Triune God, modalism, or are you heretic?

[OBW]

KSA,

I really do not have the time to spend to exhaust the possibilities on what the scripture might say on the two questions you pose. I understand your desire to get into the nitty-gritty of the words, even using some Greek in this last post. My observation is that getting close to the text, even to the individual words, has much value in understanding scripture. But it is also a place where meaning of the whole can be lost in the meanings of the details. Sort of a forest or trees problem. Both are relevant and must be considered.

As to the questions you posed, I am able to answer in a manner that is, within our world, contradictory.

I would begin by saying that there is one God. “Behold, the Lord your God is One God.” In this context, there can be only one will. Yet Jesus says “I do the will of the Father” (possibly not a perfect quote). This suggests a subservience of his will to the Father’s will. I do not have a problem with it being ultimate discovered (even if only upon the appearance of the New Jerusalem) that despite this statement by Jesus, there was truly only one will. But the statement made was that there was a subservience. Why? I don’t know. It may have been for the purpose of emphasizing to the disciples that they should also set their wills as subservient. But it does not say that anywhere.

Of course, whether we are talking about the Greek terminology, or that of the Latins from which we eventually developed the “three persons” terminology, none of it is scripture, but our attempt to reconcile the difficulties of the scriptures that speak of both three and one. I am quite content to accept that there is One God with One Will because scripture says it, and also accept that Jesus and the Father had separate wills that, while by definition are identical, are also spoken of as one subservient to the other. If I need it to be only one way or the other, then I am requiring God to be according to the limits of my mind. Another way to say that is to say that I am creating God in my image.

We have a doctrine of the Trinity because we cannot fully reconcile three being one God rather than an triumvirate. Unfortunately, I see this exercise as an attempt to reconcile the two sides into a coherent whole. Attempts at reconciliation of the three/one issue has tended to result in becoming lopsided toward one of two heresies — modalism or tritheism.

I am not saying that there is not a lot to be learned from this and other inquiries. It might even be a good window into what was true and in error concerning Lee’s teachings. But if we insist that God must fit into man’s logic, we risk joining others who are already dancing on the wall around a well of heresy. When we are content to define away the distinctions of “persona” that the Bible uses, we are defining away something that it is telling us. I don’t buy into the idea that it was just terminology used to help those less educated people of that day understand but we are smarter. The scripture did not waste words. Don’t explain them away. It is more meaningful to point to the fact that Jesus and the Father really are one, yet somehow Jesus could die on the cross while the Father turned his back, but then resurrected him. It demonstrates a multifarious and vast God much more than one who is playing games with us because the very distinctions that He uses to speak of Himself are really not important.

Last. I am not suggesting that this thread is useless. If that is what I thought, I would ignore it. But I see it as full of possibilities in discovering more of those un-reconcilable details about God that establish Him as more than man and outside our experience and knowledge. As one of the Psalms (maybe 139?) in effect says, there is knowledge that is beyond me and I cannot reach it because it is too high. Are we willing to accept that there are aspects of God that are beyond our knowledge, and therefore beyond our ability to reconcile and describe in human terms? I hope so. Otherwise, we are smarter than the God who wrote the scriptures for us to learn of Him.

You can consider this whole post rhetorical. If you feel compelled to respond, that is OK. You do not have to. I am not saying that there is not value in the discussions. But if in our search for truth we find ourselves arguing away the very words from which we draw our authority, from where does our authority come?