|
Listen to this post:
|
What, precisely, is “modalism,” and what, if anything, is wrong with it? I find the theological and historical literature to be depressingly unclear about this.
Why? Partly it’s the sparseness and obscurity of the original sources. Partly it’s the habit of simply repeating the same lore over and over, couched in the same (sometimes unhelpful) terms, starring the same (not too well drawn) heroes and villains. Partly it’s just good old-fashioned intellectual laziness. In this series of posts, I’ll explore these issues; this first installment is an attempt to define “modalism” about the Trinity, and a shot at classifying some varieties of it.
In past writings I’ve described “modalism” as the view that God just is the Father just is the Son just is the Holy Spirit – that is, that those are four names for one and the same entity, the one divine person.
I now think that’s on the right track, but I wonder if this is not the best way to characterize modalism in general. “Modalism” is often explained as the view that the Persons of the Trinity are mere “modes of” God, and it seems a necessary truth that no mode of a thing is identical to that thing (doctrine of divine simplicity notwithstanding – but please, let’s save that big can of worms for later). Thus, my being cold, or my pretending to be Santa Claus, aren’t identical to me, the entity which has the condition of being cold, or which acts in the manner of Santa. The modalist may want to say not that all four of those terms co-refer, but that some refer to the one God, whilst others refer to modes of that God.
Now the thought behind my earlier definition was that if you refer to a mode, you thereby, indirectly, refer to that thing to which that mode belongs, i.e. to that which it is a mode of. If that is so, then a modalist would indeed hold that all four terms refer (directly or indirectly, via a mode) to the same thing, God. Perhaps a better way of defining modalism is this: the modalist holds that if you use all of these terms: “God”, “Father”, “Son”, and “Holy Spirit”, you’ve referred to one and only one person, that person which is identical to the one God. One or more of these terms may name the divine Person himself, while the others refer to modes of that same person.
Thus, a modalist may say that “God” and “Father” are two names for the one God, while “the Son” and “the Holy Spirit” are names for ways in which that one God acts, or for personae he adopts. Or a modalist may say that “God” names the one deity, and the other three terms refer to his modes (ways of being). Or a modalist may say that those four terms are so many names for God. My previous definition made it sound as if all modalists were of this last type, but clearly, the earlier two would be modalists as well.
To put it ontologically rather than linguistically, the modalist is someone who takes some or all of the persons of the Trinity to be modes of the one God, the other(s) being identical to God. Thus, perhaps a modalist will say that the Father just is (is identical to) God, while the Son and Holy Spirit are only modes, i.e. ways in which God/The Father lives, acts, or appears. To put it in the plainest possible language, the modalist says – about one or more of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – that it (they) ain’t “in God”, unless by “in God” means being either numerically identical to God or a mode of God.
Suppose Jan is grumpy in the morning, happy in the afternoon, and sad in the evening. Her family, let’s suppose, have taken to using the names “Grumpy Jan”, “Happy Jan”, and “Sad Jan”. Now if these three terms refer to modes, clearly, they refer to different modes. But if we take them to refer (whether directly or indirectly) to persons, then clearly, they refer to one and the same person. Probably, Jan can’t play more than one role at once. But she has a brother, named Phil. Sometimes, Phil is funny. Sometimes, he stinks. And sometimes, Phil talks loudly. Accordingly, his family has taken to calling him, at different times, Funny Phil, Stinky Phil, and Loud Phil. Note that none of these modes of Phil are contrary; at least in principle, he could exist in all three of those ways at once. For example, after not bathing for a week, he may loudly tell a hilarious joke.
This brings us to another crucial ambiguity in talk of “modalism”. Often, as here, “modalism” is thought of as the claim that first, God exists as Father, then he stops doing that and starts existing as Son, and then after doing that a while, he exists as Holy Spirit. This view is “refuted” with a simple proof-text that shows the Three together at one time, at Jesus’s baptism. One gets the impression here, that orthodox trinitarianism is simply what one could call eternally concurrent modalism – the view that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are modes of the one God, but modes which God eternally or everlastingly enjoys.
It seems to me that we need some analysis, and some more descriptive names. Here’s a proposal. Modalism is defined as above, and any modalistic theory will fit into one of the three following categories.
- sequential or non-overlapping modalism: there is no time at which God exists or lives in more than one of his modes
At the other extreme, we have
- eternally concurrent, or maximally overlapping modalism: God eternally or omnitemporally exists in all of his modes.
Then in the middle, as it were,
- partially overlapping modalism: God sometimes, but not always, exists or lives in more than one of his modes.
Let me makes some comments on the suggested scheme.
First, none of these are single theories, but rather, families of modalistic theories. For example, a variant of the first might be what is often attributed to some ancient modalists: the in Old Testament times God existed as Father, during the earthly ministry of Jesus God existed as Son, and since Pentecost, God exists as Holy Spirit. Or it might be (for example) the view that every Monday through Wednesday, God exists as Father, then Thursday and Friday as Son, and he acts as Holy Spirit only on the weekends. As to the second, we haven’t yet said what these eternal modes are – just the Son and Holy Spirit, or are there three modes of God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit? And there would be infinite varieties of the third view, depending on which modes are said to overlap when.
Second, all of these views may understand God’s “modes” to be or involve God’s having certain intrinsic features; modes needn’t be ways in which God appears. Saying that modes involve God’s having intrinsic features, of course, comes at a price. For instance, it seems to me that strict believers in divine eternity, understood as timelessness, could consistently hold only the second view, if they take modes to involve God’s having intrinsic features. And the orthodox might argue against the first and third views, understood as attributing intrinsic features to God, as follows: God is eternal/timeless, but on a modalist theory of the first or third kind, God is temporal, hence, those kinds of modalism are false. Those theories would make God temporal by attributing to him properties of being or acting a certain way at and through times. Modalists of the second kind who hold that all three modes are timelessly enjoyed by God would escape this objection.
Third, it is not easy to separate some of what are supposed to be orthodox theories of trinitarianism from the second kind of modalism, eternally concurrent modalism. One might think – what else are the Persons of the Trinity if not ways God eternally lives? Good question – but we won’t answer it here.
Sometimes modalism is cast, as here, as the view that “God’s threeness” is in appearance only, rather than in God’s own nature. Thus, this sort of “modalist” thinks that God only appears to be three Persons, but is in fact one Person. Here, the “modes” aren’t God’s being a certain way, that is, of his having certain intrinsic properties, but only of his appearing to creatures a certain way. I suggest that we could borrow some terms from Kant, and call this “phenomenal” modalism, and it it could conceivably come in any of the three varieties above. (The second kind of modalism could be phenomenal only if eternally or omnitemporally, there were creatures to be the subjects of these illusory misperceptions of God.) If a traditionalist casts “modalism” in this way, then she has a built-in answer to what separates her view that “God eternally exists as three Persons” from “modalism” – the latter takes these Persons to be mere appearances, but for her, the Persons are three ways that God really is. But if a modalist is rather what we could call (again stealing and adapting Kant’s terms) a “noumenal modalist”, who takes these modes to be ways that God is, then it is less clear what the orthodox refutation should be.
We can sum up our findings thus far as follows. Varieties of modalism “reduces” one or more members of the Trinity to either God (that is, to being identical to God) or one of God’s modes. But “modes” as opposed to what? Is the problem that they’re mistaking multiple persons for different modes of one person? Or is the problem that they’re taking the divine persons to be ways God appears, as opposed to how God really is in himself? Or is the problem simply that they hold that the persons never overlap in time, or never act simultaneously? We should distinguish noumenal from phenomenal modalism, and realize that in principle, both kinds can be sequential, eternally concurrent, or partially overlapping. My suggestion, then, is that kinds of “modalism” can all be sorted into the following six categories.
Kinds of modalism about the Trinity
| phenomenal | noumenal | |
| sequential | 1 | 2 |
| concurrent | 3 | 4 |
| partially overlapping | 5 | 6 |
But wait – there’s more! A modalist says that certain Persons of the Trinity are modes. But which Persons exactly? In each of the 6 boxes above (I didn’t have the heart to further complicate the chart), there would be the following further options .
- Father only
- Son only
- Holy Spirit only
- Father and Son only
- Son and Holy Spirit only
- Father and Holy Spirit only
- Father, Son, and Holy Spirit
We could call this last variant, “full modalism” or “FSH modalism”, and I think often, in discussions of “modalism”, only these kinds are meant. But clearly, it is possible to be a modalist about, say, only the Holy Spirit. And I’d say that some of the ancients who are usually called “Arians” or “subordinationists”, are FH modalists, of either type 4 or 6. That is, they’d say that God just is the Father, and the the Holy Spirit is, as it were, God in action.
This is philosophy, people: answering questions only raises more questions! ( 🙂 or maybe rather, 🙁 ) To wit:
- Is this a good analysis? Are any important options left out? Is the characterization fair?
- Where do the ancient “modalists” or “monarchians” fit into this? Is Sabellius, for example, best understood as a type 4 modalist, or a type 1, or what?
- What about later “modalists”‘, such as United Pentecostals? Which do they assert?
- Is modalism as defined here by definition unorthodox (heretical)? Or are some variants heretical, and others, not?
- What about various famous “Latin Trinitarians” – Aquinas, Augustine, Barth, Edwards, present-day Oxford Philosopher-Theologian Brian Leftow? Are any of them type 4 FSH modalists? If they were, would that be a bad thing?
You philosophers & theologians out there – What say you? I’m going to hold off a while on the next post in this series, so that everyone has a chance to jump into the discussion.
Pingback: The Genesis of Eternal Subordinationism — Part III of Tim Keller on Sex | bWe Baptist Women for Equality's Blog
I would argue that the :concurrent noumenal modalist” is the “mystical” position. Here I am thinking of individuals like Shankara that hold to concepts like the svarupa-lakshana of the Brahman, which is the Brahman in its noumenal aspect of sat, chit, and ananda (being, consciousness, and bliss), and the idea of a tatastha-lakshana, which are accidental and indirect attributes that we would “know” through a variety of God-forms. The same could also be said of the Sufi Ibn-Arabi.
“Ibn Arabi regarded the idols worshipped by Noah’s people as divine deities. Allah condemned their deed saying: “And they (Noah’s people) said, ‘Do not abandon your gods, neither Wad, Suwa’, Yaghooth, Ya’ooq nor Nasr’. ” [71: 23] On which Ibn Arabi commented: “If they (Noah’s people) had abandoned them, they would have become ignorant of the Reality … for in every object of worship there is a reflection of Reality, whether it be recognised or not.” ”
http://www.ahya.org/amm/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=145
He states that “the Reality” is known through these ancient Arab pagan deities. I don’t think he believes that are ultimately real, they are just an indirect way for man to understand “the Real/ity”. What is noumenal would be the Real, whereas what is phenomenal would be these indirect attributes to understand the Real. I suppose Wadd was seen in the image of a man representing manly power, Suwa seen in the image of a woman indicating mutability or beauty, Yaguth in the image of a lion or bull signifying brute strength, Ya’uq in the form of a horse signifying swiftness, and Nasr in the form of a eagle, vulture, or falcon signifying sharp sight or insight. It could be that these “pagan deities” were a way to understand the phenomenal aspect of the Real, whereas the noumenal aspect still held to the concept of the Divine Unity of the Real.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/pag/pip.htm
I believe there is an article titled, “The Many Gods of Hick and Mavrodes”, with a response by John Hick that articulates this position. He uses a Kantian method to articulate his position. The many gods are phenomenal, the Real is noumenal.
Dear Fred and Dale:
I am a Oneness Pentecostal (UPC) and am seeing the fallacy of Modalism. However, I feel there is another option other than three Persons or Trinitarianism. Please give me your opinion of my “new” theory, for in my opinion it is neither Modalism nor Trinitarianism.
By the way, Dale your illustration in the above article are hilarious. Thank you for your thoughts on Modalism. I loved it!
THE “SON” AND “HOLY GHOST”
In the world of religious discussion a controversy has loomed for two millennia that has centered on the identity of the “Son” and the “Holy Ghost.” What did the writers of the New Testament mean when they referred to the “Son” and the “Holy Ghost?” Are they Person’s, Deities, Gods, manifestations or offices? There is no question about God the Father. He is the one and only God “from whom all blessings flow.” He is God without question. However, some have elevated the Son and Holy Ghost to the same level with the Father. The Doctrine of the Trinity was formed in order to disprove a heresy that doubted the deity of Jesus, thus it was formed to include Son and Holy Ghost in an eternal, heavenly unit of divine Persons who are thought to be coequal Persons. Yet how could the idea of plural deities be reconciled with Deuteronomy 6:4 and the Jewish monotheistic motif of the Old Testament?
The subject of the Godhead becomes less difficult when the humanity of Jesus is given its proper place. He is supposed to be center stage, for He is the main character in the plan of redemption. Mary’s baby is the central theme of the entire Bible (John 5:39, Luke 24:27). He has been given “all power” in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:18), a “name which is above every name” (Philippians 2:9), and has “preeminence” over “all things” (Colossians 1:18). Yet, the humanity of the Son is one of the most neglected subjects in the bible. This means that without a clear view of the humanity of Jesus clarity goes out the window and ambiguity takes over.
The Incarnation involved the entirety of the “man Christ Jesus” and that would include both flesh and spirit united with the Father. Therefore the office of the Son is not a separate deity but the glorified and resurrected human body of the “man Christ Jesus.” To this man was given “all power” in heaven and earth. He is the human representative of God to the entire Creation. He who was “made of a woman” (Galatians 4:4), and was the “only begotten” of the Father (John 1:14) and the “visible image of the invisible God” (Colossians 1:15 NLT) who also “sustains the universe by the mighty power of his command” (Hebrews 1:3 NLT); represents us before the throne of God. As a glorified human being He sets on His Father’s throne in the heavenlies and reigns supremely over the entire Creation (Revelation 3:12). Yet, the Son is not a separate deity from the Father but derives His power and authority from God the Father. Jesus, the Son, is the glorified human body of Jesus that was eternally joined to God the Father at His birth in Bethlehem. This unity of humanity and deity in heaven is similar to when He was on earth (Hebrews 13:8). Yet now He has the colossal task of representing His followers before the Judge of all the earth, pleading for mercy and grace and making intercession for them (Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25, Revelation 2:5). This human “mediator” (I Timothy 2:5) will continue in this office until “he shall have put down all rule and all authority and power” and “all enemies” are made subject to Him (I Corinthians 15:24-28). Any speculation that the Son is a separate deity from the Father has absolutely no biblical bases. The concept of co-equality between Father and Son are canceled out by the fact that Jesus the Son was given “all power” in heaven and in earth (Matthew 28:19).
The “Holy Ghost” is the human spirit of the “man Christ Jesus” joined to the Spirit of God. The fact that His human spirit was just as much a part of the Incarnation as was His physical body is often overlooked. Yet it is evident that Jesus had a human spirit and that human spirit has just as big a part to play in our salvation, as does Jesus’ human body. Jesus was “in all things … made like unto his brethren” (Hebrews 2:17). And since every other human being has a human spirit there is no reason to doubt the reality of the wholeness of Jesus’ humanity. The Bible says He “grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him” (Luke 2:40), He “increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man” (Luke 2:52). He “learned obedience” by the things He suffered (Hebrews 5:8) and “was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin” (Hebrews 4:15). One author said, “In every way that we humans can speak of our humanity and our relationship to God, so could Jesus, except for sin” (UPCI Manual p. 174).
Then after submitting to His Father’s will and enduring the death of a criminal, the spirit of Jesus was given to God on the cross. One of His last utterances while on the cross was “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit” (Luke 23:46). This perfected human spirit, which had already been made one with the Spirit of God, was then given at Pentecost and now dwells in all believers (Acts 2). Like a vaccine injection prevents infection and disease so the human spirit of Jesus also overcomes all spiritual disease in the believers life. Thus our salvation involves being filled with both the human spirit of Jesus and the eternal Spirit of God that are not two Spirits but one. Perhaps this is the reason the plural pronouns “we” and “our” are used in John 14:23, but it is not plural deities. The Incarnation consists of one God and one man, which have been made ONE.
The “Holy Ghost” could not be given before Christ’s death and resurrection (John 7:39) because it involved the human ingredient of Jesus’ perfected human spirit. The post-resurrection “Holy Ghost” was somewhat different that the pre-resurrection “Holy Ghost.” Or John would have never given us that detail (John 7:39). As God waited until the “man Christ Jesus” experienced life on earth to send this experience, so God has made available a spiritual experience that would turn lost sinners into “new creatures.” This was similar to the days of Noah when the Spirit of God “waited” for the Ark to be built (I Peter 3:20). Likewise, God waited for the perfection of His Son and sent forth the “Spirit of the Son” into our hearts to help and comfort us in all the concerns of this earthly life (Galatians 4:6).
This explains how the process of the Spirit of the Son makes intercession through us to the Father (Romans 8:26-27). Otherwise if the Holy Ghost would be the Father making intercession to the Father then we would have a major contradiction. The ingredient of the human spirit of Jesus contributes to the effectiveness of the post-resurrection Holy Ghost.
Because of the Incarnation, God knows the sufferings of his people and how to comfort them. After the sufferings of Jesus were completed He become the universal Mediator, and that mediation is two fold. Mediation for us occurs when the “Son” intercedes to the Father in our behalf (I John 2:1, Romans 8:34, Hebrews 7:25) and when the “Spirit” divinely enables the believer to pray according to the “will of God” (Romans 8:26-27). And through the human “conscience,” the Holy Ghost is continually “bearing witness” by either “accusing or else excusing” what the believer says and does (Romans 2:15). This “accusing” and “excusing” indicates spiritual guidance that was an attribute of the Comforter (John 16:13) and is similar to our being “led by the Spirit” (Romans 8:14). This is why we are warned to never “grieve” the Spirit (Ephesians 4:30) or “quench the Spirit” (I Thessalonians 5:19), for in doing so we interrupt the mediation process.
A good description of how mediation works was given by Job when He wished for a “daysman,” or a mediator that would “lay his hand” on “both” God and Job (Job 9:33). From this we understand that Jesus has one hand on God in heaven and the other hand on believers on earth. Yet, this in no way indicates a plurality of divinities but the remarkable works of a sovereign God and the bringing forth of a “great salvation” that is also our Comforter (John 14:16). The human Spirit of Jesus and the fleshly body of Jesus became the two arms of Jehovah that reached for a world of lost sinners. What an awesome God!
“For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted” (Hebrews 2:18).
Obviously it would be unbiblical to say the “Holy Ghost” is entirely of human origin because it is the eternal Spirit of God. Yet, Paul said,
“God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Galatians 4:6).
Paul also said, “he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit” (I Corinthians 6:17). Therefore if ordinary believers are “joined” to the Lord at the New Birth, then how much more was Jesus? Thus when Jesus was faced with death on the cross, He totally submitted His will to God and died. At that point He was “perfected” (Luke 13:32). He who had already been “joined unto the Lord” and “learned obedience” through suffering (Hebrews 5:8) now became part of the omnipresent Spirit of God. This new ingredient brought about a new title for the Spirit of God. Among other things the Spirit of God now became the “Comforter.” However, this “Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost” (John 14:26) could not be given until after Jesus’ resurrection (John 7:39) which indicates that it had the additional element of the perfected and obedient human spirit of Jesus enabling us to cry “Abba Father” in submission. Thus the Incarnation (the Spirit of God and the perfected human spirit of Jesus) was sent to the Church at Pentecost and fulfills Jesus statement, I dwell with you now but hereafter I “shall be in you” (John 14:17) and “I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you” (John 14:18).
This “joining” of God’s Spirit to the humanity of Jesus would be similar to the joining God’s Spirit with other men in the Bible and then given to others. In the Old Testament there were two events where the scripture states that God took a man’s spirit and placed it on others. This happened in the lives of Moses (Numbers 11) and Elijah II Kings 2. When the 70 elders of Israel were moved upon by the “spirit” of Moses, they prophesied and when Elisha received the “spirit of Elijah” he was able to do great things. Obviously, the human spirits of both Elijah and Moses were also anointed by the Spirit of God and this anointing came upon the people who received it as well. Yet neither Moses nor Elijah became separate heavenly deities. Nor did this process indicated plural Persons.
Even after Jesus’ perfection and the Spirit of God was miraculously joined with the human spirit of the “man Christ Jesus” it was still referred to as the “Spirit of God” (I Corinthians 3:16), but also “Holy Ghost” (John 7:39), “Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13, Ephesians 1:13, 4:30, I Timothy 4:8), “Comforter” (John 14:16, 26, 15:26, 16:7), “Spirit of truth” (John 14:17), “Spirit of Christ” (Romans 8:9, I Peter 1:11), “Spirit of the living God” (II Corinthians 3:3) “Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19), “Spirit of his Son” (Galatians 4:6), “spirit of glory and of God” (I Peter 4:14).
Those people who received the Spirit at Pentecost were given a better salvation than in the Old Testament. The addition of the human “spirit of Jesus” constituted a better salvation for New Testament saints, for they were comforted with a better Comforter. New Testament salvation happens when the believer is made a member of Christ’s body and the believer is “joined” to the Lord “by one Spirit,” “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body” (I Corinthians 12:13). This happened on the Day of Pentecost and when the words of Peter were obeyed (Acts 2:38).
Thus it is clear that the Son and Holy Ghost are not Divine Persons at all but manifestations or offices of the one true God. This provision of grace is part of the “great salvation” provided by the joining of God the Father with a man who had both a human body and a human spirit that was sacrificially given for the purpose of redemption.
“And because ye are sons, God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father” (Galatians 4:6).
“For I know that this shall turn to my salvation through your prayer, and the supply of the Spirit of Jesus Christ” (Philippians 1:19).
“But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his” (Romans 8:9).
Hi Pat,
Thanks for your comment.
If I understand you, you believe in one “universal” (a set of essential characteristics – humanity) which is wholly present in every human. This theory, deriving from Plato, is held my many philosophers (although not me). So too, you hold that another universal is divinity, which is wholly present in three different beings.
But that makes three (true) gods, though they cooperate. How you you square that the Bible’s teaching that there is one true God, and that this is the Father?
I’ve understood the Trinity by looking at the humans in the world. There is only one human entity, or the “thing” (substance) that makes a creature a human instead of a bear or cat, etc. This is why the Bible never goes out of style and is appropriate and applicable to all ages, nationalities, cultures, etc.
But, there are about 7 billion people in the world, and, even though two of them may assemble widgets in a factory, one will do it efficiently with his knowledge of shortcuts, and the other may do it efficiently with his experience of having assembled widgets for 30 years. These two are identical in that one human “thing,” regardless of whatever their jobs may be in life, but they are totally different in the working of the same job. However, their purpose for performing the job in their own ways is the same, namely, to produce a product that sells and is a service for the customer.
We know God’s characteristics involve love, peace, joy, holiness, etc. These are the things that Jesus had even while on earth. He set aside the other characteristics of omnipresence, omniscience, immensity, etc. and became a servant, as indicated in Philippians 2.
Therefore, the Trinity to me is that there are three Persons who possess from eternity all those characteristics that make each true God, as opposed to any false god or to anything or anyone that would be called god. They operate together and individually for the purposes of God. Jesus is the unique Person, because He could have taken the authority of God back at any time, but He chose to accomplish His Father’s will for mankind (love, which contained forgiveness, joy, holiness, salvation, eternal life….all that Adam and Eve lost by their disobedience, and additonal items which Adam and Eve never were able to obtain).
Pingback: Orthodox modalism (Dale) » trinities
Pingback: “Sabellianism Reconsidered” Considered – Part 2 (Dale) » trinities
Pingback: Is the Pope a Modalist? (Dale) » trinities
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…
Pingback: trinities - Linkage: Trinity discussions @ Theologica (Dale)
Paul – I hope, a lot of folk! Including Jesus.
-trinities
I have only one question to you trinities. Who will you see when you get to heaven?
Pingback: trinities - Linkage: Baptism in the NAME (Dale)
Pingback: In Response… « Wise Serpents/Innocent Doves
Pingback: trinities - Reader Question About Modalism (Dale)
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.
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
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!!
Pingback: trinities - Trinity Monotheism part 2: their set-up, part 1
Pingback: yet more on Modes and Modalism: Barth and Letham at trinities
Pingback: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 3 at trinities
Pingback: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part 2 at trinities
Pingback: Islam-Inspired Modalism - Part I at trinities
Pingback: The Orthodox Formulas 2: The Council of Constantinople (381) at trinities
Pingback: Lash: “modes” or “ways”, not “persons” at trinities
Pingback: Lash: modes or ways, not persons at trinities
Pingback: Kathryn Tanner’s non-Sabellian modalism at trinities
Pingback: “Is Karl Rahner a Modalist?” at trinities
Pingback: modalism and “modalism” at trinities
Pingback: Modalism: the solution to your all of your church’s problems at trinities
Pingback: Fred Sanders on Oneness Pentecostalism, Part 1 at trinities
Pingback: An argument against Son-modalism at trinities
Hi Objectivist,
I don’t see how split brain cases are relevant to God, except to motivate the idea that “centers of consciousness” are good enough for the separateness of the three – i.e. that quasi-persons and not persons are all that’s required.
I affirm 1 (Leibniz’s Law), and deny 2. In my view, if 2 were true, then 1 would have to be false. I think this topic deserves a fuller treatment, so I’ll have to give a raincheck, untill we get into the NT basis for the doctrine, and into the issue of polytheism, which isn’t quite as cut and dried as philosophers tend to assume.
Pingback: What is “modalism”? - Part 2 at trinities
Dear Dale:
I agree that persons are concrete particulars and not events. However, I still don’t see how this solves the split brain case as we’ve now split one concrete particular into two. Let us assume we take one half and transplant it in a body located in Australia and another is located in Nebraska (the former is luckier). Now assuming the two brains or minds act independently, it looks to me like we have two where previously we had one mind we now have two. I suspect you agree with me here (let us leave aside whether the two are new or whether one persisted).
It may be that split-brain theories don’t apply to God (I have my doubts whether a concrete particular can occur outside of space – but I probably need to think about it more). I would argue that any concrete particular that exists in space can be split.
I take it you hold the following conclusions. I might be misreading you. If so, I apologize.
(1) Jesus is not the same person as the Father
(2) Jesus is the same God as the Father.
How is this possible?
Anyway, your site is excellent. I sent the address to my brother so we can discuss it.
Hi Objectivist!
I’ll give a more serious answer to this one. It is quite metaphysically loaded, but it will explain one reason why I don’t think split brain cases are of help in theorizing about the Trinity.
I think it is a category mistake to think of a “person” as a personality, or as any series of events. Persons or selves are (by the meaning of the term) entities or substances, things which can last through time. Thus, when I read of a split brain experiment, I’m not tempted to think of each “center of consciousness” as a person. I’d want to say that what he have is a single malfunctioning person, one which can think in several manners or ways, and in so doing now fails to be aware of other things it is doing and thinking.
Still, suppose that split brain experiments do result in multiple persons. Maybe, there were already multiple persons acting in a coordinated way, and the surgery merely frees them to act independently. Or maybe, the surgery annihilates the original person, and creates three new ones. Or maybe, the original person remains, but now the surgery has brought into existence two other, newly-minted persons. I don’t see how any of this could help trinitarian theorizing…
But maybe your thought was this: split brain experiements show that FSH-modalism ain’t so bad.
Suppose Ann Coulter has her brain split, and as a result she now sports three “centers of consciousness” – call ’em Rush Limbaugh, Satan, and Church Lady. She remains one substance/entity, and if a “person” is a type of entity, then she remains one person as well. Now, though, there are three things within her which are quasi-persons – they can be different from one another, act independently, and be morally responsible, say, for calling Ted Kennedy a pinhead.
Now God, like the tin man, doesn’t have a brain, and unlike the tin man, doesn’t need one. So he can’t get his brain split. But, so this line of thinking goes, he, like Split-Ann sports three “centers of consciousness”, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is plainly a kind of modalism, but is it not also orthodox and even plausible trinitarianism as well?
I don’t think so. Go back to Ann. Church Lady and Satan do not like each other. They fight all the time. Rush and the Church Lady, though, get on all right. But what are we to make of these “relationships”? This is a sad specter of a single malfunctioning person, right? If Rush and the Church Lady “fell it love”, we wouldn’t be happy for them – we’d just fell sorry for Ann.
Back to God. It’s hard to see how the suggested model would give us a believable or attractive conception of the personal relationship between the Father and the Son that is portrayed in the New Testament. “God is like a brain trauma victim!” – just doesn’t do it for me, as it seems that the Father-Son friendship would be a sham relationship, and not a real one.
We’ll have to return to this, of course, when I get around to reviewing Trenton Merricks’ interesting paper on this theme.
Dale
Is Christianity polytheistic? There will be later postings (probably a number of them) devoted to this, so I’ll just give the cheapo, off-the-shelf answer. 🙂
No, it isn’t supposed to be. Jesus isn’t the same person as his Father, but he is the same God as his Father.
Don’t like that answer? Stay tuned…
Dale
I have another question, I’m not sure it’s appropriate to this section, but I’ll ask it anyway. If Jesus is divine and distinct from God, why isn’t Christianity a polytheistic religion?
I have a question that is related to modes. I wonder if one individual can have different flows of consciousness. I’m not sure how to put this in terms of different subjects of consciousness, because I’m not sure whether it’s possible to have one subject but different flows within that subject, only one of which can be accessed at the time or whether two flows of consciousness entail two subjects of consciousness.
I wouldn’t think this is possible but the split-brain cases involve different processing channels (e.g., the left hemisphere can communicate via external motion to the right hemisphere). In addition, some of the reports of multiple personalities sound like there are different flows of consciousness, although I’m not sure what to make of these reports.
My background idea is this. I’m told God and Jesus have conversations and have different thoughts. This suggests that they have different flows of consciousness. I wonder if this is enough to show that they are different individuals. The tie-in here is that a flow of consciousness seems to be mode-like attribute.
Hi Tanasije,
Thanks for reading and commenting!
My thought behind the phenomenal / noumenal distinction was that some modalism is metaphysically “shallow”, only making claims about how God appears. Other modalists, though, are making metaphysically “deep” claims – God really does act/live in those ways.
So by phenomenal, I perhaps should have said “merely phenomenal”. You’re of course right that not all perception is illusory. If a thing appears to me to be 8 meters long, that may be because my faculties are properly functioning, and it really is 8 meters long.
You’re also right to think that it makes sense to attribute dispositional properties to an object. Perhaps there’s a single property of the pear, because of which it appears green to you and I, and orange to visiting space aliens (who have different eyes).
One could take God’s modes to be dispositions to appear as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Then, those modes could be everlasting, even though creatures are not. I think some trinitarians think of them as ways God relates primarily to himself…
I also have to agree – we’d never have grounds for attributing three modes to God unless God appeared in three different ways to various folks among us.
So both kinds – phenomenal and noumenal modalists – will believe that God has appeared in various ways. But only the noumenal modalists will hold that by knowing of these appearances, we know something about how God is (as Kant would say) “in himself”.
There’s an interesting tension here. If one sticks to the phenomena, one will be accused of heresy. However, if one takes the phenomena to reveal how God really is, then one will be accused of heresy, in some circles, on the grounds that no human can grasp how God is, but only, that he is.
D
First, let me thank you for this ongoing introduction/analysis of the issues and possible accounts of the Trinity.
I want to express my doubt about the noumenal/phenomenal distinction, or my problems with it.
First about this sentence: “The second kind of modalism could be phenomenal only if eternally or omnitemporally, there were creatures to be the subjects of these illusory misperceptions of God.”
Why would appearing in specific way be illusion? We can imagine three people.. one able to touch a pear, one able to see a pear, and one able to taste a pear. It seems to me that none of those would be misperception.
One option is to say that it is not misperception because it is the property of the pear to feel to touch the way it feels to the first person, the pear really looks the way it looks to the second person, and the pear really tastes the way it tastes to the third person, and say it is not a misperception in this case as we the modalities are noumenal and not phenomenal.
But what does “feels to touch” means if there is no being who can touch it, what does it mean to “look some way” if there is no being with possibility to look/observe, and what does it mean that “it tastes some way” unconnected to the being with possibility to taste?
Even appearing in general, seems to me, fails into meaninglessness if we try to remove implicated relation in the term “appear” – that there is other to which the thing appears, and which is as important in the relation of appearance, as the thing which appears.
We can similarly take the noumenal modalism (in the case of maximally overlapping modalism), and ask if there are three modes of/in the thing itself, how do we know about those three, if they didn’t appear to us as different, hence connect to the phenomenal modalism.
Comments are closed.