Modalism

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

So if I read in the gospels or Acts, "The Father raised Jesus from the dead", there's no separation? Not how I understand writing, nor how I was taught to understand writing. If I say, "I hit the ball" then most of my listeners will understand that "I" and "ball" are two separate and distinct things.

Most will. Unless their theology forbids them.

And then he says, "You shall be one, even as I am one with the Father" then Ohio and aron are not still separate, because they are one just as Jesus and the Father? As far as I understand it, you remain 'you' and I am still ''me. Unless my theology forbids me from this common-sense understanding, which it doesn't. Does yours?

The whole conundrum is easily solved, if one understands the idea of a messenger. The angel says, "I Jesus have sent my angel" and John tries to bow to the angel but it forbids him. The angel can say, "I Jesus" even though the angel is not Jesus. Because it carries the image/substance/will/expression/communication/whatever. It represents. Likewise, Jesus represented the Father. When you saw Jesus you saw the Father. Not complicated, really, and such understanding would be readily available to any first-century reader whose mind was unclouded by theological imperatives.

No respectable theologian is willing to use the word "separate" when referring to God.

Hitting a ball with a bat may be a good analogy for how I am sometimes treated, but not as a descriptor for God Himself.

And besides, Jesus told us He had the power to raise Himself from the dead. Apparently He was not reliant on a "separate" God to raise Him on the 3rd day.

Perhaps it's not my "theology" but the scripture that prevents me from seeing a "separation" between the Father and the Son.

[Trapped]

Just thinking out loud here, but I think the very words Father and Son do a good job of showing they are not the same.

God chose to use the words "father" and "son" in the Bible to best describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. A father and son are not the same person, and yet, amazingly, we often describe them in the same way Jesus used to describe His relationship to His Father.

"He's the spitting image"
"Man, when you see him it's like seeing his dad"
"I can't help but hear [the dad] when [the son] opens his mouth!"
"They act/sound/walk/talk just the same, don't they!?"

A son can act on behalf of his father. A son can be sent by his father. A son can, if appropriately endowed with authority from his father, represent his father. A son can be one and in agreement and in accord with his father. A son can submit to his father.

And yet, a son is never actually his father.

Why would God use such a known and understood earthly relationship to describe the relationship between the Father and the Son if the overriding concurrent similarities and distinctions didn't hold?

[of course, we are also talking about spiritual beings, so certain things like being IN each other doesn't translate well to the physical]

If Jesus IS the Father, then their being one isn't anything special because they are each other. They have to be not each other for their kind of oneness to be noteworthy.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If Jesus IS the Father, then their being one isn't anything special because they are each other. They have to be not each other for their kind of oneness to be noteworthy.

Really good point Trapped, but I'm afraid you'll not be getting a straight answer on this one from our dear anti-trinitarian brothers here. Witness Lee taught them that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, was "called the Father, so he must be the Father!", and they will not budge on this one. Apparently the 2,000 years of church history in which the teaching/doctrine of the biblical Trinity was tested, tried and solidified as orthodox means nothing. Everybody was wrong and Witness Lee was right. (of course, don't ever forget, even if Witness Lee was wrong he is right!.)

*Earliest church "fathers", some of whom were known to have been disciples of the original scripture writing apostles - They were all wrong...Because Witness Lee says they were!

*All the creeds, statements of belief and theological declarations of the various ecumenical councils - They were all wrong - they were all the dead teachings of man....Witness Lee has passed down the pure word of God!

*All the teachings and doctrinal formulations of all the Christian teachers, scholars and apologists regarding the Trinity over the past centuries are just the man-made poor, poor teachings of blind mooing cows! They are tritheists and teach and believe that there are three Gods! Oh Lord Jesus! Thank you for the pure word!
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Cal

To me modalism is denying there is some kind of relationship in the Godhead. (I think that is a simple way to put it. For instance, God did say, "Let Us make man in Our image . . .") Now, I know I've said that the relationship between the Father and the Son is like our relationship with ourselves, but it is more than that, because although we can love ourselves, ourselves can't love us back, as the Son loves the Father. Or can they?... I believe there is some faint shadow of the Trinity in every human being. I also believe that one day we will enter into a relationship with ourselves that much better matches the relationship of the Father and the Son--pure love and acceptance, without a hint of selfishness. I think that's ultimately part of what "finding your soul" means.

But as I've said, Lee wasn't interested in relationships, either within God, between people or with oneself. He was all about processes, which is a reason his Trinity seems modalistic. He was all about the economic Trinity. He had little to say about the essential Trinity. The Edwards/Piper model addresses that.

Process (from Oxford): "a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end" But I guess we can't say that what Jesus went through was a process . . .

The Edwards/Piper model was linked by Cal below, and I really liked the way Piper (often quoting Edwards) put it! Anybody care to comment on Piper's writing?

Originally Posted by Cal

More here:
https://www.desiringgod.org/articles...-understanding

And here:
https://www.monergism.com/thethresho...20the%20Tr.pdf

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

Process (from Oxford): "a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end" But I guess we can't say that what Jesus went through was a process . . .

The Edwards/Piper model was linked by Cal below, and I really liked the way Piper (often quoting Edwards) put it! Anybody care to comment on Piper's writing?

It's not wrong to say Jesus went through a process. It's just awkward to say that means he got processed in the sense of some kind of drink. By using the term "processed" Lee was just trying to add credence to his "all-inclusive dose" stuff -- Jesus as the giant super smoothie, fresh out of the blender for your enjoyment. Jesus is a PERSON.

A marine goes through a process to become a top fighter. But no one says he's the processed soldier.

I like Piper, too, not least because he "processes" the sometimes indecipherable writings of Edwards.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

If Jesus IS the Father, then their being one isn't anything special because they are each other. They have to be not each other for their kind of oneness to be noteworthy.

I disagree to some degree. Are you ever in conflict with yourself? Complete integration with oneself is rare and laudable. It's called "integrity."

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Cal

I disagree to some degree. Are you ever in conflict with yourself? Complete integration with oneself is rare and laudable. It's called "integrity."

I might be conflicted, but wouldn't consider it "in conflict with myself". And I would never describe one of the conflicted "parties" as "my son", that's for sure. That's multiple personalities territory.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I might be conflicted, but wouldn't consider it "in conflict with myself". And I would never describe one of the conflicted "parties" as "my son", that's for sure. That's multiple personalities territory.

It's only MPD if there is a conflict. With God there is no conflict.

And referring to oneself in the third person is not that uncommon. And I've been know to say to myself, "Son, you can do better." Or the like. So... I get your objection, I hope you get the point I'm making.

[Trapped]

John 8:14-19
14 Jesus replied, “Even if I testify about Myself, My testimony is valid, because I know where I came from and where I am going. But you do not know where I came from or where I am going.
15 You judge according to the flesh; I judge no one.
16 But even if I do judge, My judgment is true, because I am not alone; I am with the Father who sent Me.
17 Even in your own Law it is written that the testimony of two men is valid.
18 I am One who testifies about Myself, and the Father, who sent Me, also testifies about Me.”
19 “Where is Your Father?” they asked Him. “You do not know Me or My Father,” Jesus answered. “If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well.”

It's interesting that in 17-18 Jesus says the testimony of the Father and Himself are akin to the testimony of two men.

Originally Posted by Cal

It's only MPD if there is a conflict. With God there is no conflict.

And referring to oneself in the third person is not that uncommon. And I've been know to say to myself, "Son, you can do better." Or the like. So... I get your objection, I hope you get the point I'm making.

If there is no conflict between personalities.....does MPD even manifest? /sidetrack

I've read and also heard your interpretation of the Father/Son/Spirit, and although I don't ascribe to it myself currently, I think I do understand.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Trapped

I've read and also heard your interpretation of the Father/Son/Spirit, and although I don't ascribe to it myself currently, I think I do understand.

It's just one way to look at it. I believe it has some validity because it lines up too well with most of the things traditionally believed about about the Trinity, but otherwise inexplicable. But it's not the only way to look at it. We'll never solve it here. The only thing we can achieve is possibly some insight into God and ourselves, which I believe is the point of any discussion. We will never be able to view God as through a microscope. That would make us God.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Just thinking out loud here, but I think the very words Father and Son do a good job of showing they are not the same. God chose to use the words "father" and "son" in the Bible to best describe the relationship between the Father and the Son. A father and son are not the same person, and yet, amazingly, we often describe them in the same way Jesus used to describe His relationship to His Father.

You use a number of human concepts to describe God, I prefer to use the scripture to interpret scripture. They might be helpful, and others too, but only if they are supported by scripture. Every human metaphor has limitations, especially when referring to God Himself.

For example, the Father begot the Son. I have a son. There was a time that he was not, and then he was. Does this also apply to the Son of God? Was there a time when the Son was not? Did Jesus, the Son of God, not exist before 2,000 years ago? aron, you are simply reiterating ancient heretical arguments.

You are not asked to believe what makes sense to you. You are required to believe what you might not understand. It's totally not logical that the Creator of the universe could be born of a virgin and then let Himself be slaughtered on the cross. Makes no sense whatsoever. Billions have refused to believe such nonsense.

By God's love and mercy, I have chosen to believe, not because I understand or because it makes sense, but because I trust the Bible is God's word to me.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

You use a number of human concepts to describe God, I prefer to use the scripture to interpret scripture. They might be helpful, and others too, but only if they are supported by scripture. Every human metaphor has limitations, especially when referring to God Himself.

For example, the Father begot the Son. I have a son. There was a time that he was not, and then he was. Does this also apply to the Son of God? Was there a time when the Son was not? Did Jesus, the Son of God, not exist before 2,000 years ago? aron, you are simply reiterating ancient heretical arguments.

You are not asked to believe what makes sense to you. You are required to believe what you might not understand. It's totally not logical that the Creator of the universe could be born of a virgin and then let Himself be slaughtered on the cross. Makes no sense whatsoever. Billions have refused to believe such nonsense.

By God's love and mercy, I have chosen to believe, not because I understand or because it makes sense, but because I trust the Bible is God's word to me.

Maybe I'm missing something, but is not:

1. Son
2. Father
3. image
4. when you see me you see him
5. when i speak it's his words
6. etc....

...in other words, all those things I had in my post......also in Scripture?

Of course metaphors have limitations, and yet the Bible is rife with them. I'm not the one taking the metaphor into a foreign country. The metaphor just describes their relationship, not necessarily the duration thereof. We could easily say "Jesus said He was the bread of life, but yet bread gets moldy eventually. Does Jesus get moldy?"

A son and a father have a son and father relationship to each other as long as both exist concurrently. Whether human in finite time, or divine in eternal timelessness. Seems straightforward to me.

I'm not aron, by the way.