Why is modalism dangerous

Several years ago, after I spoke on the trinity at a church Bible study, one of the members of the class came up to me and said, “I believe God is just one Person wearing three hats, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.” I told him he was in error and explained briefly some of what you will read below.

The error this gentleman believed is called modalism, the belief God is just one divine Person who relates to us in three ways, as the Father, as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit. The longer I’ve been a Christian, the more I’ve run into this belief, so I’m going to address it here.

In philosophy, there is a law called the Law of Identity, also known as the Law of Non-contradiction. It says that “A” cannot be “non-A” at the same time, under the same circumstances, and in the same way. To put it simply, each of us is similar to one another in many ways, but there are always differences. Twins are not the same person although can they seem to be.

If two things are exactly alike in every way, they are equal to the same thing. We see this in simple manufacturing. I have two No. 2 pencils on my desk. To all appearances, they are exactly alike. But, on closer examination, they are not. There are minor differences. Even if there were no differences, they would not be logically called identical because they do not occupy the same space. This is a little picky, but logic is picky in order to be successfully used.

So, with all that said, simply showing there is some difference between, say, the Father and the Son, we can show they are not the same Person. In the rest of this post, I’ll present evidence they are not identical.

Isa. 44:6 identifies two Persons, one identifies Himself as YHWH and identifies the other as YHWH as well. Though they are different Persons, they are both called YHWH (God)

6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.

Whenever you see the word “LORD” in all caps as we see twice in this verse, it represents the divine name, YHWH. Both “the King of Israel” and “His Redeemer, the LORD of hosts” are identified as God yet also as separate persons.

In Matt. 24:36, Jesus says the Father knows something He Himself does not know, the date of His return:

36 “But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

You can see the contradiction if someone knew something and also didn’t know it. It simply doesn’t make sense.

There are many more passages and other points Scripture makes showing Jesus and the Father are not the same Person. They have different wills (Luke 22:42), they are in different locations at the same time (Matt. 5:44-45), And many other differences.

The biblical view of God is that He is one Being (Isa 43:10-11) but three distinct Persons, the Father (Gal. 1:1), the Son (Heb 1:8), and the Holy Spirit (Acts 5:3-4). The one God exists in three Persons.

Why is this important?

If modalism were true, the Father died on the cross. The most important issue, though, would be the modalist would have a view of Christ different than the Bible presents. That may be different enough that salvation is not in the Christ they believe in.

Two things:

1 – It serves us well to recognise that the nature of God is not comparable to anything else in all creation. Thus it ought not surprise us that the ineffable transcendent God exceeds our capacity of comprehension. The more so when we accept that The Fall lead not only to our flesh being sinful but to our intellect being seared. God may be known, not from without but only from what He is within Himself. This is the Holy Spirit’s work in the life of the Christian. The doctrine of The Trinity rests on the testimony of Scripture not on an appeal to, or the capacity of, rational human thinking.

2 – If God is a monad, as Modalism purports, then what does it mean to say “God is love” (1 John 4:8)? Who does God love in eternity past, when there was no creation, other than Himself? If God is one being in three phases/manifestations then love is nothing else than self-absorption and eternal self-affection! Not only that but nfinte self-affection, in which case ther is no prospect of men and women entering into the sealed bubble of God’s self-preoccupation! If there is no eternality to the concept of ‘relationship’ then how does God, in Himself relate in love to anything.

Here at least the Muslims are correct. For them Allah is unknowable. He is beyond relating to.

It is this fact of the inherency of relationship that I consider to be an important aspect of the Trinitarian faith. If such inherency be not the case then there is no sense to the love by which The Father sent the Son to be our redeemer. Neither is there any sense in the notion of Christ as mediator.

If love be a concept which lies outside the reality of who God is within Himself, then it is not an absolute reality which derives from the essence of God but a concept, a philosophical proposition, an abstract premise to which God submits. Which if true means that God is not the self-sufficient One, the I AM of the burning bush and we are back to the Socratic dilemma. Is love good because the gods say it is good or do the gods say it is good because it is good?

Truth, love and wisdom are not concepts outside of God. They are realities which flow from the “what isness of what is” within God.

@ChrisFish

Thanks for your post, Chris. In reply, some Oneness adherents, including yours truly, would reply that according to Romans 1:20, God’s essence can be clearly seen by the things that are made. Given that God is infinite and we are finite, I think it’s obvious that there are many things about God which are beyond the reach of our comprehension. Nonetheless, we can via natural revelation accurately conclude some non-contradictory things about Him.

You say that the doctrine of the Trinity (DT) “rests on the testimony of Scripture not an appeal to, or the capacity of, rational human thinking,” however, no appeal to Scripture entails logical contradictions. If it is your position that the Scriptures teach logical contradictions, then we can have confidence in nothing it teaches. The assertion that God exists is equivalent to God does not exist, and the statement, Thou shalt not commit adultery is equivalent to, Thou shalt commit adultery. Moreover, how in the world can we appeal to the Scriptures unless we are committed to logical coherence? It is impossible to communicate unless we can accurately identify the words and render an exclusive meaning to said words. And if the conclusion you draw from the scriptural record is something equivalent to married bachelors, then I’ve got to conclude that your conclusion is false.

It is our position that the DT, in all its variations, entails logical contradictions and cannot, therefore, be considered a template for biblical interpretation. You cannot tell me that you believe in one God when your definition tells me that there are three. You cannot tell me that each person of the Godhead is fully God when your definition tells me that they are fractionally God. And if an appeal to the ineffable is a legitimate maneuver to excuse contradiction, then it’s a legitimate maneuver for everybody you disagree with. It becomes an “out” for every logical conundrum we face. No appeal to the Scriptures will justify tritheism or partial godism. If a template produces contradictory results, then there’s something wrong with the template. We thus strip ourselves of the warrant to critique opposing viewpoints.

With respect to love, I think that you are begging the question in favor of multi-personal love. We are commanded to love one another as we love ourselves. If self-love is impossible or illegitimate, why are we commanded to base our love for others on it? And no, love is not something that stands apart from God that somehow adds to or perfects Him. As the only simple being, He is the perfection of love.
Thanks for your reply, Chris, but you never got around to defending the logical coherence of the Trinity, except to imply that I’m somehow looking at it through a natural and not a spiritual lens. If that’s all I’m going to get, then the same appeal is available to every competing group which undermines any warrant to critique said views. An Arian can reply that your trinitarian lens is “carnal” whereas his Arian lens is “spiritual.” You cannot point to contradictions between the Scriptures and the conclusions they draw because you’ve excused the same with your own doctrine. For example, when Jesus said to the Father, “…that they may be one as we are,” trinitarians cite that as proof that the “one” in “one God” is a composite unity, thereby showing how God can be both one and three. That appears coherent until you add, “…by the way, each person is fully God.” Wait a second!! I’m not “carnal” or “natural” when I cry foul. All composites are assemblages of parts with each part by definition being a fraction of the whole. So either stick to the composite argument or quit trying to tell me that you believe in one God. Please don’t be offended because I don’t say this to be insulting, but it’s that kind of double-speak that has been the breeding ground of all sorts of perversion in the name of Christianity. “If you were really spiritual, you’d see that this is what you should do” is illegitimate because that’s not proper exegesis. The so-what-if-my-doctrine-is-self-contradictory-it’s-still-biblical defense is false on its face. Since contradictions can never be true, as an advocate, your job is to demonstrate that it’s not a contradiction.

Now, against that you, for the most part, have demonstrated the logical coherence of alleged opposing thoughts or perhaps paradoxes found in the Bible. In other words, alleged inconsistencies are resolved by context and differing senses of the terms employed. But surely you know that there’s a world of difference between an inconsistency and a contradiction. It’s always possible to resolve an inconsistency, but it is impossible to resolve a contradiction. “A” will never imply the negation of “A” in the same respect. This is a metaphysical principle which flows from God’s essence which of course means that it is inviolable. Besides, I think you misunderstood my statements. I am only saying that if you allege that the Bible affirms genuine contradictions, then you must acknowledge that the true contradiction of everything the Bible teaches has equal force. And that of course renders the Bible a meaningless book.

As you know, the fundamental planks of the DT are not found in the Bible. They are rather conclusions drawn by its proponents from what they consider sufficient biblical data. But since the affirmations cancel each other, no sense can be made of them. It is no different from my saying that you must affirm the biblical doctrine of married bachelors. You would rightly reply that it is impossible for the Bible to teach said doctrine because the concept itself is self-canceling and therefore unintelligible. As a proponent, you are rationally obligated to demonstrate its logical coherence in the same manner that you’ve demonstrated the other matters. Respectfully, you don’t get to assume it’s coherent because paradoxes are. By the way, begging the question (petitio principii) means that you’re assuming what stands to be proved or is disputed.

Since you’ve stated that you cannot show how three different persons who are each fully God are really one God, I assume no attempt will be forthcoming any time soon. But any appeal to mystery or “spiritual lenses” is an automatic show-stopper as I argue above. Everybody can now appeal to them to resolve logical conundrums. This of course logically leads to relativism of the grossest kind which is what I don’t think you intend.

Finally, with respect to love, the command to love God does not dilute the force of the command to love others as we love ourselves. In other words, the proximate basis of our love for others is our love for ourselves. Self-love is therefore both possible and legitimate. We are made in God’s image and likeness. If we can love ourselves, then God can certainly love Himself. Love, then, does not necessitate another.
- “As a proponent [of DT] , you are rationally obligated to demonstrate its logical coherence…”.
  
  I don’t know about ChrisFish, but I would not care to argue with you on the terms that you set.
  
  It is appropriate, firstly, to show that your persistent allegations are false viz. that Trinitarianism is logically contradictory. (By the way, this is the same as to say that it is inconsistent). I did so, at July 16.
  
  Certainly you are right to say that Trinitarianism is not asserted in Scripture, but this is the historic reading of Scripture by the saints, regardless of the Constantinian enculturation of the early church.
  
  Be that as it may, the faith and hope of the redeemed is that we follow the living Christ who is God the Son, whereas it is not by philosophical inquiry that the deity of Jesus could ever rightly be affirmed or denied.
  - @chris russell
    
    You’re literally the third “Chris” I’ve recently interacted with on this subject. 🙂
    
    You say, “…I would not care to argue with you on the terms that you set,” but since you acknowledge that “Trinitarianism is not asserted in the Scripture,” how do you reply if I ask you, upon hearing that you believe in the Trinity, what that’s supposed to be? And once you give me your explanation and I ask, “How is that different from tritheism?” would you still say that you’re not going to discuss the matter on the terms that I set?
    
    Actually, the discussion of the Trinity is on the terms that you set. The onus is always on the one making the assertion to demonstrate its logical coherence to those who do not understand it. Of course, I have made the claim that the DT is contradictory, and I’d be happy to demonstrate why when I hear just which version of the Trinity you espouse (I don’t want to skewer a straw man). Nonetheless, I can also tell when a person doesn’t want to discuss a topic, so if you’d rather not, no skin here.
    - Scalia, I don’t know that you did hear that I believe in the Trinity. I note that dogma is the product of the institutionalisation of the Gospel, and that, as such, it may not truly be in the interests of the church. So, yes, I would still say that I’m not going to discuss the matter on the terms that you set. That is not to say that it may not seem to you that you hear that I believe in the Trinity, and that you should think, “what that’s supposed to be?”
      - @chris russell
        
        Whether or not you actually believe in the Trinity, you said that it isn’t a logical contradiction. I would think that if you’re going to post that claim publicly, you would at least attempt to answer reasonable questions. Again, if that’s not your cup of tea, it’s no skin off my nose, but you shouldn’t have commented if you didn’t want to discuss it.
        
        Adieu.
        
        Scalia, I did answer your reasonable questions, but you went on regardless declaring that the notion of the Trinity is a logical contradiction. Now you’re running for cover.
        
        Where did you answer my questions? I’ve looked through every one of your replies and didn’t see it. Also, how in the world am I “running for cover” when I continue to post on the topic? I’m sorry, but that’s simply bizarre.
        
        Then I refer you again to my comment 17 July, at 9:56pm. It may be of help were you to consider that I might well have raised essentially a methodological objection to your position.
        
        You keep referring to your July 17th (9:56pm) comment which I’ve replied to multiple times. Once again:
        
        It is appropriate, firstly, to show that your persistent allegations are false viz. that Trinitarianism is logically contradictory. (By the way, this is the same as to say that it is inconsistent). I did so, at July 16.
        
        Certainly you are right to say that Trinitarianism is not asserted in Scripture, but this is the historic reading of Scripture by the saints, regardless of the Constantinian enculturation of the early church.
        
        Be that as it may, the faith and hope of the redeemed is that we follow the living Christ who is God the Son, whereas it is not by philosophical inquiry that the deity of Jesus could ever rightly be affirmed or denied.
        
        But you haven’t shown that my “persistent allegations are false”; you merely assert it is so. Proof by assertion is false because it makes every claim true because it’s asserted. And if that is the case, then my claim that the DT is inherently contradictory is true merely because I assert it. That of course means that you have in effect said nothing.
        
        As to the “historic reading of Scripture,” that is demonstrably false because history discloses myriad readings discordant with the DT. What you should have said is that the DT is one of the historic readings of Scripture. Interestingly enough, Tertullian, who is credited with being one of the men who coined the term “Trinity,” acknowledged that his view was the minority one in his day.
        
        As to your claim that “it is not by philosophical inquiry that the deity of Jesus could ever rightly be affirmed or denied,” is a straw man. First, I do not deny the deity of Jesus (you shouldn’t make assumptions; just ask). Second, if you equate “philosophical inquiry” with merely asking what the terms you use mean, no question about the Scriptures is legitimate. Moreover, it is the substantive equivalent of saying, “The Bible teaches sjejewme,” and when I ask, “What is sjejewme?” and you reply, “I’m not going to answer that on your terms,” I’ll rightly retort, “The quit speaking to me. If you expect me to believe something I don’t understand, the problem is with you, not me.”
        
        You guys came up with the word “Trinity,” so if you don’t have a sweet clue what that’s supposed to mean, then quit telling people to believe in it (if you’re a trinitarian, that is). And if you do know what it means, then you should have no problem explaining it (since even if you don’t believe it, your claim that it is not contradictory implies that you understand it). In all candor, I’ve discussed the Trinity perhaps thousands of times in my lifetime with laypersons and scholars, and I’ve never encountered such a bob-and-weave effort. That’s not a scriptural method; it’s an admission of impotence.
        
        Mark 12
        29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
        
        Romans 1
        20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.
        
        Clearly, then, both the Scriptures and natural revelation demonstrate the essence of God to unbelievers, and that essence is numerically one and indivisible. There is nothing “carnal” about asking you to define your terminology, and if you keep insisting that it is, then show me the Scripture that says that.
        
        Scalia, I detect a tone of irritation in your replies, which is unfortunate. You can not expect that all your disputants will set themselves up as sitting ducks for you. This is my reply to your comment, dated July 19, at 4.14 am.
        
        “… you haven’t shown that my persistent allegations are false”. I did so July 16, at 10.36am. I would refer you, further, to any basic text in formal logic. Consider, “bachelor” is defined as “unmarried male”; thus it is inconsistent to refer to a married bachelor. “God” is not defined as being numerically one. At least, this is not the case according to the revelation of Himself in both Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ, according to those called Christians. If you are presupposing a non-standard definition of the term “God”, then it would be a petitio to argue that a Trinitarian concept of God is logically contradictory. The qualifier, “historic Christian…”, is generally used simply to refer to what is considered orthodox in the history of Christian thought eg. the DT. No need to argue over this. You must distinguish your own usage of relevant terms, not resent that it is not accepted by others. Likewise the term “deity of Jesus” is generally used in the conventional sense i.e. qua second person of the Trinity. No need to argue over this. You must distinguish your own usage of relevant terms, not resent that it is not accepted by others. I also equate the term “philosophical inquiry” with its conventional usage in academic circles. No need to argue over this, of course. I would expect you to believe numerous things that you might not understand. I may not understand quantum mechanics, but I can rightly believe it on the basis of the testimony of physicists. I may not understand the love of God, but I can rightly believe it on the basis of the testimony of the saints. Whether you or I believe in “the Trinity” (whatever that is) is not the point. I have claimed merely that the concept is not logically inconsistent, and that it is actually a product of the institutionalising of the Gospel. I have indicated merely that I don’t use this terminology, personally. No need to argue over this, unless you want to. Despite your denials, it is evident that, like me, you do understand Trinitarianism. It is the theological doctrine that God exists in three persons. I also understand an alternative doctrine, namely, that God is “numerically one and indivisible”, but I don’t use this terminology, either. Evidently you do want to argue over this.
        Mark 12:29 attributes to Jesus the saying that the Lord our God is one Lord. It does not attribute to Him the thesis that God is numerically one and indivisible, or that God does not exist in three persons. Such attributions arose when it came about that the early Church and its heretics were absorbed by the world, and came up with various doctrines of God, original sin etc. Most of us are still sick in the mire, including you.
        
        That should be “stuck in the mire” not “sick”.
  - One more thing: Yes, a logical contradiction is inconsistent but in a different manner than resolvable inconsistencies. Contradictions cannot be resolved. Of course, one must prove, not simply assert, a contradiction, and that is something I think can be demonstrated by an objective analysis of the DT.

Scalia

Thanks for your thanks (of 16 July 2020)

As to the cost of having a non-contradictory Gospel

It troubles you that the doctrine of the Trinity is a logical contradiction. Does this not mean that we should also ditch the doctrine of the Incarnation since it is a contradiction to say that He who is The Word and is God became flesh (John 1:1&14) is simultaneously finite and infinite. How does the finite retain the infinite? Or is it not a contradiction to say that He who was born in Bethlehem is the same as He whose “existence has been from antiquity, even eternity” (Mic 5:2 ISV)?

Is there not a contradiction between Rom 1:20 and 1 Cor 2:14? The one text saying that aspects of God’s nature can be known to the natural mind from the natural world and the other saying that the natural mind cannot receive the things of God?Those that ponder such things would say that in the first instance scripture is seeking to establish that all have some sense of what righteousness means but despite this all have sinned (Rom 3:21). Whereas the other is saying that an understanding of Christ’s cross does not rely on men’s eloquence or argumentation but on the Holy Spirit.

The two scriptures cease to be a contradiction when set within the full ambit of Biblical truth.

The appeal to scripture must entail logical coherence

You make us of The Law to argue the consequence of neglecting logical coherence, saying that the opposite to marital integrity is adultery. Scripture does command an opposite to adultery: “Husbands love you wives” (Col 3:19). The same as it commands an opposite to don’t steal: “Let him whole stole steal no more, rather let him work I order that he may have something to give” (Eph 4:28) i.e. “be generous”. The opposite to don’t kill is to love one another.

My point is that the logic of the Biblically informed mind is not the same as the thought processes of the natural mind. The Biblically informed mind would never see “Thou shalt not commit adultery” as having the opposite of “Thou shall commit adultery” because the Biblically based thinker knows that the carnal mind is at enmity with God and is not subject to The Law of God (Rom 8:7) and that the overall trajectory of Biblical thinking is toward righteousness.

And so correct reasoning is derived from within Scripture not by using the natural mind which lies outside Scripture.

Loving one’s self

It seems to me imprudent to argue that self-love, to the extent of loving our neighbour, is a suitable referent as evidence of love. I say this for two reasons.

a) The requirement to love others as one’s self is the second of the two great commandments. Thus we love others as ourselves because God requires that we love Him. So our perspective on love must start with that which He sets forth or defines as love. On this basis God Himself is the standard and indeed source of love (Rom 5:5). So I don’t think that my concern as to what love looks like from within the Godhead is begging the question. (Small confession here – I never really understand what that phrase means!)

b) The world is replete with sin-sick people who in their self-indulgence are damaging their health, relationships and eternal well being. Not only that but such people will often seek out and gather around them people with the same self-destructive habits, as Paul would say, “taking pleasure in those that do them (Rom 1:32). This sharing in sin is then understood as loving others as one loves one’s self.

Conclusion

(I bet you thought I’d never get here!) All our reasoning, whether in regard to contradictions in The Word, opposites in The Law or definitions of love, must draw their origin from the context and rationale of scripture. Scripture presents an “internal logic” which is not always consistent with the natural mind. Indeed we ought be surprised if it were.

The appeal to human logic as the maxim for handling Scripture will negate important other truths such as the Incarnation. To lose this is to lose our salvation since we are then without a mediator.

Hence I return to (and perhaps would expand on) the original premise of my first comment “The doctrine of The Trinity [indeed any attempt to reason as to the important things in life] must rest on the testimony of Scripture not on an appeal to, or the capacity of, rational human thinking.”

Cheers and once again – thanks

P.S. I observe that your comment to me was logged at 1.30 a.m. I wouldn’t have thought such matters were worth staying out of bed for? This is to assume that you are not a shift worker or some such.

Chris, I replied to your comment, but I must have forgotten to click the actual “Reply” button. You can read my response HERE.
- Scalia
  
  My “appeal to mystery or “spiritual lenses”” was meant to be a presentation of the need for Biblical thinking, as distinct from philosophical definitions, when performing exegesis. I apologise if I have failed to defend the “logical coherence of the Trinity” to your satisfaction but may I point out that neither have you succeeded in addressing my question as to whether the Incarnation was logically incoherent since it requires us to believe that the Infinite/Eternal Being occupied finite/time-space reality. This is probably my error as I am prone to being prolix. Too many ideas in one comment box!
  
  Therefore I reiterate – am I wrong to suggest that the Incarnation is at core a logical inconsistency?
  
  Or am I wrong to see Peter’s preaching at Pentecost as logically inconsistent, in that he says that Christ’s crucifixion was before ordained by God but the Sanhedrin is culpable for that murder (Acts 2:23)? That is, is God’s sovereignty logically inconsistent with man’s accountability?
  
  I guess that I am happy to receive that which you term a logical incoherence as a paradox.
  
  Further (at the risk of including too much in the one comment box) I am struggling with your insistence that “All composites are assemblages of parts with each part by definition being a fraction of the whole” and that therefore God can’t be a compound one. If this is Trinitarian gobbledygook, then I am happy be cast a gook of the first order, because when God declares Himself as “One” scripture uses the word ‘echad’ (Deut 6:4) which in Hebrew is a compound one.
  
  This same word is used to describe Adam and Eve as one in their marital relations (Gen 2:24) and also the promise that under the New Covenant God will give his people one heart (Jer 32:39). Moreover, Hebrew also includes a word which means solitary oneness. That word is yachid and it is never used to speak of God. It seems that God is content to known, if not insistent to be known, as a compound one. IF that satisfactory for Him, that I feel unable to make exception.
  
  Thanks for taking the trouble of replying.
  - @ChrisFish
    
    Thanks for your reply, Chris, but we’ll have to deal with one subject at a time. I will only say in passing that I do not believe that the incarnation is a logical contradiction. It carries nowhere near the logical baggage that the DT does.
    
    You write:
    
    I am struggling with your insistence that “All composites are assemblages of parts with each part by definition being a fraction of the whole” and that therefore God can’t be a compound one. If this is Trinitarian gobbledygook, then I am happy be cast a gook of the first order, because when God declares Himself as “One” scripture uses the word ‘echad’ (Deut 6:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)) which in Hebrew is a compound one.
    
    It appears from your appeal to echad that my accurate definition of composite can safely be sidestepped because the Bible informs us that God is a composite. I would say in reply that if God is a composite, then He cannot be God by definition for the reasons I stated. No being lacking ontological and logical primacy is God. A dependent God is not God by definition. That, then, clearly signals that there is something deeply flawed with your appeal to echad
    
    I have Israeli friends whose native tongue is Hebrew, one of whom is a professor to teaches Hebrew to English students. Also, as any credible Hebrew lexicon will tell you, echad is simply the Hebrew word for “one,” the primary usage of which is the number “1.” Echad occurs some 970 times in the Old Testament and is overwhelmingly used as a numerical singularity. That said, the significant minority of usages also reflect a compound unity, thus making echad a parallel to our word “one.” Some examples of numerical singularity are:
    
    Genesis 2
    21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam and he slept: and he took one (echad) of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
    
    Genesis 4
    19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one (echad) was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.
    
    Exodus 26
    Ten cubits shall be the length of a board, and a cubit and a half shall be the breadth of one (echad) board.
    
    Ezekiel 37
    24 And David my servant shall be king over them; and they all shall have one (echad) shepherd: they shall also walk in my judgments, and observe my statutes, and do them.
    
    Examples such as these can be multiplied literally hundreds of times, so, no, echad does NOT always refer to a compound unity, and given that, since you use the word compound, you own its implications. And that means that each person in your Godhead is at best fractionally God and that “God” is dependent on something other than God (for no fractional God is wholly God) for His actuation and continued existence. And that of course signals clearly that God cannot be a composite entity. So, though echad may indeed reflect a composite, it cannot be so applied to God if you want to sustain the DT.
    
    Now, lest you remain suspicious of my observations due to my modalism, my critique of your compound unity doctrine actually stems from the majority of trinitarian scholars. The vast majority of trinitarians, at least on paper (Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed and several other mainline Protestants and Evangelicals) stridently deny composition in the Godhead, and they consider a composed God heretical. In fact, Catholic philosopher Ed Feser calls such a view “atheism” because it denies divine ontological primacy. So, your debate over composition in the Godhead should really be directed at the majority of trinitarians because they consider you a heretic.
    - Thanks Scalia. Always happy to learn. Are you able to give me a reference for Mr Feser’s assessment please?
      
      I might note that being an errant Trinitarian doesn’t make modalism correct. I accept your comment about ‘echad’ but doesn’t that assist my Trinitarian position, since it would appear that the word carries both singular and plurality in its meaning? (I’m trying to avoid the word ‘compound’ until I find out why I’m wrong. 🙂

ChrisFish, And how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

@chris russell, you write:

I detect a tone of irritation in your replies, which is unfortunate. You can not expect that all your disputants will set themselves up as sitting ducks for you.

The “irritation” is due to your continued dodging and multiple goodbyes. I keep thinking that the conversation is over due to your lack of interest in participating, and you keep coming back with what I consider obfuscation. And as to whether you’re setting yourself up as a “sitting duck,” that all depends on whether your definitions can withstand logical scrutiny.

“God” is not defined as being numerically one. At least, this is not the case according to the revelation of Himself in both Scripture and the person of Jesus Christ, according to those called Christians. If you are presupposing a non-standard definition of the term “God”, then it would be a petitio to argue that a Trinitarian concept of God is logically contradictory.

This is extremely curious because God being numerically one IS the standard definition of God according to the majority of trinitarians in the world. Catholics, Anglicans, Reformed, several mainline Protestant and Evangelical groups expressly affirm the doctrine of divine simplicity (DDS) which abjures any real composition in the divine substance, that it is numerically one and indivisible. Maybe you’re unaware of it, but there are several contemporary variations of the DT from the DDS, “monarchial” trinitarianism (espoused by some eastern churches), and various composite trinitarian faith statements from groups who reject the DDS (e.g. William Craig and his Cerberus analogy). So, perhaps you should take up a discussion with the majority of your fellow trinitarians over whether God is numerically one. They consider any denial that God is numerically one heretical.

Moreover, if you’re going to refer to God as “Himself,” perhaps you should remind yourself that such pronouns are reserved for one person, not three.

The qualifier, “historic Christian…”, is generally used simply to refer to what is considered orthodox in the history of Christian thought eg. the DT. No need to argue over this. You must distinguish your own usage of relevant terms, not resent that it is not accepted by others.

But your view, as stated, isn’t orthodox—no need to argue over this. Of course, you can simply assert that your view is the scriptural one and the “orthodox” version isn’t, but that won’t advance your appeal to any “historic reading.”

Likewise the term “deity of Jesus” is generally used in the conventional sense i.e. qua second person of the Trinity. No need to argue over this. You must distinguish your own usage of relevant terms, not resent that it is not accepted by others.

But on both counts, I don’t resent a thing. If you don’t want to discuss a matter, then quit discussing it. I generally don’t keep posting when I don’t want to talk about a subject. You appeared to presume that I denied Christ’s deity, so don’t “resent” it when I give you the good advice to not assume such things.

I also equate the term “philosophical inquiry” with its conventional usage in academic circles. No need to argue over this, of course. I would expect you to believe numerous things that you might not understand.

Asking you what you mean by the term “Trinity,” is something any unbeliever who knows next to nothing about the Bible would ask you. And any Joe off the street can ask how three fully divine persons who are really different from each other can be one God. I believe that you acknowledged that you couldn’t show how that’s possible (it’s not because it IS a straight contradiction), so you shouldn’t resent it when folks call you on it.

Whether you or I believe in “the Trinity” (whatever that is) is not the point. I have claimed merely that the concept is not logically inconsistent, and that it is actually a product of the institutionalising of the Gospel.

And I can demonstrate why every version of the DT is contradictory. To paraphrase Aristotle with respect to contradiction, all one needs to prove it is to say something. Just pick any version of the Trinity and the contradictions emerge on its own terms. The reason I haven’t fully explicated why is over your refusal to define the DT.

Despite your denials, it is evident that, like me, you do understand Trinitarianism. It is the theological doctrine that God exists in three persons. I also understand an alternative doctrine, namely, that God is “numerically one and indivisible”, but I don’t use this terminology, either. Evidently you do want to argue over this.

When did I deny knowing what the DT is? If I implied that, then I offer my apologies up front. I simply don’t want to assume which version my interlocutor affirms since I’m not interested in refuting a straw man. I’m very familiar with trinitarian thought and have read numerous works defending its variations from Augustine to Aquinas to White to Craig.

Mark 12:29 attributes to Jesus the saying that the Lord our God is one Lord. It does not attribute to Him the thesis that God is numerically one and indivisible, or that God does not exist in three persons.

Well, let’s see:

Mark 12
32 And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but HE:

And how did Jesus reply?

34 And when Jesus saw that he answered discreetly, he said unto him, Thou art not far from the kingdom of God. And no man after that durst ask him any question.

He didn’t say, “Oops! You need some theological refinement there!” To both Jesus and the scribe, the Lord God of Israel is a HE, not a they:

Matthew 19
4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that HE which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

I believe some 20,000 times the Bible uses singular personal pronouns relative to God. Of course, a singular pronoun belongs to one person, not two or three.
- Scalia, my comments which you apparently can not tolerate are anti-theological. The sense in which theologians may refer to God as numerically one and indivisible is not my problem. I am opposed to Trinitarianism, the theory of the Incarnation etc. etc. on what would count philosophically as methodological grounds; hence the brief reply to ChrisFish, July 19 at 12.15pm.
  
  You interpret this as “dodging” and “bobbing and weaving”, but this reflects simply your being ignorant. When somebody disagrees with you, listen carefully when they tell you clearly where they are coming from. It is childish, in mind and spirit, to be outraged in debate.
  - @chris russell
    
    And there’s a world of difference between irritation and outrage. I’m not outraged at all, but I will add that it’s childish in mind and spirit to accuse somebody of being something they’re not.
    
    And I also think that you should take your good advice to “listen carefully” to those you interact with. I acknowledged the possibility that you’re not trinitarian. Please recall that you asserted that there’s no contradiction and I’m at bottom simply saying that I can prove the contradiction once you pick a flavor.
    - Scalia, it is not a question of ‘picking a flavor’. There can be no contradiction if there is no putative explanation of the logical possibility of three persons co-existing in a Godhead. In that case, you may, like me, have an alternative objection to the doctrine.
      
      Further the issue is not whether you “acknowledged the possibility that you’re [I’m] not trinitarian”. This is trivial and personal. What you did not stop to consider was the limits of trinitarian theory.
      - If God is Modal and not Trinitarian, who ran the Universe while ‘God’ was modally Christ and descended to Hell, predestined by God and sent to Hell ?
        
        Modal = False God.
        
        @Bruce Lyon
        
        You’re referring to the doctrine of sequential modalism which is not affirmed by anybody or Oneness group in the modern era. In fact, it is doubtful that Sabellius taught such a doctrine for it is weak, at best, to evaluate a doctrine solely on the description of its enemies.
      - @chris russell
        
        How quickly you forget? I previously commented:
        
        If all you’re saying is that, strictly speaking, the claim that God exists in three persons is not a contradiction, I would agree if and only if you’re implying that God is a composite unity. Since everything that exists, except God, is a composite unity, the questioned statement, though inapplicable to God, is not in itself contradictory.
        
        I, of course, am not referring to the strict statement that composites exist or that it is contradictory to affirm composition in composite things. I was referring to the DT, not a generic statement about composition.
        
        Scalia, simplicity is a red herring. Insofar as the Trinitarian does not explain the logical possibility of a triune God (see my reply, July 16, at 10.02pm; also, Feser, quoted in my reply, dated July 20, at 8:42pm), the doctrine is not contingent on extrinsic claims in relation to the attributes of God.
        
        @chris russell
        
        I didn’t bring up simplicity in the post you just replied to, so I don’t know what you’re talking about. Moreover, I couldn’t care less what the trinitarian doesn’t explain; they’ve been on record with their definitions for a very long time, and that is sufficient to demonstrate their logical incoherence. All I need to know is which version they espouse.
        
        With respect to Feser, I believe that I replied on the the thread to which you refer without rebuttal from the regulars.
        
        I should add that I was stressing composition, not simplicity, per se.
  - Well @Chris Russell, at least you plainly state your disposition, anti-theologically.
    
    You deny the Incarnation, and you deny the Trinity. I expect you also deny Hell?
    
    You seem to have pretty much put yourself in the camp of the unbelievers.
    
    :(((

Q&A Why

Why is modalism dangerous

Pos Terkait

Periklanan

BERITA TERKINI

Toplist Popular

Periklanan

Terpopuler

Periklanan

Tentang Kami

Legal

Dukungan

Social