Comments on: What is Modalism?

By: Is the Pope a Modalist? (Dale) » trinities

Is the Pope a Modalist? (Dale) » trinities — Sat, 31 Dec 2011 14:17:07 +0000

[...] First, a few clarifications. By “modalist” I do not mean “Sabellian” or “monarchian.” (Those ancient catholics probably did hold to various forms of modalism, but the term is not a historical one, and can refer to other views which probably no ancient person held.) Nor do I mean modalism by definition to be heretical relative to orthodox/catholic creeds. What I mean is that at least one of these – Father, Son, Spirit – is a mode of the one God, in some sense a way that God is. That last phrase is deliberately ambiguous. [...]

By: Andrea

Andrea — Fri, 17 Jun 2011 13:59:51 +0000

Scripture says that there are two gods. The first is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. The other is the god of this world, the devil. God via the scriptures tells us to have no other gods, before him. Hence there are other gods, but only one true God. One.
Jesus Christ is God’s only begotten son, perfect sperm created by God who, with permission, impregnated a human egg in Mary. Jesus has pure blood uncontaminated blood that coursed through a human body, a body that felt pain, experienced anguish and joy. Jesus Christ was a man, the second Adam who also was a man, so says the scripture. Both had freewill to choose to walk in righteousness with God, or not to. Jesus had freewill to do the will of his Father. Freewill cannot be left out of conversation. Lastly, I will ask the same question that my 5 year old nephew asked my mother who is a devote Catholic. Who killed God. Hum who kileed the Creator of all things, who killed the one who formed, made, and created everything? My mom was silent. Any takers on answering that question? Gretchen, perhaps? Let’s see, the mode died so that part of God was dead…

By: trinities - Linkage: Trinity discussions @ Theologica (Dale)

trinities - Linkage: Trinity discussions @ Theologica (Dale) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 10:57:43 +0000

[...] Events involving him? Parts of the one god? You’ll never know. But it looks like some form of eternally concurrent FSH modalism. Nothing unusual here – this is the norm in evangelical circles. If you’re a real [...]

By: Dale

Dale — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 13:43:41 +0000

Paul – I hope, a lot of folk! Including Jesus.
-trinities

By: paul castaneda

paul castaneda — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 06:26:25 +0000

I have only one question to you trinities. Who will you see when you get to heaven?

By: trinities - Linkage: Baptism in the NAME (Dale)

trinities - Linkage: Baptism in the NAME (Dale) — Thu, 15 May 2008 13:57:42 +0000

[...] that the three modes are not held to be “intrinsic to God’s nature”. On that, see here, here, and here. Again, they complain that the new PC formulas employ “words of [...]

By: In Response… « Wise Serpents/Innocent Doves

In Response… « Wise Serpents/Innocent Doves — Sat, 26 Apr 2008 17:54:09 +0000

[...] Mr. Whitt is treating Trinitarians as abecedarians by stating “its very simple”, and associating the Trinity to an Abbot and Costtello, or musical chair caricature. The Trinity has been debated since the beginning of the church, so his point is not as simple as Eph 4:4-7 proving the Trinity inferior. I want to point out that the Oneness position has had its troubles defining itself through the course of church history. It is not a homogeneous movement in its view historically, nor theoretically (trinties.org). [...]

By: trinities - Reader Question About Modalism (Dale)

trinities - Reader Question About Modalism (Dale) — Fri, 11 Jan 2008 14:41:25 +0000

[...] “modalism” isn’t some one theory, but it is rather a whole family of theories. We have to say what is a mode of what, and also what we mean by “mode”. So I talk [...]

By: Cliff

Cliff — Mon, 26 Nov 2007 17:32:14 +0000

Here is what I used to believe:

I used to believe there was one God. He sometimes is called Father, sometimes called Jesus, and sometimes called the Holy Spirit. And sometimes called all at the same time. In addition to existing outside of space / time he entered our world in physical form into a specific time as Jesus. In addition to his physical form he is simultaneously in all things in our time / reality while also being beyond time. I used to think the Trinity meant God manifesting himself simultaneously as God, Jesus, and Holy Spirit. I largely understood Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at Titles (as opposed to names). I also understood everything in terms of manifestations (Like Ice, Liquid Water, and Steam are all manifestations of H2O) I have never before had a problem with thinking God could manifest himself in all three forms at the same time. (In fact, I often wondered whether there are other forms we will never know about).

To summarize: To me it’s been Titles (instead of Names) and Forms (instead of Modes). There is a prophecy in Isaiah about Jesus with a whole bunch of additional names (Redeemer, Father, etc).

That’s what I used to believe until in discussion with someone I realized that’s not what the Trinity is supposed to be.

So – what was it I was believing?

As to what I believe now — I don’t honestly know.

By: Dale

Dale — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 16:05:26 +0000

Hi Gretchen – thanks for your comments. Despite your apple analogy at the end (which I assume you’ll admit isn’t a very good analogy, as the mainstream tradition denies that the Persons are parts of God), I take it that you’re a FSH modalist – for you, each “person” of the Trinity is no more or less than a way in which God lives, or maybe a way in which he interacts. Is this right? If so, what do think of my theological objections to modalism about the Son, here?

Best,
Dale

By: Gretchen

Gretchen — Wed, 07 Nov 2007 06:38:36 +0000

Why is it so difficult for you to accept that God is one God existing in three separate persons, called THE GODHEAD? Even Jesus Himself was explaining the Godhead, when He gave His last Commandment to His Disciples in Matthew 28. There are so many examples in the Scriptures where it talks about the Godhead as being three separate beings that can have interaction with others, and each have a distinct job to do. Such as at Jesus’ Baptism, where we hear the voice of God the Father speaking to God, the Son, and we can see part of the personality of God the Spirit in the form of a dove. Again, when Jesus, the Son was in the garden praying, He was NOT praying to Himself, but to His Father, when He asks His Father (God) to please let the cup pass by Him. Or when Jesus Himself is on the cross cries out to His Father and ask the Father why has he Forsaken Him? If God existed in only modes of one person, how then can there be more than one mode being expressed at one time? There cannot be…. therefore.. the only explaination of the Godhead is as Tertullian called it THE Trinity or Tri-Unity or the Latin word for Trinitas as Three Persons in one essence… God! This is definitely a Monotheistic belief, if it were not it would be called Tritheism. However; Christians all over the world would deny that in the Godhead exists three separate Gods. But they would say there are three separate beings in one essence.. God. And all three beings exist at one time and are No Less God than any of the others. I like to give the example of an apple. Three parts, but one, Apple!!

By: trinities - Trinity Monotheism part 2: their set-up, part 1

trinities - Trinity Monotheism part 2: their set-up, part 1 — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 02:52:44 +0000

[...] seems to reduce to classical modalism.” (587) Well no, gents, not Sabellianism, but rather another kind of modalism, where the persons are eternal, intrinsic properties or aspects of [...]

By: yet more on Modes and Modalism: Barth and Letham at trinities

yet more on Modes and Modalism: Barth and Letham at trinities — Thu, 01 Feb 2007 21:50:48 +0000

[...] This definition / mini-lecture is unhelpfully metaphorical (”blurring or erasing”). Worse, it treats it as a matter of degree – as if “modalism” were not a claim or set of claims, but was rather some quality to some degree or other had by various writings. Worse, it seems to embody the error, common in theology, of thinking of modalism as simply phenomenal and/or serial modalism. This is confirmed, when he sort of defends Barth against the charge: In fact, [for Barth] God is eternally the Father, eternally the Son, and eternally the Spirit… Barth certainly does not consider himself to be a modalist. This is clear again when he firmly opposes any refusal to see that God’s self-revelation grants us access to God himself. (289) [...]

By: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 3 at trinities

Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 3 at trinities — Wed, 08 Nov 2006 16:14:48 +0000

[...] Some statements which seem to imply something like eternally concurrent noumenal S- or FSH modalism. “To say ‘Jesus is Lord’ is the New Testament way of declaring the deity of Jesus Christ – of affirming his essential oneness with the Father.” (62) “…Jesus our Redeemer – is of the same essence as the Father. We are not talking about two different gods. We are talking about only one God, but this one God has forever known himself as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (65, italics are original emphasis) [...]

By: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 2 at trinities

Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 2 at trinities — Thu, 02 Nov 2006 21:09:19 +0000

[...] Last time we looked at an exchange between Christian and Muslim apologists in the early 14th century, in which the Christian side, under pressure from longstanding Muslim accusations of polytheism, spells out the doctrine of the Trinity in a plainly modalistic way. This practice is ongoing, as we’ll see. [...]

By: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part I at trinities

Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part I at trinities — Fri, 27 Oct 2006 14:13:55 +0000

[...] Wow. That’s straight up modalism, presumably noumenal, concurrent FSH modalism. To be most specific, each divine “person” is identified with a (timeless?) event, with God’s having a certain property – being a real thing (Father), being articulate (Son), and being alive (Spirit). The classic Muslim objection to trinitarianism is that it is simply a kind of polytheism. Note how neatly this move beats that objection! There’s only one God, only one divine Person here, who has three properties. This “victory” comes, though, at a heavy price. A couple of comments. First, I haven’t traced this modalistic move to its earliest known source in Christian-Muslim interaction, but I strongly suspect that it didn’t start with Paul of Antioch. I believe it may go back as early as some time in the 800s. Maybe I’ll post on that when I find it. Could it be that for hundreds of years, this is the best that many Christian apologists could come up with? I’m assuming that this was how they really understood the doctrine, and was not merely a convenient, temporary “spin” on it, adopted for polemical purposes. (Could be wrong, but this seems the safest course in the absence of contrary information.) Second, to my knowledge, this spin on the Trinity doctrine was never decried as heresy, in either Western or Eastern Christianity. Actually, it seems very close to, though genuinely different than, mainstream thinking. Surely, Augustine’s many analogies in his On the Trinity had some influence here. Third, Christians still jump to, or expose their allegiance to, various forms of modalism when interacting with Muslims. My next post will be on a contemporary example of this. [...]

By: The Orthodox Formulas 2: The Council of Constantinople (381) at trinities

The Orthodox Formulas 2: The Council of Constantinople (381) at trinities — Mon, 04 Sep 2006 14:23:50 +0000

[...] What, precisely, is the objection to Sabellius’ “diseased theory”? (i.e. Serial FSH modalism.) Is it this? [...]

By: Lash: “modes” or “ways”, not “persons” at trinities

Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:50:10 +0000

[...] Note Lash’s all-too-common move – it’s OK, because it ain’t Sabellianism (aka sequential modalism). [...]

By: Lash: modes or ways, not persons at trinities

Lash: modes or ways, not persons at trinities — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 15:42:57 +0000

[...] Note Lash’s all-too-common move – it’s OK, because it ain’t Sabellianism. (What I call sequential modalism.) His motivation is also interesting; the idea is that we either go for (non-Sabellian) modalism, or we’re stuck with tritheism. [...]

By: Kathryn Tanner’s non-Sabellian modalism at trinities

Kathryn Tanner’s non-Sabellian modalism at trinities — Thu, 17 Aug 2006 00:35:57 +0000

[...] Is she a modalist? Yes, pretty clearly so, specifically, an eternally concurrent noumenal FSH modalist. To her credit, she stands up and says pretty clearly and concisely what others only think, or assert and then withdraw. In her own words, Unity of essence or substance means that the three Persons of the Trinity are the very same thing or concrete substance in three modes or forms of presentation. They are like three distinct appearances of the same thing from different angles, although here such appearances are objective and lasting, unlike the transient effects of perspective, and although here the whole is presented differently and not just one side or part becoming visible from a particular point of view. The very same thing is therefore found repeated in Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, although none of these Persons is to be identified with any other: the Father is all that the Son is except the Son is not the Father, etc. The three therefore co-inhere, they are in one another, in virtue of this same essence or substance reappearing in them in different modes of existence. (pp. 38-9) [...]