Posted on 11/23/2015 7:29:51 AM PST by NRx
This is not true. John specifically states, "And the Word WAS God". Further, Jesus himself stated, "I and the Father are One."
I am:
The Father of my children. By my will and desires have I raised them up in my values and morals. They are my progeny.
The husband of my wife. I protect her and am willing to die for her, and the children borne by her, if and when they are threatened. I will protect them at all physical and financial cost for they are MY sheep.
The son of my Father (and birth mother) who raised me to the same Godly values and morals and sent me forth to propagate according to his morals and values that he has handed down. My father will be beside me as I raise my family and protect them. His support is unfailing.
Is that so difficult to understand?
We have a Triune God.
Actually, it is. With all due respect, I don't think your explanation cleared it up. Your example sounds to me like modalism, which is defined in Wikipedia as "the Heavenly Father, Resurrected Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of one monadic God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three distinct persons within the Godhead - that there are no real or substantial differences among the three, such that there is no substantial identity for the Spirit or the Son." Your example sounds like three different aspects of your existence.
Frankly, I do not think our minds are capable of really grasping the Trinity. We can believe it, but to understand that something can be separate and one is a contradiction our puny human brains cannot fathom.
God in three persons
Blessed Trinity
Yes, I specifically referenced a modalist perspective since our “puny, human” minds need a point-of-perspective to work from.
I agree that we cannot fully grasp the Trinitarian concept (that is why the Athanasian Creed is so —long—).
But, in presenting the proper concept we should start with a common knowledge (this is why Christ used parables, right?).
No, we cannot fully (and ^faithfully^) explain the Trinity but we can START. And then the non-believer can be brought to knowledge by The Holy Spirit...it is but a mustard seed...ne c’est pas?
Love ya, Cletus, but this is modalism: you describe one person having three roles. Or five, or 10, as you could have added that you are a nephew, a cousin, an uncle, a sportsman, an employer, a citizen, a BBQ chef, a veteran, etc. etc. It is certainly not Trinitarianism.
I think all believers know they’re dealing with a godly mystery in the Trinity, even though they believe fully in the Truth of it.
Yes, it is nigh impossible to explain it to someone without resorting to modalism in some form.
The secret to understanding the Bible is simple.
You have to PERSONALLY KNOW the persons who wrote it; namely GOD, His Son, Jesus, and the people GOD selected to reveal it to us in the Books of the Bible.
Jesus gave us the clue, “... ONLY BELIEVE ...”. Jesus made that statement to a desperate young father .. as his daughter lay dying. All around the young father were his neighbors .. all of whom were telling him not to bother the Rabbi (Jesus), because “... your daughter is dead already.”
The first time I read that statement .. ONLY BELIEVE .. I knew I had discovered a secret .. I just believe Jesus is who He said He is .. and that He came from the Father, GOD.
Therefore, it’s not studying the Bible as only a historical or generational thing .. It’s GOD’s WORD to us .. for us. To instruct, to enlighten, to console, to uplift, to teach.
The Bible is more than a bunch of writing .. it is GOD’s WORD specifically for us.
Please see my response in #6. I provide a simple “starting point”. You are right in pointing out that my post supported modalism.
I would never argue modalism to Rev. Pres Harrison, David Scaer, Rev. Just, Rev. Rast, WAM-III, Mrs. Don-O, Lightman, Chas, redgolum or others of my tradition that I respect...which includes several Called&Ordained members of my family.
Yet, like my children as I raised them, there is a need to be brought to Faith through the ^milk^ of simple teaching before providing meat to chew on. (I offer a look back at Senator Simon’s literary contribution to the Lutheran Church, at-large) [/spit].
In the world of the unbeliever, I would START from a position of “parable” (or common life-reference) to bring them along and allow the Spirit to finish that work in them. This is also why our Lord used parables.
I proffered (and do not deny) that what I provided in this forum is simply “modalism”. Yet if left to fester in the heart of the unbeliever that creates an image of a divided salvation.
At that, the heresy is then on me for not following through, yes? Yet, I cannot discern the hearts nor the effort of the Spirit of those who go astray according to what I offer. I can only give Gospel solace to those that reply..those in whom the Spirit has caused a “spark”.
Thus we cite Luther:
I believe that I cannot, by my own reason or strength ^believe^ in Jesus Christ MY Lord...but the Holy Spirit has called me by the Gospel...etc..”
What then do we say regarding the use of the term “modalism”. I proffer it means nothing to the uninitiated/unlearned and only gives the skeptic another “big word” to ^kick at the goads^ of evangelism.
The atheist/agnostic/skeptic will utilize such to denigrate the faithful teacher and accuse them of hypocrisy.
Even here, we are surrounded by those who are uncertain of what Christ has accomplished for all mankind. I try to fill a certain niche. I also do respect and cherish the input of my fellow Christians, such as yourself, to keep me “aligned straight”.
Pax, Mrs. Don-O
Besides, I'm not in a position to discern, dissect, or debate right now, because it's comin' on Thanksgiving and I'm getting ready for comp'ny!
Wish we could get together and discuss it over my pecan sweet potato pie! Many blessings upon you.
Okay . . . ordinarily I wouldn't respond to such a post, and I most definitely do not subscribe to the Protestant concepts of "perspicacity of scripture" or sola scriptura; but what this author is saying goes way beyond merely dismissing those two positions.
Anyone who reads can see this is the standard excuse for dismissing Genesis 1-11 (along with Jonah, Daniel, and Esther) as mere mythology whose only message is as moral fables. The reference to the "vast scholarship that has been devoted to the Bible over the past two hundred years" makes this explicit. All Biblical traditions have scholarly traditions going back to the very beginning, but the past two hundred years have dismissed all this as primitive mythology based on acceptance of historical criticism, which is itself predicated on the unproven assumption that G-d could not possibly have inspired mere men to write down exactly what happened in these books.
So it seems the "neo-reactionaries" are as liberal, modern, iconoclastic, and free-thinking as any Bultmann or Wellhausen. Once again Adam and Eve get the shaft.
I am disappointed in you, NRx.
Cletus,
Perhaps a better starting point than modality is seen in the household of Abraham, and the marriage of Isaac to Rebekah (Genesis 24).
Clearly Abraham is Master of the house, and Isaac, as his son, would have the same authority as his father over the household. Abraham’s servant who was commissioned to find Isaac a bride also had authority over the household, especially in the matter of finding a bride for Isaac. This servant was also Abraham’s heir in the event of Isaac’s untimely death.
The metaphor can be extended, in that the servant is sent to bring a bride to the son by the will of the father. The servant testifies to the nature of the father and the son to a bride that has never seen either.
So, in this metaphor, the household of Abraham is likened to the Godhead, and the Trinity to the father, son, and servant. I’m not saying that it is without issue, but it is better than the route of modality.
Grace and Peace,
K51
Let me say that I would NOT BE SURPRISED if the aforementioned theologians (LCMS Men of Gospel-reputation) did not “smack-me-around”, “beat-me-up” and subsequently “verbally flog” my post. I stand in my belief.
That offered, I defer to them in proper teaching. Yet I know that Phillip taught the Ethiopian Eunuch while trusting in the Holy Spirit to bring that same man to the Gospel Salvation.
Such is what we “believe, teach and confess”.
Oh, I very much agree with you
...except we are confronted daily with those who will consistently respond that the “Old Testament” is a collection of myths Fairy-tales on the level of The Brothers Grimm and Mother Goose.
The “cultural” acceptance is that...
Moses/Abraham=Ghiappetto
(See further...Adam and ultimately =GOD)
Christ=Pinocchio
The Holy Spirit=Tinkerbelle
And some day, Christ...oooops...Pinochio will be a “real boy”.
Although implied, my plea to such “modality” is hidden in these fairy-tales by the modern culture.
Funny to think that such “fairy-tales” were meant to teach the Gospel....
Beware the Xenoi Papades and their odd notions!
To the extent we can grasp the Trinity, or better said, experience the uncreated energies of the Most Holy Trinity (not of course its essence or the divine hypostatic union) it is simple, really:
“The Spirit of the supreme Logos is a kind of ineffable yet intense longing or ‘eros’ experienced by the Begetter for the Logos born ineffably from Him, a longing experienced also by the beloved Logos and Son of the Father for His Begetter; but the Logos possesses this love by virtue of the fact that it comes from the Father in the very act through which He comes from the Father, and it resides co-naturally in Him.
It is from the Logos’s discourse with us through His incarnation that we have learned what is the name of the Spirit’s distinct mode of coming to be from the Father and that the Spirit belongs not only to the Father but also to the Logos. For He says ‘the Spirit of Truth, who proceeds from the Father’ (John 15:26), so that we may know that from the Father comes not solely the Logos - who is begotten from the Father - but also the Spirit who proceeds from the Father. Yet the Spirit belongs also to the Son, who receives Him from the Father as the Spirit of Truth, Wisdom and Logos. For Truth and Wisdom constitute a Logos that befits His Begetter, a Logos that rejoices with the Father as the Father rejoices in Him.
This accords with the words that He spoke through Solomon:’I was She who rejoiced together with Him’ (Prov. 8:30). Solomon did not say simply ‘rejoiced’ but ‘rejoiced together with’. This pre-eternal rejoicing of the Father and the Son is the Holy Spirit who, as I said, is common to both, which explains why He is sent from both to those who are worthy. Yet the Spirit has His existence from the Father alone, and hence He proceeds as regards His existence only from the Father. Our intellect, because created in God’s image, possesses likewise the image of this sublime Eros or intense longing - an image expressed in the love experienced by the intellect for the spiritual knowledge that originates from it and continually abides in it.” St. Gregory Palamas, Topics of Natural and Theological Science no. 36
I understand you main point about people thinking that the OT=Fairy-Tales, but I don’t see how one gets Christ=Pinocchio.
Pinocchio = The son of the father.
The rest of the story is a fairy-tale of his shortcomings as a way to diminish Christ as the Son of God.
As XPians, we might also see Pinocchio as Satan-The-Fallen while some might contend he is Adam and represents the fall of man.
For me, I view the Pinocchio fairy-tale as mythology wherein Pinocchio’s “good works” cause him to be human (as opposed to the Christological “being human presupposes good works”.
Maybe I’m wrong.
Also, and to be concise. I stated that Pinocchio = Christ intending the concept of the fairy-tale, not the Biblical understanding.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.