The correction has been made.

Dale, I have a post on Dolezal. James Anderson makes an appearance in the ComBox and mentions you. I would be happy to have your take on things.

Thank you for this! I’m sure the Maverick will make the correction.

This indeed clarifies things a bit; perhaps I’ll do another post later.

“… the basic principles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are logically compatible with a _number_ of fundamental Christian beliefs: the deity of Christ, virgin birth, his resurrection, and the soteriological importance (even necessity of) his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. In converting to Vaishnavism I do not relinquish these beliefs …”

Note my emphasis.

Note also the following. If one will object to Sudduth that the claim that “both Jesus and Krishna is (an incarnation of) the Lord” is incompatible with the NT or, say, the Chalcedonian Creed, then one should be also prepared to hear Sudduth’s counter-objection that such reading of the NT and the authority of the creed is spurious. (Actually, I’ve seen him to make this objections.) Not endorsing Sudduth’s position, just noticing a relevant issue. Of course, I’d like to see his reply to some intelligent, informed, and robust Christian historical apologetics, like that of Swinburne.

Finally, Sudduth explicitly acknowledges that there are conflicts btw his current position and what he calls “traditional Christianity.” Sudduth currently embraces panentheism (though not pantheism; cf. http://www.proginosko.com/2012/01/why-i-am-not-a-panentheist). And, it typical for adherents of GV to hold that Krishna, rather than Jesus, is the highest manifestation of God (cf. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaudiya_Vaishnavism).

————-

True to its conception of God as infinite or absolute being, GV acknowledges that God is manifested in diverse ways and that God-realization (or salvation) takes on diverse forms. God is one, but we do not relate to Him in one way. Krishna means the “all attractive one.” He draws all people to himself, but in accordance with their own dispositions and tendencies. “However men try to reach me, I return their love with my love; whatever path they travel, it leads to me in the end” (Bhagavad Gita, 4:11).

Krishna is the all-attractive Absolute who is manifested in the different religious traditions of the world. There is merging into impersonal Brahman. There are also distinctly theistic experiences in which the self encounters a personal God. Some experience the personal God under the name “Yahweh,” others “Allah;” and others “Jesus.” The names are many; God is one. Of these experiences, some are awe and reverence experiences; some are more unitive experiences with varying degrees of sensed intimacy between the self and God. Some are combinations of separation and intimacy. GV acknowledges that transcendental consciousness (the aim of nearly all religious traditions) is in fact variegated in nature. There are different modes or degrees of penetration into transcendence. For Gaudiya Vaishnavas, the transcendental experience of impersonal Brahman is not the ultimate religious experience, however, it is a legitimate one and need not be discredited. It occurs when the individual spirit soul, the jiva, merges into the brahma-jyoti, (something akin to the aura or effulgence radiating from the body of Krishna himself). Similarly, those who worship Lord Jesus experience a mode of transcendence through a particular divine incarnation.

As Swami Tripurari has stated:

“Thoughtful, objective analysis reveals that all Gods are but partial manifestations of the same purusa, Sri Krsna, and all Goddesses partial expressions of the primal sakti, Sri Radha. Krsna possesses all attributes of divinity found in other incarnations as well as aspects found in him alone. There can be only one God, yet . . . he has many expressions of himself.” ~ Swami Tripurari (Rasa: Love Relationships in Transcendence, p. 71)

Just as there are different practices that produce these different experiences of God realization, GV acknowledges that how we experience God depends on different aspects of our own personalities. This seems supported by a substantial body of literature in western psychology extending back to William James. The religious impulse is deep in human nature, part of the imago dei (according to the Christian tradition), but it takes on various forms (not merely because of sin – as Christians would say), but because of features of our individual psychology and local culture. God doesn’t override this in the scheme of salvation, but works through it. Otherwise put, given human nature, it is not surprising that God should manifest Himself to human persons in diverse ways.

(5) GV maintains that Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (the fons et origo of GV) is the combined manifestation of Krishna and Radharani. In the lila of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Radharani was Krishna’s consort and the highest caliber devotee. She demonstrated unparalleled, pure love for Krishna. It is said that Krishna could not begin to fathom the depths of her love for Him so he appeared in this special combined incarnation to taste the highest levels of devotion to Himself. I find this a wonderful image that complements the Christian idea of God taking on human nature to achieve righteousness for the sinner and to pay the penalty for sin for the sinner. It is most fitting that God would seek to experience the love of the devotee in much the same way that he would seek to experience the suffering of the devotee (in the person of Jesus). In Christ God suffers with us. In Chaitanya, God loves with us. In each case, there is an important identification between God and us. God tastes the suffering that distances us from Him and the love that brings us near to Him.

I think it’s important to underscore, mainly for the sake of my Christian friends, two points relevant to the relationship between my adherence to the principles outlined above and Christian theism. I do not perceive myself as worshipping a different God than I did as a Christian. It’s the same God under a different (and for me fuller) manifestation. Krishna reveals himself in diverse ways across culture and time, personality and life circumstance. Christians and Muslims are also bhaktas, though they cultivate love of God in a different way.

Secondly, the basic principles of Gaudiya Vaishnavism are logically compatible with a number of fundamental Christian beliefs: the deity of Christ, virgin birth, his resurrection, and the soteriological importance (even necessity of) his incarnation, life, death, and resurrection. In converting to Vaishnavism I do not relinquish these beliefs but simply situate them in a different philosophical and theological context. That being said, I intend in the future to write on the subject of the relationship between the above aspects of GV and Christian theism.

For those who are interested in learning about the different Vaishnava traditions, I would recommend reading the online historical account here:
http://www.gaudiya.com/index.php?topic=history

First, small-c catholics – this includes Roman Catholics as a species.

Second, yes, the catholic creedal formulas are supposed to rule out modalism – or at least Sabellian modalism, if not all kinds (this is unclear).

And yet, it is very common for theologians and somewhat sophisticated laypeople to be modalists. A common way: God is understood to be creator (Father), redeemer (Son), sanctifier (Holy Spirit). There’s no simple way to tell when someone does or doesn’t think this way, whatever they recite on Sunday. But they think, usually, that God is a single self who exists in three ways/modes.

I’m not sure where you are drawing this conclusion from, but every Sunday Catholics everywhere renounce modalism during the Mass:

“We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
one in Being with the Father.”

It’s unfortunate that you may have come across Catholics who either didn’t understand or can’t correctly formulate basic concepts of catechesis but modalism is certainly not a common belief for Catholics.

I am unsure of all the details of your argument/question in this thread, and I will explain one of my criteria for the doctrine of modalism. Modalism rejects that the Farther and Son have an interpersonal relationship with each other. So by my definition, if the pope teaches that the Father and Son have an interpersonal relationship, then he is not a modalist. Do you accept or reject my criterion?

Far from trying to snatch equality with God and disobeying Gods commands-the verse speaks of Christ (the second Adam) humbling himself and becoming obedient – even to the point of crucifixion.

I agree with you, John. That interpretation fits the context. It also fits everything that the New Testament quotes Christ as saying.

… it is entirely evident … that the above verse applies to the real Jesus of Nazareth who lived in Palestine, 1st century AD, NOT to some mythical and “preexistent” “God-the-son” …

Villanovanus – I agree that “God the son” is not found anywhere in the Bible. So that is a myth.

However, Paul seems to have believed that the Son of God is the one through whom God created the heavens and the earth (1 Co. 8:6; Col. 1:16). For that and other reasons, I believe that the Son of God must have existed prior to his birth in Bethlehem.

I have already given what I believe to be scriptural evidence for that conclusion in the last few comments following Dale’s post, “A few thoughts on generation and time,” so I won’t repeat it.

What I have not seen so far is scriptural evidence that this preexistence is only a myth. I would appreciate seeing such evidence.

It goes something like this-
Paul had in mind the story of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden and he states that the man, Jesus Christ, reversed what Adam did.
Adams great sin was of course, to seek equality with God – as Genesis 3v5 states “You will be like Gods”.
Far from trying to snatch equality with God and disobeying Gods commands-the verse speaks of Christ (the second Adam) humbling himself and becoming obedient – even to the point of crucifixion.

You raised the issue of the word ‘harpagmos’. I am beseiged by desperate Trinitarians trying to tell me that it means ‘holding on to”. Bible translators with integrity use the word ‘grasped’ – and if one wants confirmation of this translation, just ask a Greek friend!

Dale, so sorry to ‘abuse’ your site for ‘conversations on the side’!!
Perhaps some sort of ‘miscellaneous’ box would be useful!!
Blessings
John

He also knows church history. In the second chapter of his book he gives a very clear summary of the problem that faced the Catholic bishops in the fourth century. He begins by describing “the doctrine of the Pantokrator – that the one Lord God is the supreme, universal, actively ruling Power over all things.” Then he explains:

First … the doctrine of the divine Monarchy – that there is one Pantokrator – is to be maintained as the true teaching of the Church. Second, also to be maintained as true, is the teaching that Jesus Christ is Lord, that is, he is the Pantokrator. Third, no less to be maintained, is the truth that is evident on every page of the Gospel, that Christ, the Pantokrator, is the Son; he is from the Father and therefore is other than the Father, who is the God, the Pantokrator. … How is the ancient doctrine of the Monarchy to be maintained so as to leave intact the new doctrine that Christ, the Father’s Son and Word, is equally Pantokrator, as the Father also is? This was the Nicene problem of God.

So it was a new problem, based on a “new doctrine” – that Christ, the Father’s Son and Word, is equally Pantokrator, as the Father also is.

Murray does not suggest that the word Pantokrator (translated Almighty or Omnipotent) is ever used in Scripture in relation to Christ. It is not. The word is used once in 2 Corinthians 6:18, and nine times in Revelation, where the Lord God Almighty/Omnipotent is consistently seen as being separate and distinct from the Lamb.

The new doctrine is based solely on the fact that “Jesus Christ is Lord.”

But 1 Corinthians 8:6 makes clear that there is a difference between the one God and the one Lord. All things come FROM the one God, THROUGH the one Lord. So the one Lord is not equally Pantokrator with the one God.

In other words, the fourth-century problem was a man-made problem, requiring a man-made solution.

Murray admits that the creed agreed upon at Nicea went beyond what Scripture says. [The later creeds are even worse, I think.] That is no problem for a Catholic, who believes that the “Fathers” had ultimate authority in deciding doctrine, without being limited to the text.

For Protestants, though, I wonder what happened to the idea of sola scriptura.

Your entire post is a consequence of the (tacit) assumption that the word God (necessarily) refers to a an individual entity/being.

Do you want a counterexample? Here it is, and it doesn’t even need to involve Leibniz’ “indiscernibles”.

Just replace, in your original exchange: Jesus => Paul; God => man; send => sire; Trinity => paradox

someone: Paul is man.
me: You mean, Paul is man himself?
someone: Yeah.
me: Don’t you think something is true of Paul, that isn’t true of man [in general], and vice-versa?
someone: Yes. e.g. man, [in general] sires children. Paul didn’t. Man is a paradox. Paul is not a paradox.
me: Right. Then in your view, Paul is not man.
someone: But he is.
me: So, you think he is, and he ain’t?!
someone: [silent puzzlement]

(January 9, 2012 at 8:49 am)

I guess I was reacting to an earlier comment that the ‘Father’ in Isaiah [9] v 5(6) was the Messiah. You appeared to endorse this point.

I do endorse that point, although I didn’t exactly speak of Messiah, but of “mysterious messianic figure presented by Isaiah”. This, anyway, is the standard understanding of Christian exegetes.

I was not entering into the debate on what the Pope said or intended to say!

But that cannot be avoided, in view of Dale’s interpretation …

Maybe I’m listening too much to my Hebrew friends-who state quite categorically that the child was young Hezekiah.

LOL! And why not Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, the mysterious son that Isaiah had from the “prophetess” with whom he had “sexual relations” (Is 8:1-4)?

(January 9, 2012 at 8:53 am)

I’d appreciate your comments on Philippians 2.

See my (graphically ghastly) comment at ‘Merry Christmas’

Best.

MdS

I realize that my previous post looks quite dreadful, with all that bolding. Wouldn’y it be possible to have a “preview” feature for comments? Maybe even an edit feature …? Maybe even a user-friendly text editor …?

Thanks.

In ancient times, yes. But I’m aware of some pretty clear cases, in the present day, and in early modern times, of trinitarians who were also modalists.

In answer to your ‘questions’ on Philippians, here is some ‘kenosis for dummies’.

It is customary, in trinitarian circles, to make a big meal of the Paulinian notion of kenosis, sometimes even flirting with the cabbalistic notion of tzim-tzum. All stems from a hyped, abusive, metaphysical interpretation of this verse …
“… but emptied [ekenôsen] himself by taking on the form [morphê] of a slave, by looking like other men, [Grk: 'by coming in the likeness homoiôma of people'] and by sharing in human nature [Grk: 'and by being found in form schêma as a man'].” (Phil 2:7)
… whereas it is entirely evident, to any exegete/hermeneute that is not swept off balance by unwarranted metaphysical spin, that the above verse applies to the real Jesus of Nazareth who lived in Palestine, 1st century AD, NOT to some mythical and “preexistent” “God-the-son”, as made fully clear by the context of the immediately preceding and following verses …
You should have the same attitude toward one another that Christ Jesus had, who though he existed in the form [morphê] of God did not regard equality with God as something to be grasped, [Grk: harpagmos, 'robbery'] but emptied himself by taking on the form [morphê] of a slave, by looking like other men, and by sharing in human nature. He humbled himself, by becoming obedient to the point of death – even death on a cross! (Phil 2:5-8)
In the 4th century, when the “trinitarian” solution of the Christological question was being concocted, the notion of kenosis had NOT (yet) acquired the meaning of something like “temporary metaphysical emptying of divine prerogatives”. Both the Arians and their (orthodox) opponents affirmed that God is entirely free from passion and change. The orthodox position held this view in regard to the divine nature of Christ, which is homoousios with God, but allowed the human nature to suffer.

Athanasius, in particular, said of the Logos that …
The Word perceived that corruption could not be got rid of otherwise than through death; yet He Himself, as the Word, being immortal and the Father’s Son, was such as could not die. For this reason, therefore, He assumed a body capable of death, in order that it, through belonging to the Word Who is above all, might become in dying a sufficient exchange for all, and, itself remaining incorruptible through His indwelling, might thereafter put an end to corruption for all others as well, by the grace of the resurrection. [Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 2. The Divine Dilemma and Its Solution in the Incarnation, (9) - emphasis added]
So the unchanging, incorruptible and impassible Logos, impassibly (“by His own impassibility”) endures suffering in the body…
He manifested Himself by means of a body in order that we might perceive the Mind of the unseen Father. He endured shame from men that we might inherit immortality. He Himself was unhurt by this, for He is impassible and incorruptible; but by His own impassibility [en tê eautou apatheia] He kept and healed the suffering men on whose account He thus endured. [Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation, 8. Refutation of the Gentiles (continued), (54) - emphasis added]
… which clearly means, in short, that, according to Athanasius, in this body that “He” adopted, the Logos (“God-the-son”) did not really suffer, but only feigned anguish and ignorance “for our sake”.