What do you mean by "Trinity"?

[Tree of Life]

Well, how else is it to be read? I went on exactly what the diagram described. It did not put the Father as ultimate power, not al all. It is a bad diagram for the Trinity. I've already told you that and so has another member. So why don't you drop it?

That's fine. Do you take issue with any of those formulae?

 

[Hoghead1]

@Hoghead1 If I may ask you a few simple questions so that I may better understand your view...

1. Is Jesus God?
2. Does Jesus have a relationship with the Father?

Thanks in advance.

I hold with the Trinity. However, I am critical of classical formulations, simply because they fail to do the job.

 

[Tree of Life]

I hold with the Trinity. However, I am critical of classical formulations, simply because they fail to do the job.

So is it safe to say that you would answer in the affirmative for both of those questions?

 

[hedrick]

Every denomination that I know of would require a positive affirmation and defense of the Trinity. Perhaps you can provide an example of an ordained minister within any denomination that rejects the Trinity? Or perhaps you can provide an official doctrinal statement from a denomination that rejects the Trinity? Without that I find your claim very hard to believe.

Doctrinal statements from the PCUSA within the last 100 years affirm the Trinity, and I don't think they are modalist. They do not, however use the terms nature or hypostasis, but stick with Biblical language.

I'd like to be sure what hoghead1 means by modalist. My understanding of the heresy is that it says that the Trinity does not describe God in himself, but how he works with us. In traditional terms, that the Trinity is purely economic and not ontological.

Modern theology doesn't always define the Trinity in terms that are ontological, but even so I think it sees the Trinity as saying something about God in himself, and not just how he works with us (to the extent that these can be separated).

 

[Hoghead1]

Modalism would be a rejection of Trinity. Perhaps you can provide and example of an ordained modalist or a denomination that tolerates modalism?

Absolutely wrong. Modalism is not a rejection of the Trinity. It is a rejection of a particular version of the Trinity. Also, modalism is to be found in the teachings of the church fathers, for example, in teh psychological models of the trinity proposed by Tertullian, Augustine, and Calvin.

 

[Colter]

Question anyone, how does 1/3 of a triune deity receive all power and authority in heaven and on earth and retain its presumptive indivisibility?

 

[Tree of Life]

Doctrinal statements from the PCUSA within the last 100 years affirm the Trinity, and I don't think they are modalist. They do not, however use the terms nature or hypostasis, but stick with Biblical language.

I don't think there's anything sacred about the word "person". It's possible to still be Trinitarian but be uncomfortable with using this word. However I don't see a better word to replace it and there's not much use in tearing one doctrinal formulation down if you've got nothing better to offer in its place.

 

[Tree of Life]

Absolutely wrong. Modalism is not a rejection of the Trinity. It is a rejection of a particular version of the Trinity. Also, modalism is to be found in the teachings of the church fathers, for example, in teh psychological models of the trinity proposed by Tertullian, Augustine, and Calvin.

Maybe you can cite something from Calvin or Augustine that would suggest he was a modalist?

Perhaps you can give an example of an ordained modalist?
Or perhaps you can give an example of a church's doctrinal statement that tolerates modalism?

 

[Hoghead1]

That's fine. Do you take issue with any of those formulae?

Look, I just explained to you why I took issue with your diagram. I am not going to repeat myself. If you are unclear what issues I took, go back and read my recent posts.

 

[Hoghead1]

Woten, Flicka, and Friea are three divine beings so yes they would be three gods if they existed.

Do you see why then the members of the trinity would be three gods?

 

[hedrick]

Part of the reason I am interested in classical theology is because I’d like to understand just how much continuity there is with modern theology. It’s true that modern theology tends to see God as one person and Christ as two. However they are using a modern concept of person, which equates it with features such as consciousness and will.

But in classical theology, God has a single will and (at least for the Catholic Encyclopedia) a single consciousness. Similarly, Christ has two wills (denying that is the heresy of monothelitism) and I believe two consciousnesses. Thus I don’t believe modern theology is heretical in this respect, once you understand how words are being used. Nor do I think it's normally modalist, if you look at the intent of the condemnation of that doctrine.

The term “person” in Christian theology is not being used in the usual way we use it in English.

 

[Hoghead1]

Doctrinal statements from the PCUSA within the last 100 years affirm the Trinity, and I don't think they are modalist. They do not, however use the terms nature or hypostasis, but stick with Biblical language.

I'd like to be sure what hoghead1 means by modalist. My understanding of the heresy is that it says that the Trinity does not describe God in himself, but how he works with us. In traditional terms, that the Trinity is purely economic and not ontological.

Modern theology doesn't always define the Trinity in terms that are ontological, but even so I think it sees the Trinity as saying something about God in himself, and not just how he works with us (to the extent that these can be separated).

By modalism, I mean viewing the trinity as three ways God has of being God, rather than three separate personalities. There is one personality, God. An example would be something like this: The Father denotes God as creator. The Son denotes God as savior. The Holy Spirit denotes God as comforter.

 

[Hoghead1]

So is it safe to say that you would answer in the affirmative for both of those questions?

Yes. but remember the questions are very open-ended. I do not think of the trinity as denoting three separate personalities or three gods.

 

[hedrick]

Question anyone, how does 1/3 of a triune deity receive all power and authority in heaven and on earth and retain its presumptive indivisibility?

You’re reacting to oversimplified slogans supposedly supporting the Trinity. The power and authority all apply to God “as a whole.” Because Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all persons of that whole, they all participate in the power and authority. In traditional theology, no action is done by any of the persons individually. They all participate in everything. So they don’t exercise power or authority individually.

 

[Hoghead1]

Nope, you are failing to see the point. Three gods requires three beings. There is nothing that mandates that a personality is a being, only that a being may or may not have a personality.

Yes, but we think of God in terms of personality, not as some sort of impersonal being or abstract principle.

 

[hedrick]

By modalism, I mean viewing the trinity as three ways God has of being God, rather than three separate personalities. There is one personality, God. An example would be something like this: The Father denotes God as creator. The Son denotes God as savior. The Holy Spirit denotes God as comforter.

I don't think this is what the heresy of modalism is. In saying that there are three ways of being God, you are saying that the Trinity is intrinsic to God, and doesn't just represent three ways in which we see his actions. The latter was the heresy.

You're using "personality" in the modern, psychological sense. I believe it would be a heresy to say that God is three separate personalities in that sense, so I think you're OK.

(Yes, what Hoghead1 has said is definitely permitted within the PCUSA, though I would hope if he said it in a Presbytery meeting someone would challenge him on the understanding that the position is modalist.)

 

[Tree of Life]

Yes. but remember the questions are very open-ended. I do not think of the trinity as denoting three separate personalities or three gods.

So Jesus does not have a real relationship with a person known as the Father?

 

[Hoghead1]

Maybe you can cite something from Calvin or Augustine that would suggest he was a modalist?

Perhaps you can give an example of an ordained modalist?
Or perhaps you can give an example of a church's doctrinal statement that tolerates modalism?

In the psychological model provided by Tertullian, the Trinity is depicted as denoting relationships existing within one personality. Hence, he says we should think of the relationship between Father and the Son as analogous to the inner dialogue we have between ourselves and our wisdom. In Calvin, the Father is likened to our will, the Son to our wisdom, and the Spirit to our energy to act.
With ordained modalists, I don't know where to begin. All of my pastors were modalists. Most of the ministerial students I attended seminary with were modalists.
PCUSA would tolerate modalism.

 

[Hoghead1]

I don't think there's anything sacred about the word "person". It's possible to still be Trinitarian but be uncomfortable with using this word. However I don't see a better word to replace it and there's not much use in tearing one doctrinal formulation down if you've got nothing better to offer in its place.

The term "person" can be misleading into suggesting tritheism. That is the problem with it. Also teh PCUSA is not tearing down anything. The official policy gives the clergy theological freedom to rethink traditional doctrines. That's why it is been illegal for years to ask ministerial candidates where they stand on evolution and also the Virgin Birth.

 

[Hoghead1]

Part of the reason I am interested in classical theology is because I’d like to understand just how much continuity there is with modern theology. It’s true that modern theology tends to see God as one person and Christ as two. However they are using a modern concept of person, which equates it with features such as consciousness and will.

But in classical theology, God has a single will and (at least for the Catholic Encyclopedia) a single consciousness. Similarly, Christ has two wills (denying that is the heresy of monothelitism) and I believe two consciousnesses. Thus I don’t believe modern theology is heretical in this respect, once you understand how words are being used. Nor do I think it's normally modalist, if you look at the intent of the condemnation of that doctrine.

The term “person” in Christian theology is not being used in the usual way we use it in English.

Yes, very true about the word "person," as I have pointed out more than once.