Trinity, Semi-Arian, Modalist Differences and similarities

[tall73]

Somewhat in T&O defense I will say that tri-theism is pretty common among SDA's I don't think that was the intent of the fundamental statement as it is more classically trinitarian in formulation but the reality of the anti-trinitarianism of the pioneers has made tri-theism seem appropriate.

Oh I agree. It is common, and I think her pastor probably thought that was what it meant. But as you note, the statement is trinitarian.

This constant Adventist refrain we have heard that those three are one in purpose rather then one in substance is really based upon a poor understanding of the Biblical expression "the two shall become one flesh" which when you think about it is more likely a reference to procreative activity then the idea that they become one in purpose and that purpose is a very limited one where their purpose is to be together or to raise a family. In any case it requires that a specific meaning is attributed to the text and that meaning is not straight forward. So in fact it is usually used as a pretext and then applied to the Trinity concept all while ignoring the historical monotheism of the Jewish nation and Old Testament writers.

I would say in context the one flesh refers to the cleaving together, separating from the original family of origin. In that respect unity is a part of it because the focus is now on the new family. It also seems to be language derived from Adam's own declaration that she was flesh of his flesh.

But the point is that a comparison to the one flesh relationship is missing the historical development of the Trinitarian language. The statement uses terms that have had a known meaning for thousands of years within the Trinitarian debate, and it was not primarily derived from Scripture at all, but was to clarify between two competing views of Scripture and was to (supposedly) state which one was the original faith handed down.

Now I am not endorsing all the councils as I think they made things quite complicated and kicked out people over the slightest of definitional differences. Their history looks like a big political mess.

But we still took the language from church fathers, not the Scriptures, when speaking of the Trinity.

 

[tall73]

perhaps, but as I have stated elsewhere, I have no problem believing that there is ONE Being, who we call God, that has chosen to reveal himself to us in 3 different ways. A super Being, a Creator of all would have no problem doing that.... but, that's just my personal belief...

Now as I understand, having only partly followed all this, RC is a modalist and it sounds like you are leaning that way too?

 

[tall73]

Yes and that is what the trinitarian belief is, that is also what the Modalist belief is. The trinitarian belief is a bit clunky but historically speaking it was better then the modalist belief of that time and the Arian beliefs. The modalist belief at that time restricted God to one form at a time and the Arian belief made Jesus less then God. So while I am not a trinitarian I think it was based upon the right idea, unfortunately it became tradition and then orthodox tradition and then to depart even a little became heresy

That is why when asked I use the expression that there is one God revealed in three persons. Because that is acceptable to Trinitarian as well as modalists. It does not indicate that there are three persons it says that God reveals Himself in the way of three persons. Creator God (Father) Jesus Christ (the Son) and the Holy Spirit (the presence of God that acts upon our minds), the three modes of God's revelation to man

Apparently I should have kept reading

 

[StormyOne]

Now as I understand, having only partly followed all this, RC is a modalist and it sounds like you are leaning that way too?

not sure what a modalist believes... however if what I have stated seems to reflect that view, then in that area I agree with the modalists...

 

[tall73]

Well I need to look things over a bit more, but do you see three distinct personalities or just three different revelations of one personality?

 

[sentipente]

Well I need to look things over a bit more, but do you see three distinct personalities or just three different revelations of one personality?

When will we learn that all we have a caricatures of the Creator. No one has seen the Creator. There could be twenty manifestations and none of us would be the wiser. These debates only demonstrate the folly of human intelligence.

 

[StormyOne]

Well I need to look things over a bit more, but do you see three distinct personalities or just three different revelations of one personality?

I see One person, manifesting themselves in 3 ways.... example.... there is one Tall... yet he is father, husband, friend, employee, etc.... only with The Creator (the Super Being) He can be 3 different things all at once or whenever he chooses....

 

[tall73]

When will we learn that all we have a caricatures of the Creator. No one has seen the Creator. There could be twenty manifestations and none of us would be the wiser. These debates only demonstrate the folly of human intelligence.

Agreed, but good to know what brand of folly he subscribes to for orthodoxy tests!


At least four people in this thread would have been sent to the non-Christians section in the old CF regime had their views been known. Such are orthodoxy tests.

 

[tall73]

I see One person, manifesting themselves in 3 ways.... example.... there is one Tall... yet he is father, husband, friend, employee, etc.... only with The Creator (the Super Being) He can be 3 different things all at once or whenever he chooses....

Alrighty, well as RC pointed out that is a bit different than some of the original modalists, but would likely be called modalism today.

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

I would say in context the one flesh refers to the cleaving together, separating from the original family of origin. In that respect unity is a part of it because the focus is now on the new family..

It is related however because it is the starting of a new family unit. But since it says "one flesh" it seems to mean more then just a family unit

[SIZE=-0] Genesis 2:24 [/SIZE] [SIZE=-0] Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become [/SIZE]one [SIZE=-0]flesh.[/SIZE]

Although it could also be the way the author is trying to acknowledge the humanness of the woman who was taken from the man. I think if we went to the commentaries we could find loads of different interpretations. But than that rather supports the idea that the text is used as a pretext when applied to the Trinity.

 

[tall73]

It is related however because it is the starting of a new family unit. But since it says "one flesh" it seems to mean more then just a family unit

Agreed. I think TandO is largely right about the one in purpose, one life...and of course Jesus directly applies it to the permanence of the union.

But to apply that text out of historical context to Trinitarian definitions which were essentially church father creations of a far different time and mindset is not warranted.

 

[StormyOne]

Agreed, but good to know what brand of folly he subscribes to for orthodoxy tests!


At least four people in this thread would have been sent to the non-Christians section in the old CF regime had their views been known. Such are orthodoxy tests.

lol not surprising....

 

[sentipente]

Agreed, but good to know what brand of folly he subscribes to for orthodoxy tests!


At least four people in this thread would have been sent to the non-Christians section in the old CF regime had their views been known. Such are orthodoxy tests.

Under the old regime I could not post my views that I now learn have been labeled as Open Theology.

 

[StormyOne]

Under the old regime I could not post my views that I now learn have been labeled as Open Theology.

interesting.... Open Theology.... perhaps another subforum in the making? Open Theology Adventists? lol

 

[sentipente]

interesting.... Open Theology.... perhaps another subforum in the making? Open Thelogy Adventists? lol

Especially since Open Theology was formalized by an Adventist theologian.

 

[tall73]

Open Theism you mean?

Just checking.

 

[sentipente]

Open Theism you mean?

Just checking.

Correct. I did say Open Theology. Blame it on a heavy lunch.

 

[tall73]

Correct. I did say Open Theology. Blame it on a heavy lunch.

Any snacking between meals? Lol

 

[RC_NewProtestants]

Alrighty, well as RC pointed out that is a bit different than some of the original modalists, but would likely be called modalism today.

I could never accept original modalism and I am pretty sure that is why it got so soundly defeated at the councils, they could not buy it either. today however we are a lot more sophisticated about the multitudes of possibilities. Science fiction authors helped us a lot in that area, or at least it has helped me.

 

[tall73]

The assumption at the councils was that they were stating what was original, not which best fit the evidence.

But from a Sola Scriptura standpoint you do have to put the options up and see what fits.