creates. The Son is not the only person who redeems. The Spirit is not the only person who sustains. It may not "deny" the Trinity. But I deny that is enough to absolve it of the charge of modalism.
Further it presents the Trinity falsely. It pretends to be a trinitarian formula when it is not. It wrongly assigns just one action to each person of the Trinity, when in fact all three actions can apply to all three persons. As such it is saying that each of three modes corresponds to one person, thus reducing three persons to three actions. Which is an eminently modalist thing to do.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
TomM
Shipmate
# 4618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I am still struggling to understand why "creator, redeemer, sustainer" and similar newly-minted formulas are being discussed as if they were necessarily modalistic. Yes, I understand that "c/r/s" ascribes to each person a primary function that the other two can also perform.
I fail to see how you can describe it thus and then turn around and say it's not modalist. Describing God in terms of functions and not persons is the very essence of modalism.
Modalism as I understand it denies a triune Godhead and instead affirms the absolute unity of God. It supposes that the seeming distinctions among the three hypostases of the Trinitarian Godhead are illusory, that they are merely different aspects or manifestations of a single undivided deity. "Creator, Redeemer, Sustainer" attributes different primary functions to each of the different hypostases, perhaps misleadingly, but it does not necessarily deny any real distinction whatsoever among them as modalism does. If anything, by so starkly assigning the divine roles it separates the hypostases even more clearly than Trinitarianism does -- to me it seems to suggest tritheism more than modalism.
But it must deny that separation - the creating and sustaining of Creation are necessarily entwined. (Unless you are describing the first hypostasis as the god of Deism - the watchmaker who sets its all running and then goes off on a nice long holiday for all eternity).
Posts: 405 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
As I said (I thought, rather clearly) the difference in biblical witness is slight (a score of 1-0, to be precise). The difference in terms of historic Christian tradition is both "huge" and "important." What's unclear or paradoxical about that?
Okay so we appear to have arrived at:
Protestant: the difference is minor because the Biblical witness, although of great importance, is minimal, and the witness of tradition, although huge, is of minimal importance.
Orthodox: Both matter a hell of a lot and the question is therefore rather not an open one.
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
So, y'all are already so far from the forms and usage of the original traditions of Christianity, what's one more thing? Is that what you're saying?
No, it's not. I think you know that.
Then if this is not what you're saying, is what I said above what you're saying? Or am I just wholly failing to see why you poo-poo something that to me seems of great importance?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. Perhaps the problem is you think I'm "poo-pooiing" anything. I'm not. I think I've said that multiple times. Saying things like "this is huge and important" would be a clue that I'm not "poo-pooing" the role of historic tradition, even as I'm acknowledging that, as a Protestant, my relationship to tradition as a source of authority is different from that of Orthodox Christians.
The problem I see consistently in your prior post is that you seem to assume I can see only one side, so when I present both sides of an issue, you say I'm being "unclear." This creates a lot of unnecessary work for you, as when you spent some amount of time researching scribal glosses in Matt. 28 to prove the point I had already made that those who call it a scribal gloss are generally doing so from a position of bias.
I'm struggling to see your questions here as honest ones. It doesn't sound that way. I'm striving to dialogue with your Orthodox tradition respectfully, and not to misrepresent it to prove a point. If I've failed out of ignorance in that endeavor, I earnestly invite your correction and offer my apologies. I would appreciate it if you would do the same for my Protestant tradition.
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
But here's the bottom line: You are prepared to add a heretical formula to your worship (indeed you already have). I am trying to tease out why. I can't wrap my head around thinking it doesn't matter.
[ 17. August 2016, 19:54: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
If anything, by so starkly assigning the divine roles it separates the hypostases even more clearly than Trinitarianism does -- to me it seems to suggest tritheism more than modalism.
But it starkly assigns them wrongly. The Father is not the only person that creates. The Son is not the only person who redeems. The Spirit is not the only person who sustains. It may not "deny" the Trinity. But I deny that is enough to absolve it of the charge of modalism.
I agree that it misleadingly constrains the activities of each person. (I think we all agree that human words cannot completely and perfectly describe God.) But why do you perceive that doing so is necessarily modalism rather than its total opposite, polytheism? It seems to me that so clearly separating the persons actually moves further away from, rather than toward, the strict undivided unity of God that is essential to modalism.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Further it presents the Trinity falsely. It pretends to be a trinitarian formula when it is not. It wrongly assigns just one action to each person of the Trinity, when in fact all three actions can apply to all three persons. As such it is saying that each of three modes corresponds to one person, thus reducing three persons to three actions. Which is an eminently modalist thing to do.
Modalism would say that the different actions only appear to be performed by different persons, when in reality there is no distinction among the persons and all the various actions are different facets of the same single person. As I said, I think the "c/r/s" formula gives an impression of greater separation of the persons, not an impression that they are identical.
But if it does present the Trinity falsely, doesn't calling one of the persons "Father" and another "Son" present it even more falsely? Trinitarianism requires all three persons to be co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent, and uncreated, yet it is impossible for a son to be uncreated and eternally co-existent and co-equal with his father. Either "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is every bit as flawed a metaphor as "creator, redeemer, sustainer" -- even if each has a limited usefulness in certain contexts -- or else Arianism is true, Trinitarianism is false, and the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople just plain made a mess of things.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the bottom line: You are prepared to add a heretical formula to your worship (indeed you already have). I am trying to tease out why.
I have??? I added C/R/S-- or another other alternate formula to my worship??? When was that??? How did you know that-- have you been a MW at my church???
I have explained why I'm willing to allow for a modalist formula in a non-baptismal context if accompanied by an anti-modalist instruction. I would be happy to explain yet again-- if you're willing to listen, and our fellow shippies are willing to be patient with repetition of something that's already been said several times. But any attempt I would make to do so would involve presenting both sides of the issue, the positives and negatives. Whenever I have done that, you have called it "confusing", then used that as a jumping off point to mock my tradition. I'm not really excited about continuing another round of that.
[ 17. August 2016, 19:59: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"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
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
I agree that it misleadingly constrains the activities of each person. (I think we all agree that human words cannot completely and perfectly describe God.) But why do you perceive that doing so is necessarily modalism rather than its total opposite, polytheism?
Because it reduces differences of person to mere differences of action. Which is classically modalist. I don't see how it can even more strongly differentiate between persons because it wrongly assigns single actions to single persons. That makes no sense at all to me.
It's like saying that my wife and I, who cook and clean the kitchen in about equal amounts, are even more differentiated as persons if you describe one of us as "cook" and the other as "cleaner." On the contrary. That just confuses the matter, as neither of us is more cook than the other, and neither of us is more cleaner than the other. If someone was having a hard time telling us apart, that wouldn't help at all.
quote:
Modalism would say that the different actions only appear to be performed by different persons, when in reality there is no distinction among the persons and all the various actions are different facets of the same single person. As I said, I think the "c/r/s" formula gives an impression of greater separation of the persons, not an impression that they are identical.
I have to conclude I just don't understand what you're saying. Falsely assigning roles and pretending each role corresponds to a single member of the Trinity, when all three roles apply to all three -- how can this further differentiate? It's like you had three white male heterosexuals and you called them "The White One," "The Male One" and "The Heterosexual One." Would that help differentiate them? I can't see it.
quote:
But if it does present the Trinity falsely, doesn't calling one of the persons "Father" and another "Son" present it even more falsely?
The fathers of the councils clearly didn't think so. They seemed to think "monogenes" referred to a relationship that isn't dependent upon time. It is certainly used metaphorically in Scripture, as Isaac is referred to as the monogenes son of Abraham, when we know darned well he had another son.
quote:
Trinitarianism requires all three persons to be co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent, and uncreated, yet it is impossible for a son to be uncreated and eternally co-existent and co-equal with his father.
It's also impossible for three persons to be one being. Are you willing to throw over Trinitarianism entirely? Or can you believe two impossible things before Breakfast?
quote:
Either "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is every bit as flawed a metaphor as "creator, redeemer, sustainer" -- even if each has a limited usefulness in certain contexts -- or else Arianism is true, Trinitarianism is false, and the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople just plain made a mess of things.
Nah. Don't accept your argument.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But here's the bottom line: You are prepared to add a heretical formula to your worship (indeed you already have). I am trying to tease out why.
I have??? I added C/R/S-- or another other alternate formula to my worship??? When was that??? How did you know that-- have you been a MW at my church???
I must have confused you for another person on the thread, and I apologize.
quote:
Whenever I have done that, you have called it "confusing", then used that as a jumping off point to mock my tradition. I'm not really excited about continuing another round of that.
It has never been my intent to mock your tradition, and I apologize for any sloppy wording that may have seemed so. I am indeed confused as to why someone would add, or argue for adding, a heretical formula to their worship. However balanced your presentation, it seems to boil down to "it's not as bad as all that."
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by TomM:
(Unless you are describing the first hypostasis as the god of Deism - the watchmaker who sets its all running and then goes off on a nice long holiday for all eternity).
That in fact seems to be a widespread, if perhaps misinformed, view among many Trinitarians I know. The active, continuing interface between God and creation (at least since the Ascension) is frequently and perhaps typically perceived as primarily the bailiwick of the third hypostasis, not the first.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Modalism would say that the different actions only appear to be performed by different persons, when in reality there is no distinction among the persons and all the various actions are different facets of the same single person. As I said, I think the "c/r/s" formula gives an impression of greater separation of the persons, not an impression that they are identical.
I have to conclude I just don't understand what you're saying. Falsely assigning roles and pretending each role corresponds to a single member of the Trinity, when all three roles apply to all three -- how can this further differentiate? It's like you had three white male heterosexuals and you called them "The White One," "The Male One" and "The Heterosexual One." Would that help differentiate them? I can't see it.
That would indeed be a confusing and inaccurate differentiation, unless the person using those descriptions were able to clearly explain what was meant and why each description was especially well suited to each person. However, it would still describe three different people, not suggest that all three were in reality the same person.
Modalism insists not that the three persons of the Godhead possess different characteristics or powers that in fact they all share, but that there is only one person of the Godhead who can appear in three different roles or functions or manifestations. Modalism calls these several manifestations "modes" (hence the name) of a single undifferentiated God, not separate "persons" or "hypostases" that together comprise God as Trinitarianism does.
You seem to be comparing the functional nature of modalist apprehensions of God's purported "modes" to the innovative functional descriptions of the persons of the Trinity in order to deem the innovations "modalist". I would agree that they are functional descriptions, and perhaps not very good ones. I would agree that they can be confusing and inaccurate, if it is not also clearly explained what is meant and why each description is especially well suited to each person. However, I would not agree that trying to describe each of the persons of the Trinity by their primary function is inherently modalist, because it does not necessarily also imply that only one single person is in fact performing all the variously described functions. I would not agree that it is per se heretical, only that it is innovative and non-traditional.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
But if it does present the Trinity falsely, doesn't calling one of the persons "Father" and another "Son" present it even more falsely?
The fathers of the councils clearly didn't think so. They seemed to think "monogenes" referred to a relationship that isn't dependent upon time. It is certainly used metaphorically in Scripture, as Isaac is referred to as the monogenes son of Abraham, when we know darned well he had another son.
quote:
Trinitarianism requires all three persons to be co-equal, co-eternal, co-existent, and uncreated, yet it is impossible for a son to be uncreated and eternally co-existent and co-equal with his father.
It's also impossible for three persons to be one being. Are you willing to throw over Trinitarianism entirely? Or can you believe two impossible things before Breakfast?
quote:
Either "Father, Son, Holy Spirit" is every bit as flawed a metaphor as "creator, redeemer, sustainer" -- even if each has a limited usefulness in certain contexts -- or else Arianism is true, Trinitarianism is false, and the Councils of Nicea and Constantinople just plain made a mess of things.
Nah. Don't accept your argument.
The delegates to the councils understood "Father" and "Son" to be imperfect metaphors that were useful for conveying specific concepts within acknowledged limitations, not as a complete and accurate distillation of the nuances of Trinity doctrine -- and not as heresy, despite some glaringly obvious inconsistencies.
What Cliffdweller and I are asking you to try to understand is that (1) "Father" and "Son" are indeed imperfect metaphors, especially when describing the ungendered nature of a non-anthropomorphic God or the co-eternal, co-equal, and uncreated nature of the persons of the Trinity, and that (2) the imperfection of the traditional formula's language does give rise to misunderstandings that do in fact injure rather than strengthen faith in some cases, but (3)such misunderstandings can be addressed through the use of other descriptions and metaphors, even though (4) such other descriptions and metaphors can also be imperfect in different ways.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Whenever I have done that, you have called it "confusing", then used that as a jumping off point to mock my tradition. I'm not really excited about continuing another round of that.
It has never been my intent to mock your tradition, and I apologize for any sloppy wording that may have seemed so. I am indeed confused as to why someone would add, or argue for adding, a heretical formula to their worship. However balanced your presentation, it seems to boil down to "it's not as bad as all that."
OK, I'll trust in your good will and try it again. Inevitably it will be repetitive just because I can't think of any other way of saying that. And yes, I will at times present both sides of the coin-- because both are true. That's not me being "unclear" that's mean recognizing both sides.
In some sense, yes, that's what I am arguing: that we over-hype our reaction to modalism. That is what I'm saying when I say "calm the heck down and deal with it."
Modalism is wrong. It's an inaccurate picture of God. The patristics called it "heresy". And, for the record, I agree with you (against my buddy fausto) that C/R/S is definitely modalist, for all the reasons you mentioned.
"Genderism" or whatever you want to call the error of F/S/S is also wrong. It's an inaccurate picture of God. It happens not to have been condemned by the patristics, we can guess at why. But we have testimony-- a lot of testimony, in recent years-- of how it has been the opposite of what it is intended to be-- a barrier that keeps people from God. So it, too, is wrong because it creates an inaccurate picture of God. And yet, we have good reasons to use F/S/S-- not the least is the long history of its use within the historic Christian church.
I am arguing (again, I've said this already) that we deal with the modalist limitations of C/R/S in the precisely the same way we deal with the "genderist" limitations of F/S/S. iow, use the formulation in whatever ways seems useful and helpful in our particular ecclesiastical context (recognizing mine is quite different from yours)-- and then teach to the problematic areas. We don't jettison F/S/S simply because it is "genderist"-- we use the language and then speak to the limitation-- explain the God is not male. I'm suggesting we do the same with C/R/S (as well as other biblical imagery/titles/names). All the language and images we use will be limited, but we use what is helpful and then explain where it falls short.
Part of my pov here is that I think it is important that we speak about God. God is a mystery, but God is a mystery that wants to be known. That's the whole point of Scripture, the whole point of the incarnation. God wants to be known and reveals God-self to us. But again, our language is limited. So when we start talking about God, we're going to fumble around. We are inevitably going to bump up against all the historic heresies, and particularly we're going to bump up against modalism. I'm simply suggesting we have a less hysterical response to that, a less anxious response, yes, more of a "it's not a big deal" response. That we simply say "oops-- yeah, that was modalism", explain what modalism is and why it falls short, and move on.
To again, calm the heck down. Because when we don't, it has the tendency to shut down all conversation about God and all we do is repeat the same safe formulations-- which then robs even the safe and wonderful "approved" formulation of F/S/S of it's depth and beauty because we can't even talk about it without worrying about getting a toe over the heresy line.
--------------------
"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
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Got interrupted mid-post so ended up cross-posting with fausto. I would very much agree with this more concise summary:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
What Cliffdweller and I are asking you to try to understand is that (1) "Father" and "Son" are indeed imperfect metaphors, especially when describing the ungendered nature of a non-anthropomorphic God or the co-eternal, co-equal, and uncreated nature of the persons of the Trinity, and that (2) the imperfection of the traditional formula's language does give rise to misunderstandings that do in fact injure rather than strengthen faith in some cases, but (3)such misunderstandings can be addressed through the use of other descriptions and metaphors, even though (4) such other descriptions and metaphors can also be imperfect in different ways.
--------------------
"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
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[And, for the record, I agree with you (against my buddy fausto) that C/R/S is definitely modalist, for all the reasons you mentioned.
![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[And, for the record, I agree with you (against my buddy fausto) that C/R/S is definitely modalist, for all the reasons you mentioned.
But I agreed with you so many other times. And that's a lot coming from an evangelical! (fausto will know what I'm referring to here) ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
"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
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by fausto:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
[And, for the record, I agree with you (against my buddy fausto) that C/R/S is definitely modalist, for all the reasons you mentioned.
But I agreed with you so many other times. And that's a lot coming from an evangelical! (fausto will know what I'm referring to here)
Hehe.
Okay, so what is it that I am missing about modalism? I must fundamentally misunderstand what modalism is in some way. What is wrong with the way I defined it up above?
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
