Monday, September 24, 2007
The Laborers in the Vineyard
By: Hampton Keathley IV , Th.M.
The Passage Matt 20:1-16
The Parameters:
Jesus meets the Rich Young Ruler who says, “Good teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” What did we just learn in the last parable? (Pharisee and Publican) It is not what you do or do not do that justifies you in Gods eyes. The young ruler thought he had kept the law all his life. He thought he could get to heaven by his own works. Jesus ignores that question because the man cant get saved until he knows he is lost. So Jesus tells him that he must sell everything he has. The purpose of the demand was to point the man to his sinfulness and inability to earn eternal life so that he could then receive the free gift of eternal life from Jesus. The man cant bring himself to do that and leaves.
When the man leaves, Jesus says, “It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a sewing needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom.” The disciples ask “then who can be saved?” because they are still flirting with the theology of their day which says rich guys are rich because they are righteous and so the rich have an advantage.
So, after hearing Jesus’ discussion with the rich man about giving away all his property, Peter says, “Behold, we have left everything and followed You; what then will there be for us?” The disciples have a mercenary ministry. They want to know what their reward will be. After all, Jesus had said there would be treasure in heaven (Mat 19:21). What does Jesus say? “Peter, shhhh, don’t ask that question.” No, Jesus tells them that they would be rewarded. They would sit on thrones judging the 12 tribes of Israel.
But Jesus also warns them that the first would be last and the last would be first and begins the parable. And the phrase, The last shall be first and the first, last. concludes the parable.
The Problem:
What does it mean that the last will be first and vice versa? What will be the reward for those who give up everything and follow Jesus? Can I trust God to be fair in the distribution of rewards? If you are asking the question, then you really don’t trust your employer.
The Progression:
Chronological - The parable emphasizes the times that the laborers were hired. Mark Bailey calls this parable, “A day on the job in the kingdom of God.” (because the work takes place throughout the day and the payroll is at the end of the day.)
The Landowner hired laborers early in the morning (6:00) and made an agreement with them to pay them a denarius for the day’s work. It says the owner agreed which makes me think the workers asked for the denarius and he agreed to it.
The Landowner went out again at 9:00, 12:00, 3:00 and 5:00 and asked others if they would like to come to work without indicating what they would earn, only that he would be fair (vs. 4). If the first guy is going to get 1 denarius for 12 hours work, what do you expect the 2nd group to get? 3/4, then 1/2 then 1/4 and then 1/12th respectively.
At the end of the day, the Landowner went to pay them and started with the last group. He gave them each 1 denarius. What do you expect the next group to get? Three denarii. The next group six, and the next nine and the first group that was hired expects to get 12 denarii. But he gave everyone the same amount - one denarius - regardless of whether they had worked one hour or twelve hours.
Those hired first complained and accused the owner of being unfair.
But the owner justifies his actions:
on the basis of agreement - they agreed to work for a denarius. The owner calls him “friend” which in Matt is not a term of endearment.
on the basis of ownership - can I do what I want with what is mine?
on the basis of generosity - can I be gracious to whom I want to be gracious?
How much did those hired in the middle of the day or at the end of the day agree to work for?
None of those hired late made a deal concerning how much they would be paid. And all of them got more than they expected or deserved. But the ones who contracted for a denarius got exactly what they bargained for.
What should we conclude? If you want more than you contracted for, don’t contract. It is the same old issue of legalism versus grace. We think we want legalism or justice, but grace is so much better.
Jesus ends with the proverb - “the last shall be first and the first last.” Which means, if you are striving to be first, you won’t make it.
Perhaps the parable in Luke 17:7 is applicable here too. In that parable, the slave was expected to work and not worry about thanks or payment. Here too, the lesson seems to be to just work and not worry about rewards or payment.
The Point:
We are to serve God faithfully and let him worry about the reward.
The Program Of God:
Whether you come in early or late, you can still enter and enjoy the benefits of the kingdom of God. One’s faithfulness will determine one’s function in the future.
I think this parable also relates to the issue of Jews and Gentiles in the kingdom. The Jews had been working for God for over 2000 years already and it did not seem right that God would let these Gentiles in at such a late hour and give them all the blessings of the kingdom. The attitude of the Jews, was that they had earned all the blessings of the kingdom by keeping the law all those years.
The Principles:
The landowner represents God and thus we learn about God’s character.
Three characteristics of the consummate CEO:
We see that God is just - He treats everyone fairly. We can trust God to be fair. But God is more than just.
God is sovereign - He can do what He wants. He didn’t need to go to that intersection to get those workers. He could have gone elsewhere. God chose Jacob over Esau while still in the womb. If we understand who owns everything and that he could have chosen others, that should bring appreciation for the opportunity to serve. It should also eliminate comparison and pride - it was grace that I was chosen.
God is generous. That should eliminate pride. If one person has more than another, that doesn’t necessarily mean that they deserve it.
How would you like to work for someone who was always fair, always in control and generous to boot? Guess what - We do!
Principles for the Payroll:
We need to be faithful since merit is taken into account at the judgment. 1Co 3: says there will be rewards. We can’t throw out rewards just because we have one parable in which all received equal amounts. This doesn’t teach that there are no rewards, it teaches the grace and generosity of God.I’ve been a Christian about 30 years and have gone to seminary, taught Sunday school, and seminary classes, preached, been and elder, etc. But if someone comes to Christ today and one week from now, Jesus returns, and that person was faithful 100% of the time, he could receive more rewards than me. God will treat me fairly and I won’t be able to say, “You didn’t give me enough.” He can be gracious to a latecomer, give them an hour of opportunity and reward them for 100% faithfulness and that is fair. Why would I want that to be true even when I’m 33 years old and have been a Christian for 30 years? If I die tomorrow, am I at a disadvantage to those that lived to be 100 and were Christians 95 years? No. It is not length of service that is important. It is one’s attitude and motivation. 1Cor 4:5
This doesn’t just apply to time, it can also apply to ability. Jesus said some will produce 30,60 and 100 fold in Matt 13. If I don’t have the brains nor skill of someone like Chuck Swindoll, but I’m faithful, I could receive as many or more rewards.
There will be grace and I need to be thankful. We should serve and let God worry about the rewards.
We should not despise those who are saved at the end because they are valuable too.
I think too often we have the attitude that we obligate God by our actions - by our obedience - by our service, but we don’t, and I think God’s distribution of rewards will undoubtedly reverse many expectations.
At the beginning of the parable, Peter wanted to strike a bargain with Christ to find out what he would get. He wanted to know up front. “What’s in it for us?” Jesus is telling him “You don’t want to know” because if Peter had made a deal with Jesus, it wouldn’t have been as much as if he had just served faithfully.
Do you think that the disciples understood what Jesus was teaching with this parable? Did they learn their lesson? Not at all. In the very next scene in Matt 20, The sons of Zebedee (James and John) came to Jesus with their mother to ask if they could sit at Jesus’ left and right hand in the kingdom. What are they asking? If they can be first in the kingdom.
I think we can apply the principles from this parable to more than just length of service. It also applies to types of service - our spiritual gifts. 15 minutes in the nursery from 12:00 to 12:15 may earn more rewards than preaching for 50 minutes. Endurance earns more than eloquence.
Holy Trinity Explained
Trinity Explained
Almost all the topics end up in asking the illogicality of trinity. Let me try my best to explain how it perfectly make sense. Read with an open mind. You'll find out at least why Christians do not find it difficult or treat it as illogical. How can one be son of god and god at the same time? Isn’t that totally illogical? How can Jesus have a god when he himself is god?If god came down to earth, who held universe together?Isn’t Jesus’ matter flesh while god’s spirit?All such questions come from a mind that can only think within human context.According to science, every thing is made up of same matter and matter in turn is nothing but concentrated energy. So all that we see, all the things around us, and our body itself is different structures made up by same medium arranged differently. U break down any stuff, eventually u get to electrons protons which are basically concentration of same energy in different levels. Let this idea be in your mind to help further understanding.
Take this example:Human being has a mind subconscious, mind soul and body. They together make YOU!! Simple. You say “my mind is not attentive” “my body aches” “my soul will be saved”. And yet, other times you say, I advised him( not my mind advised him). I talked while sleeping (u dun generally say my sub conscious mind talked). So, on the whole, there’s only YOU.ONE YOU. Does anyone of you question how can I be my mind and my subconscious mind at the same time? isn’t it totally illogical? Soul mind and subconscious mind are spiritual realities. Science endorses mind and sub conscience mind. We can’t say they are different in matter. Since they are spiritual reality they must be of same “stuff” (even physical reality is proved to be of same medium by science). Yet we identify the “same stuff” as two coz of our understanding of its different roles. In the same way, “Three spiritual beings” in trinity (in human understanding or revealed to us in human terms)are non separable. Father son spirit relationship is mainly human understanding of roles of three persons (again three distinct person is in human context, not in spiritual realm) within godhead jus as mind subconscious mind and soul express singularity of YOU. We do not know all the roles or workings in spiritual realm. That is why church rightly says “trinity is heavenly mystery”. Not coz we are covering up a lie behind the word mystery. However, what god has revealed to us regarding roles within godhead, from the beginning and more explicitly revealed through Christ is this
The “second” “aspect” of godhead glorifies godhead by expressing godhead in the physical realm in front of creation and godhead entrusts all his creation unto him. The “first” “aspect” of godhead commands and designs. Third aspect transcends into creation, sustains them, appeals to their conscience and soul, imparts knowledge and counsels. These aspects together make singularity of god. When i said godhead im sure ur mind tend to think of the father only. But father son and holy spirit, they together will make godhead just as our human being is spiritual expression of different spiritual parts. So in the heaven also the visible aspect of godhead will be “the second aspect” as he is supposed to manifest godhead before creation. I use word “aspect” instead of person to minimize human elements in spiritual realm.Jesus prays to “first aspect” of godhead as father and his god coz it is from him he receives commands, without mind subconscious can’t work. He also humbled himself coz he was a complete man too. But in spiritual realm there’s no question of equality coz there’s no superiority or inferiority in the first place. There is no ranking within godhead. Is mind greater than subconscious? If u say yes, tats coz of ur human view on greatness. But within godhead they are one. Not inferior, not superior or not even equal. Its tri-UNION, not tri group or team.
Is god made of same matter too? First of all god is never made. what is basically there eternally is god. Big bang theory also says universe flowered from a single point, which means basically everything was singularity in the beginning. And remember it’s a theory which is not fully accepted in scientific circles.Then what is the difference between me and god? Difference are many. Yet, I’ll tell you where is the key difference. You are a man ,that is a creature made by god, and designed to have a conscious that enables you to identify you different from others and thus aware of self. while god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.Why tri and not a million or billion?This is like asking why only two hands not four. or why we dun have eyes at the back. It is as it is! that is what is revealed and shown.
what is this beginning?beginning of time? time is only a human measurement for motion.For god who is eternal and who is still, time looses meaning. For him What is before and what is after? He is all there is, all the time. He creates at his will.
yes.. time is measurable only from start of universe. PRECISELY!!So wot u mean when u say god imagined it "LATER"? later is only meaningful within a time domain! If you are asking Why god created it when it is created[at zero second, not -10 or -5 seconds], then assume he created it at -5 seconds... then that -5 second becomes zero second coz that when universe created and your question repeats. So negative time looses its meaning! So when there is no time existing before creation of universe, isn’t it foolish to think of a god taking "TIME" to learn how to create universe.So god is eternal. He creates time for us to live through while he is beyond time. He knows all things. and we learn from nature his knowledge!
Exaggerate a Man's life span to eternity. So as long as he is living, can u separate his mind body soul and subconscious mind? they together Make "ONE PERSON". "all his life” they are in complete union. Mind manifest itself in conscious state through body. Sub conscious mind manifest itself within body, ever alert, receiving stimulus. Soul holding all together, growing and sustaining them. are they separate of each other? u can say they are separate by the way they function , yet they are not separable as different entities.so is tri union of god... eternally in UNISON!
Let me try to put in something here. What if I told you that Christianity is not a religion..Wht if I told you that 25th December is not the day when Christ was born...what if I told you that the days Christians celebrate Easter is not the right day???Puzzled.Its true...Buddy you just asked that if everything came from the same substance then why is there just a Trinity...why not a billion..Well good question there...Now when Jesus was born on this earth, He was fully human and fully divine. He could have done some sort of exclusive performance and could have had the whole world worshipping him....but then who would people worship...Jesus the person!! Satan tried tempting Jesus with this when he said that jump from the highest point and that will be a fanfare for everyone. But then when Jesus referred to the Father he was making the people understand that they need to acknowledge God not a human as everyone was seeing Him as human who could perform mmmmm magic abraca dabra. When He said that The Holy Spirit will be poured out on those who believe and live justly He meant that one should order his/her steps perfectly. don’t be blinded by the religions of the world....he actually called the religious leaders whitewashed tombs who say a lot of things but hardly do anything... So in short Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are one and the Same person, but just for the human kind of understand, God made the distinction because for everyone God, Jehovah was an angry God....Jesus came as a Compassionate one (showing Jehovah's compassionate side) and then when He was being crucified , which was absolutely necessary...HE promised a Comforter who will be with them all the time...in the heights and the depths of life.
None of the popular illustrations are completely accurate descriptions of the Trinity. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better but still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapour, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration. Instead of focusing on the Trinity, try to focus on the fact of God's greatness and infinitely higher nature than our own. "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?" (Romans 11:33-34)
This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture.
1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No
The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Now when I say that they are one I mean that The early Christians and mind you i will point out to you that there are portions in the Bible which are later additions...The Son, Who is God found that the people of the World, needed someone to follow...He found that they were trying to personify God...in Jesus, But when He said about the Father and the Holy Spirit..He was implying...that God the real essence of the Divine is just not comprehensible by human mind....If I ask someone about Allah or Krishna...they have a definite definition for them. Jesus just pointed out that one cannot fathom God by human reasoning...
Also, you need to understand that if you take up the Quran and go the first book of Moses which is the same as ours..it states in the 2nd and third chapter that a son will be born who will crush the devil's head and God fulfilled his promise when Jesus was born...in fact I believe that there was no man on earth as sinless as Jesus..History itself puts forward a clear picture when the historian Jerome and Taticus the secular historian both point out that Jesus brought about the greatest revolution of all times....one should try to understand the real essence of what happened and if we just keep on debating what is what...we'll be left nowhere...Also...the Bible states..."Taste and See that the Lord is God"
People follow what they see in front of them....People follow the prophet...but how many follow the God to whom the prophet points????Also, Let me say this one thing..Read the Quran...When Moses first had the conversation with God...he asked..what do I tell the people sent me...In those days to know the name of someone or something meant that they had power over the other....God states very clearly there and confuses Moses there when He states that tell the people that 'I am that I am ' has sent you....In Hebrew language...this phrase is put forward in three ways....'I was what i was...I will be what I always will be and I will be what you need me to be in your need'
They are together all the time and who in the world told u that they exist as different..They are 3 entities who are never separate always the same and one
I said that humans have to understand the concept of God....no one can...can you????God made it simpler when He just divided them....Jesus said..anyone who has seen me has seen the Father...Also...Jesus....just said that He will send a Comforter....the Hebrew word use here is Ruah..the Spirit of God...When Jesus said tha baptise everyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. he meant that people have realized the love of God because of the sacrifice that Jesus showed on the cross...was convicted about it by the Spirit of God that all have sinned and have fallen short of the worthiness to approach God..and that from the day of the baptism they will try to live a God cantered life
the idea of the ‘three persons – one substance’ refers to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There have been many suggestions of how the ‘three persons’ in the Trinity (the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) relate to one another and this will be discussed within this essay. Also whether or not modalism is an adequate explanation will be discussed. However first we must look towards the complexities of the Trinity. The Nican and apostles creed both open with a declaration of faith in God but neither offer a definition of the trinity. It is because we are given no definition of the term ‘trinity’ that there is so much confusion and mystery surrounding it and why it is one of the most perplexing things in Christian thinking.The idea of the ‘three persons and one substance’ was given by Tertullian. However the terms within this quotation may not mean the same within today’s society as they did in the past. Nowadays when defining the word ‘person’ we think of an ‘individual’ and a separate entity. Therefore to the lay person, this statement would suggest that there are three separate entities with three separate centres of consciousness and will. Therefore they are all individual and not related, and therefore they are not able to be ‘one’. They are three separate entities and therefore not a proper trinity. The Greek word ‘persona’ was used to translate the word ‘hypostasis’. This may help us to gain more of an understanding of what is meant by the term ‘person’. The term ‘persona’ found its origins within the theatre and referred to the times when an actor would change his mask and take on a different role during a performance. The actor would change his personality various times but whilst appearing and seeming different to the crowd/audience he would still be the same person, the same actor behind the mask.Tertullian relates this idea to the Trinity. God can be seen like the actor. He shows himself at different points wearing a different ‘mask’.
He appears to be three individuals, the father the Son and the Holy Spirit but really these are just the role that he is taking on and the ‘performance’ that he is playing.Tertullian suggests that the ‘person’ refers to his being and substance refers to his entity. The God is the same God but he is like an actor who takes on different roles and appears in different ways. Therefore although these three personas appear differently, they are not, they are simply a role that God is playing hence the ‘one substance’.However there are many problems and complexities. For example, there is the issue of perichorisis which refers to how the three (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) relate to each other and how they manage to retain their individualities. We can now look at modalism and whether this is an adequate explanation of trinity. Modalism argues for Monarchaism (which points to the absolute unity of the godhead). Modalism suggests that there is one god but he presents himself at different points throughout history in different ways. For example, God is shown as God the Creator and lawgiver. God is then shown as Jesus, the Saviour and he is then shown as the Holy Spirit who is the sanctifier who is still active. The Holy Spirit is still being sent out to those who are worthy and ready to be ‘saved’. Modalism also accounts for patripassionism which explains that when Jesus suffers as does God as they are the same person. Therefore modalism argues the case for the one God and the unity of the godhead. It is the same God revealing himself throughout history, he is just revealing himself in different ways.We can now look more closely at the complexities of trinity. Both the east and the west are in dispute about their ideas and this causes conflict and confusion. Whilst one argues for the unity of the Godhead the other expresses the individuality of the three members of it. Therefore there is doubt as to whether modalism is an adequate enough explanation to settle the dispute.
It must also be noted that modalism is quite a simple explanation, for a very complex thing. Many would argue that the simple explanations are often the best (for example, reductionism) however it appears that modalism is an inadequate over simplified explanation and is therefore often viewed as heresy. There is also much debate as to whether Jesus was human or divine yet modalism rests on the assumption of his divine nature. However, modalism seems to offer a ‘neat’ way out of the problem and tries to make trinity more understandable. What makes trinity do interesting is the fact that it so mysterious, perhaps we are not meant to understand it. Many people have tried to get to grips with its complexities. Such people as Augustine who related trinity to love and psychology. However he too had problems coming to terms with it and seemed to make it more complex still.It seems that trinity cannot be explained by mathematical or a scientific equation as the ‘bizarre mathematics’ involved in doing this don’t seem to make sense in our modern world. The trinity is therefore bound in mystery.In conclusion, the Hebrew word for god is elohim (which is plural). It appears that god is not alone, that he is not a lonely god. However, because of the complexities and lack of definitions it appears that one cannot come to any firm conclusions about the nature of trinity. Although modalism does offer a simple explanation is not adequate enough and so trinity is still, and will remain a mystery.
Once the issue of Christology began to be settled in Nicea, the way was open to incorporate yet a further dimension to the being known as ‘God’. The Cappadocian Fathers Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea believed that there was an absence where the means of understanding God should be. This ‘thing’ McGrath neatly pinpoints in the analogy of Jesus on the cross. The ‘thing’ the Cappadocians desired to define was what made the difference between seeing a man, probably a criminal, hanging on the cross and seeing the son of God hanging on the cross. They felt this revelation and beginning of the experience of God was different from the begotten-Jesus, and the begetter – God the Father.Similar to the problem of developing a Christology, the defining of these parts of God had to be synthesized with ‘the one God’, the ‘unchangeable God’, ‘the eternal God’ and so on. So the doctrine of three ousia, one hypostasis arose. The Cappadocians were quickly accused of Tritheism.Tertullian was instrumental in the coining of many doctrinal phrases of definition, often borrowing from Greek thought and philosophy. This is one such case, but the implications being as important as they are here, the definition may seem somewhat semantic and pedantic. The Latin church proceeded to draw their line in the emerging table of definition more towards the side of modalism seeing God as one nature, one substance, but three persons. Those of the Latin world who had followed Tertullian were quickly accused of modalism. The underlying concept of monotheism in the Old Testament perhaps made modalism more acceptable to err toward, but to hold to it rigidly was to deny the full role of Christ in salvation.
Let us examine the consequences of modalism, if it is being asserted as the ‘only way to make sense…of Christianity’. In taking God as an inflexible one, this tradition has tended to emphasise the predominance of the Father, even if all are equal as the source from which the Son’s ‘begotten’ and the Spirit ‘proceeds’. He remains the ultimate definer. A justified criticism of this is the fact that God can therefore not escape from his role as the distant, powerful, detached, creator God. This same flaw in approaching Christology led to the comment ‘Arius never speaks of the love of God’ – the Arians leaving God the Father as the ultimate definer in the character of Christ. The path of the Arians diminishes Christ and therefore the power of salvation, and God the Father himself. Likewise, an approach of ‘Father dominance’ in the Trinity leads to a diminishment of ‘God’.Origen’s recapitulation of God’s involvement in history is convincing in its assertion of God being in each part but at different times. This has the formation of an ‘economic Trinity’, interestingly defining God as the possessor of three ways of being or ‘persona’ – fitting with the contemporary definition of persona as masks or personalities. However, this seems at odds with John 1 – Jesus was with God in the Beginning. Also, the Bible clearly states that Jesus is with God, at his right hand in heaven. They must be more separate than the modalist asserts.The problem of the Trinity has not been fully settled in church doctrine, but McGrath in ‘Understanding the Trinity’ picks up a possibly defensible line: a God immanent in all three persons but also a unified God. He, like Robert Aslam plays with the semantics of the word ‘God’ suggesting it should be understood how it was in the Old Testament – by its function. He suggests that God is defined by his functions e.g. ‘The God of Israel’ of the ‘God of Abraham’. A similar line can be seen in soteriology – Christ is known as God by his actions. This is ultimately why the Christians began to create a ‘Trinity’, despite the lack of any formal suggestion of it in the Bible itself: they knew God and experienced him in Christ and in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It was the same God experienced in each, just revealing himself in different ways. McGrath suggests that Christians would now say the God they believe is the God of the Holy Spirit and the God that raised Jesus from the dead. C.S. Lewis seems in agreement, in Mere Christianity in that the Trinity functions as different dimensions of the same God, this being incomprehensible in total to man, but the experience of God is of a unified one God – the God prayed to is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.In the confusion of the Trinity, where all God’s nature must be recognised and also his unity – unsatisfactorily dealt with simply by modalism- it is tempting to find a similarly simplistic answer. Here the words of Augustine are encouragingly at hand: ‘If we understood it, it wouldn’t be God.’
Adolf van Harnack established modalism as an attempt to counter tri-theism heresies after the doctrine of the Trinity.Modalism attempts to demonstrate the position of God as the “supreme authority” and the word comes from a Greek word meaning ‘monarch’.Modalism is trying to explain Gods position by giving the analogy of modes, the modes/methods of Gods persons altering for different circumstances. Chronological modalism is that which explains Gods actions altering for different historical events. For example, the God of Creation, God’s role as the creator of the universe. Mode 1 – creator but creation by God. The next mode is that of Jesus, God the Saviour in a human form. God’s “son” sent to save his created world. “The word of God” and finally God the Holy spirit to offer eternal life for his saved creation. Chronological modalism attempts to explain how god has acted through time. God has a different ‘hat’ on for each purpose. This leads to functional modalism. God has a different hat for different functions. Problems arose from the doctrine of the trinity because there are three different persons mentioned. God. Jesus, Holy Spirit.Each was considered a separate entity. The fourth gospel attempted to explain this gospel to the Jews. God’s word was sent to earth to give God’s gift of eternal life. The difficulty is that God is in Jesus 100% and Jesus has to be 100% human for God to ‘suffer’ for humanity. Jesus in John’s gospel is established as a saviour and the explanations he gives is to make believers believe and to acknowledge the Holy Spirit.Gnostic thinking is not too dissimilar as the God from the pleuroma sends a demiurge to earth to collect the people with divine sparks within them. The demiurge is an appendage of God collecting humans with the little bits of Gods light within them.
In order to assess this statement it is first necessary to understand what modalism is. The Trinitarian Heresy is that modalism is that the three people are different modes of the godhead. A modalist approach is that God is active as the father in creation as the Son in redemption and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. The Trinitarian sequence is thus: God revealed himself in the manner of the creator and lawgiver and as the father, the same god then revealed himself in the manner of the saviour in the person of Jesus Christ, the son, and finally the same god then revealed himself in the manner of one who sanctifies and gives eternal life.From this we are aware that the only differences are appearances and chronological location. The three persons of god form the doctrine of patripassionism in which the father suffers as the son but all three persons are present in that suffering. This type of modalism is known as chronological modalism in that in the one supreme God, the three different persons are active at any point in history.Another type of modalism is functional modalism which has played an important part in the Christian history. In this, the three persons are active at one point in history. Thus there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.From this brief look at modalism we can see that as part of the one Supreme God there are three persons, which is one way of understanding the Trinity. There are however, other ways of understanding it. Tritheism is the idea that the three persons of God are all equal, independent, autonomous beings. Each of whom is entirely divine. This idea is different to that of modalism in that the three persons are not of one and do not act together but instead act independently of one another.Another interpretation of the Trinity is Appropriation. This informs us that the outward appearance is different. Thus the Father is seen to be the creator and the Son is the redeemer, however all three beings are active in the redemption and creation. Again this differs from the modalistic approach, although somewhat less so than Tritheism. Modalism tells us that the three modes of the Godhead are different. However here the three modes are much more as one.Finally, perichorisis teaches us that all three beings are one thus none is isolated or detached from the others. This is seen in the phrase ‘community of beings’ for we should base our human relationships on this way of interpreting the Trinity. Again this is different from the modalist approach in which although the beings are part of the same Godhead they are not so closely related.The question of making sense of the Trinity is of great debate. Augustine put a great deal of effort into making sense of this yet can we really understand what he says? A number of different ways of interpreting the Trinity have been offered, yet for every individual a different interpretation may make the most sense. Christianity is a very complex subject and no one will ever fully understand it. Modalism seems to make the most sense in understanding the theory of three persons and their relationship. For as we understand it, God rules over Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit yet he cannot work on his own. However we must be aware that in no uncertain terms it is not the only way of understanding the theory of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Failing to understand doesn’t mean something dun exist.Atheists have their own arguments for saying god doesn’t exist. they can’t comprehend something that’s not visible. They depend on material senses to accept any sort of truth. But we have a better maturity of mind to accept that god do exist. It comes from a inner teaching, a intuitive knowledge. So is about trinity, i dare say, those who believe strongly in trinity can accept how it could be perfectly logical!Experiance in Christ is a testimony to Christian orthodoxy for a true believer.A man with an experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument.
i have had my answer many times,, u fail to read carefully, u do not want to understand..that’s the truth.And y not the water example? i think it’s a good example. if you can’t come to terms with such physical realities, how will u come to terms with spiritual realities.Still... one last time..wat i wrote in the beginning in a nutshell.. Are u not an expression of different spiritual and physical realities? Do u exist separately as body and then ur mind, ur sub conscious mind, soul etc... all in perfect union represent a single YOU. right. When others see you, they see ur body and say its you. When u speak ur mind speaks. But all of it is One in union. So is the father son and spirit, they are in perfect union.
Almost all the topics end up in asking the illogicality of trinity. Let me try my best to explain how it perfectly make sense. Read with an open mind. You'll find out at least why Christians do not find it difficult or treat it as illogical. How can one be son of god and god at the same time? Isn’t that totally illogical? How can Jesus have a god when he himself is god?If god came down to earth, who held universe together?Isn’t Jesus’ matter flesh while god’s spirit?All such questions come from a mind that can only think within human context.According to science, every thing is made up of same matter and matter in turn is nothing but concentrated energy. So all that we see, all the things around us, and our body itself is different structures made up by same medium arranged differently. U break down any stuff, eventually u get to electrons protons which are basically concentration of same energy in different levels. Let this idea be in your mind to help further understanding.
Take this example:Human being has a mind subconscious, mind soul and body. They together make YOU!! Simple. You say “my mind is not attentive” “my body aches” “my soul will be saved”. And yet, other times you say, I advised him( not my mind advised him). I talked while sleeping (u dun generally say my sub conscious mind talked). So, on the whole, there’s only YOU.ONE YOU. Does anyone of you question how can I be my mind and my subconscious mind at the same time? isn’t it totally illogical? Soul mind and subconscious mind are spiritual realities. Science endorses mind and sub conscience mind. We can’t say they are different in matter. Since they are spiritual reality they must be of same “stuff” (even physical reality is proved to be of same medium by science). Yet we identify the “same stuff” as two coz of our understanding of its different roles. In the same way, “Three spiritual beings” in trinity (in human understanding or revealed to us in human terms)are non separable. Father son spirit relationship is mainly human understanding of roles of three persons (again three distinct person is in human context, not in spiritual realm) within godhead jus as mind subconscious mind and soul express singularity of YOU. We do not know all the roles or workings in spiritual realm. That is why church rightly says “trinity is heavenly mystery”. Not coz we are covering up a lie behind the word mystery. However, what god has revealed to us regarding roles within godhead, from the beginning and more explicitly revealed through Christ is this
The “second” “aspect” of godhead glorifies godhead by expressing godhead in the physical realm in front of creation and godhead entrusts all his creation unto him. The “first” “aspect” of godhead commands and designs. Third aspect transcends into creation, sustains them, appeals to their conscience and soul, imparts knowledge and counsels. These aspects together make singularity of god. When i said godhead im sure ur mind tend to think of the father only. But father son and holy spirit, they together will make godhead just as our human being is spiritual expression of different spiritual parts. So in the heaven also the visible aspect of godhead will be “the second aspect” as he is supposed to manifest godhead before creation. I use word “aspect” instead of person to minimize human elements in spiritual realm.Jesus prays to “first aspect” of godhead as father and his god coz it is from him he receives commands, without mind subconscious can’t work. He also humbled himself coz he was a complete man too. But in spiritual realm there’s no question of equality coz there’s no superiority or inferiority in the first place. There is no ranking within godhead. Is mind greater than subconscious? If u say yes, tats coz of ur human view on greatness. But within godhead they are one. Not inferior, not superior or not even equal. Its tri-UNION, not tri group or team.
Is god made of same matter too? First of all god is never made. what is basically there eternally is god. Big bang theory also says universe flowered from a single point, which means basically everything was singularity in the beginning. And remember it’s a theory which is not fully accepted in scientific circles.Then what is the difference between me and god? Difference are many. Yet, I’ll tell you where is the key difference. You are a man ,that is a creature made by god, and designed to have a conscious that enables you to identify you different from others and thus aware of self. while god is omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient.Why tri and not a million or billion?This is like asking why only two hands not four. or why we dun have eyes at the back. It is as it is! that is what is revealed and shown.
what is this beginning?beginning of time? time is only a human measurement for motion.For god who is eternal and who is still, time looses meaning. For him What is before and what is after? He is all there is, all the time. He creates at his will.
yes.. time is measurable only from start of universe. PRECISELY!!So wot u mean when u say god imagined it "LATER"? later is only meaningful within a time domain! If you are asking Why god created it when it is created[at zero second, not -10 or -5 seconds], then assume he created it at -5 seconds... then that -5 second becomes zero second coz that when universe created and your question repeats. So negative time looses its meaning! So when there is no time existing before creation of universe, isn’t it foolish to think of a god taking "TIME" to learn how to create universe.So god is eternal. He creates time for us to live through while he is beyond time. He knows all things. and we learn from nature his knowledge!
Exaggerate a Man's life span to eternity. So as long as he is living, can u separate his mind body soul and subconscious mind? they together Make "ONE PERSON". "all his life” they are in complete union. Mind manifest itself in conscious state through body. Sub conscious mind manifest itself within body, ever alert, receiving stimulus. Soul holding all together, growing and sustaining them. are they separate of each other? u can say they are separate by the way they function , yet they are not separable as different entities.so is tri union of god... eternally in UNISON!
Let me try to put in something here. What if I told you that Christianity is not a religion..Wht if I told you that 25th December is not the day when Christ was born...what if I told you that the days Christians celebrate Easter is not the right day???Puzzled.Its true...Buddy you just asked that if everything came from the same substance then why is there just a Trinity...why not a billion..Well good question there...Now when Jesus was born on this earth, He was fully human and fully divine. He could have done some sort of exclusive performance and could have had the whole world worshipping him....but then who would people worship...Jesus the person!! Satan tried tempting Jesus with this when he said that jump from the highest point and that will be a fanfare for everyone. But then when Jesus referred to the Father he was making the people understand that they need to acknowledge God not a human as everyone was seeing Him as human who could perform mmmmm magic abraca dabra. When He said that The Holy Spirit will be poured out on those who believe and live justly He meant that one should order his/her steps perfectly. don’t be blinded by the religions of the world....he actually called the religious leaders whitewashed tombs who say a lot of things but hardly do anything... So in short Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are one and the Same person, but just for the human kind of understand, God made the distinction because for everyone God, Jehovah was an angry God....Jesus came as a Compassionate one (showing Jehovah's compassionate side) and then when He was being crucified , which was absolutely necessary...HE promised a Comforter who will be with them all the time...in the heights and the depths of life.
None of the popular illustrations are completely accurate descriptions of the Trinity. The egg (or apple) fails in that the shell, white, and yolk are parts of the egg, not the egg in themselves. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not parts of God, each of them is God. The water illustration is somewhat better but still fails to adequately describe the Trinity. Liquid, vapour, and ice are forms of water. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God. So, while these illustrations may give us a picture of the Trinity, the picture is not entirely accurate. An infinite God cannot be fully described by a finite illustration. Instead of focusing on the Trinity, try to focus on the fact of God's greatness and infinitely higher nature than our own. "Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counsellor?" (Romans 11:33-34)
This is a term that is used to attempt to describe the triune God, the fact that there are 3 coexistent, co-eternal persons that make up God. Understand that this is NOT in any way suggesting 3 Gods. The Trinity is 1 God made up of 3 persons. There is nothing wrong with using the term "Trinity" even though the word is not found in the Bible. It is shorter to say the word "Trinity" than to say "3 coexistent, co-eternal persons making up 1 God." If this presents a problem to you, consider this: the word grandfather is not used in the Bible either. Yet, we know there were grandfathers in the Bible. Abraham was the grandfather of Jacob. So don't get hung up on the term "Trinity" itself. What should be of real importance is that the concept that is REPRESENTED by the word "Trinity" does exist in Scripture.
1) There is one God: Deuteronomy 6:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4; Galatians 3:20; 1 Timothy 2:5.2) The Trinity consists of three Persons: Genesis 1:1; 1:26; 3:22; 11:7; Isaiah 6:8; 48:16; 61:1; Matthew 3:16-17; Matt 28:19; 2 Corinthians 13:14. In the passages in the Old Testament, a knowledge of Hebrew is helpful. In Genesis 1:1, the plural noun "Elohim" is used. In Genesis 1:26; 3:22; 11:7 and Isaiah 6:8, the plural pronoun for "us" is used. That "Elohim" and "us" refer to more than two is WITHOUT question. In English, you only have two forms, singular and plural. In Hebrew, you have three forms: singular, dual, and plural. Dual is for two ONLY. In Hebrew, the dual form is used for things that come in pairs like eyes, ears, and hands. The word "Elohim" and the pronoun "us" are plural forms - definitely more than two - and must be referring to three or more (Father, Son, Holy Spirit).In Isaiah 48:16 and 61:1, the Son is speaking while making reference to the Father and the Holy Spirit. Compare Isaiah 61:1 to Luke 4:14-19 to see that it is the Son speaking. Matthew 3:16-17 describes the event of Jesus' baptism. Seen in this is God the Holy Spirit descending on God the Son while God the Father proclaims His pleasure in the Son. Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14 are examples of 3 distinct persons in the Trinity.3) The members of the Trinity are distinguished one from another in various passages: In the Old Testament, "LORD" is distinguished from "Lord" (Genesis 19:24; Hosea 1:4). The "LORD" has a "Son" (Psalm 2:7, 12; Proverbs 30:2-4). Spirit is distinguished from the "LORD" (Numbers 27:18) and from "God" (Psalm 51:10-12). God the Son is distinguished from God the Father (Psalm 45:6-7; Hebrews 1:8-9). In the New Testament, John 14:16-17 is where Jesus speaks to the Father about sending a Helper, the Holy Spirit. This shows that Jesus did not consider Himself to be the Father or the Holy Spirit. Consider also all of the other times in the Gospels where Jesus speaks to the Father. Was He speaking to Himself? No
The tasks of the individual members of the Trinity: The Father is the ultimate source or cause of: 1) the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; Revelation 4:11); 2) divine revelation (Revelation 1:1); 3) salvation (John 3:16-17); and 4) Jesus' human works (John 5:17; 14:10). The Father INITIATES all of these things.The Son is the agent through whom the Father does the following works: 1) the creation and maintenance of the universe (1 Corinthians 8:6; John 1:3; Colossians 1:16-17); 2) divine revelation (John 1:1; Matthew 11:27; John 16:12-15; Revelation 1:1); and 3) salvation (2 Corinthians 5:19; Matthew 1:21; John 4:42). The Father does all these things through the Son, who functions as His agent.The Holy Spirit is the means by whom the Father does the following works: 1) creation and maintenance of the universe (Genesis 1:2; Job 26:13; Psalm 104:30); 2) divine revelation (John 16:12-15; Ephesians 3:5; 2 Peter 1:21); 3) salvation (John 3:6; Titus 3:5; 1 Peter 1:2); and 4) Jesus' works (Isaiah 61:1; Acts 10:38). Thus the Father does all these things by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Now when I say that they are one I mean that The early Christians and mind you i will point out to you that there are portions in the Bible which are later additions...The Son, Who is God found that the people of the World, needed someone to follow...He found that they were trying to personify God...in Jesus, But when He said about the Father and the Holy Spirit..He was implying...that God the real essence of the Divine is just not comprehensible by human mind....If I ask someone about Allah or Krishna...they have a definite definition for them. Jesus just pointed out that one cannot fathom God by human reasoning...
Also, you need to understand that if you take up the Quran and go the first book of Moses which is the same as ours..it states in the 2nd and third chapter that a son will be born who will crush the devil's head and God fulfilled his promise when Jesus was born...in fact I believe that there was no man on earth as sinless as Jesus..History itself puts forward a clear picture when the historian Jerome and Taticus the secular historian both point out that Jesus brought about the greatest revolution of all times....one should try to understand the real essence of what happened and if we just keep on debating what is what...we'll be left nowhere...Also...the Bible states..."Taste and See that the Lord is God"
People follow what they see in front of them....People follow the prophet...but how many follow the God to whom the prophet points????Also, Let me say this one thing..Read the Quran...When Moses first had the conversation with God...he asked..what do I tell the people sent me...In those days to know the name of someone or something meant that they had power over the other....God states very clearly there and confuses Moses there when He states that tell the people that 'I am that I am ' has sent you....In Hebrew language...this phrase is put forward in three ways....'I was what i was...I will be what I always will be and I will be what you need me to be in your need'
They are together all the time and who in the world told u that they exist as different..They are 3 entities who are never separate always the same and one
I said that humans have to understand the concept of God....no one can...can you????God made it simpler when He just divided them....Jesus said..anyone who has seen me has seen the Father...Also...Jesus....just said that He will send a Comforter....the Hebrew word use here is Ruah..the Spirit of God...When Jesus said tha baptise everyone in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. he meant that people have realized the love of God because of the sacrifice that Jesus showed on the cross...was convicted about it by the Spirit of God that all have sinned and have fallen short of the worthiness to approach God..and that from the day of the baptism they will try to live a God cantered life
the idea of the ‘three persons – one substance’ refers to the Christian doctrine of the Trinity. There have been many suggestions of how the ‘three persons’ in the Trinity (the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit) relate to one another and this will be discussed within this essay. Also whether or not modalism is an adequate explanation will be discussed. However first we must look towards the complexities of the Trinity. The Nican and apostles creed both open with a declaration of faith in God but neither offer a definition of the trinity. It is because we are given no definition of the term ‘trinity’ that there is so much confusion and mystery surrounding it and why it is one of the most perplexing things in Christian thinking.The idea of the ‘three persons and one substance’ was given by Tertullian. However the terms within this quotation may not mean the same within today’s society as they did in the past. Nowadays when defining the word ‘person’ we think of an ‘individual’ and a separate entity. Therefore to the lay person, this statement would suggest that there are three separate entities with three separate centres of consciousness and will. Therefore they are all individual and not related, and therefore they are not able to be ‘one’. They are three separate entities and therefore not a proper trinity. The Greek word ‘persona’ was used to translate the word ‘hypostasis’. This may help us to gain more of an understanding of what is meant by the term ‘person’. The term ‘persona’ found its origins within the theatre and referred to the times when an actor would change his mask and take on a different role during a performance. The actor would change his personality various times but whilst appearing and seeming different to the crowd/audience he would still be the same person, the same actor behind the mask.Tertullian relates this idea to the Trinity. God can be seen like the actor. He shows himself at different points wearing a different ‘mask’.
He appears to be three individuals, the father the Son and the Holy Spirit but really these are just the role that he is taking on and the ‘performance’ that he is playing.Tertullian suggests that the ‘person’ refers to his being and substance refers to his entity. The God is the same God but he is like an actor who takes on different roles and appears in different ways. Therefore although these three personas appear differently, they are not, they are simply a role that God is playing hence the ‘one substance’.However there are many problems and complexities. For example, there is the issue of perichorisis which refers to how the three (the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit) relate to each other and how they manage to retain their individualities. We can now look at modalism and whether this is an adequate explanation of trinity. Modalism argues for Monarchaism (which points to the absolute unity of the godhead). Modalism suggests that there is one god but he presents himself at different points throughout history in different ways. For example, God is shown as God the Creator and lawgiver. God is then shown as Jesus, the Saviour and he is then shown as the Holy Spirit who is the sanctifier who is still active. The Holy Spirit is still being sent out to those who are worthy and ready to be ‘saved’. Modalism also accounts for patripassionism which explains that when Jesus suffers as does God as they are the same person. Therefore modalism argues the case for the one God and the unity of the godhead. It is the same God revealing himself throughout history, he is just revealing himself in different ways.We can now look more closely at the complexities of trinity. Both the east and the west are in dispute about their ideas and this causes conflict and confusion. Whilst one argues for the unity of the Godhead the other expresses the individuality of the three members of it. Therefore there is doubt as to whether modalism is an adequate enough explanation to settle the dispute.
It must also be noted that modalism is quite a simple explanation, for a very complex thing. Many would argue that the simple explanations are often the best (for example, reductionism) however it appears that modalism is an inadequate over simplified explanation and is therefore often viewed as heresy. There is also much debate as to whether Jesus was human or divine yet modalism rests on the assumption of his divine nature. However, modalism seems to offer a ‘neat’ way out of the problem and tries to make trinity more understandable. What makes trinity do interesting is the fact that it so mysterious, perhaps we are not meant to understand it. Many people have tried to get to grips with its complexities. Such people as Augustine who related trinity to love and psychology. However he too had problems coming to terms with it and seemed to make it more complex still.It seems that trinity cannot be explained by mathematical or a scientific equation as the ‘bizarre mathematics’ involved in doing this don’t seem to make sense in our modern world. The trinity is therefore bound in mystery.In conclusion, the Hebrew word for god is elohim (which is plural). It appears that god is not alone, that he is not a lonely god. However, because of the complexities and lack of definitions it appears that one cannot come to any firm conclusions about the nature of trinity. Although modalism does offer a simple explanation is not adequate enough and so trinity is still, and will remain a mystery.
Once the issue of Christology began to be settled in Nicea, the way was open to incorporate yet a further dimension to the being known as ‘God’. The Cappadocian Fathers Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzus and Basil of Caesarea believed that there was an absence where the means of understanding God should be. This ‘thing’ McGrath neatly pinpoints in the analogy of Jesus on the cross. The ‘thing’ the Cappadocians desired to define was what made the difference between seeing a man, probably a criminal, hanging on the cross and seeing the son of God hanging on the cross. They felt this revelation and beginning of the experience of God was different from the begotten-Jesus, and the begetter – God the Father.Similar to the problem of developing a Christology, the defining of these parts of God had to be synthesized with ‘the one God’, the ‘unchangeable God’, ‘the eternal God’ and so on. So the doctrine of three ousia, one hypostasis arose. The Cappadocians were quickly accused of Tritheism.Tertullian was instrumental in the coining of many doctrinal phrases of definition, often borrowing from Greek thought and philosophy. This is one such case, but the implications being as important as they are here, the definition may seem somewhat semantic and pedantic. The Latin church proceeded to draw their line in the emerging table of definition more towards the side of modalism seeing God as one nature, one substance, but three persons. Those of the Latin world who had followed Tertullian were quickly accused of modalism. The underlying concept of monotheism in the Old Testament perhaps made modalism more acceptable to err toward, but to hold to it rigidly was to deny the full role of Christ in salvation.
Let us examine the consequences of modalism, if it is being asserted as the ‘only way to make sense…of Christianity’. In taking God as an inflexible one, this tradition has tended to emphasise the predominance of the Father, even if all are equal as the source from which the Son’s ‘begotten’ and the Spirit ‘proceeds’. He remains the ultimate definer. A justified criticism of this is the fact that God can therefore not escape from his role as the distant, powerful, detached, creator God. This same flaw in approaching Christology led to the comment ‘Arius never speaks of the love of God’ – the Arians leaving God the Father as the ultimate definer in the character of Christ. The path of the Arians diminishes Christ and therefore the power of salvation, and God the Father himself. Likewise, an approach of ‘Father dominance’ in the Trinity leads to a diminishment of ‘God’.Origen’s recapitulation of God’s involvement in history is convincing in its assertion of God being in each part but at different times. This has the formation of an ‘economic Trinity’, interestingly defining God as the possessor of three ways of being or ‘persona’ – fitting with the contemporary definition of persona as masks or personalities. However, this seems at odds with John 1 – Jesus was with God in the Beginning. Also, the Bible clearly states that Jesus is with God, at his right hand in heaven. They must be more separate than the modalist asserts.The problem of the Trinity has not been fully settled in church doctrine, but McGrath in ‘Understanding the Trinity’ picks up a possibly defensible line: a God immanent in all three persons but also a unified God. He, like Robert Aslam plays with the semantics of the word ‘God’ suggesting it should be understood how it was in the Old Testament – by its function. He suggests that God is defined by his functions e.g. ‘The God of Israel’ of the ‘God of Abraham’. A similar line can be seen in soteriology – Christ is known as God by his actions. This is ultimately why the Christians began to create a ‘Trinity’, despite the lack of any formal suggestion of it in the Bible itself: they knew God and experienced him in Christ and in the pouring out of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost. It was the same God experienced in each, just revealing himself in different ways. McGrath suggests that Christians would now say the God they believe is the God of the Holy Spirit and the God that raised Jesus from the dead. C.S. Lewis seems in agreement, in Mere Christianity in that the Trinity functions as different dimensions of the same God, this being incomprehensible in total to man, but the experience of God is of a unified one God – the God prayed to is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.In the confusion of the Trinity, where all God’s nature must be recognised and also his unity – unsatisfactorily dealt with simply by modalism- it is tempting to find a similarly simplistic answer. Here the words of Augustine are encouragingly at hand: ‘If we understood it, it wouldn’t be God.’
Adolf van Harnack established modalism as an attempt to counter tri-theism heresies after the doctrine of the Trinity.Modalism attempts to demonstrate the position of God as the “supreme authority” and the word comes from a Greek word meaning ‘monarch’.Modalism is trying to explain Gods position by giving the analogy of modes, the modes/methods of Gods persons altering for different circumstances. Chronological modalism is that which explains Gods actions altering for different historical events. For example, the God of Creation, God’s role as the creator of the universe. Mode 1 – creator but creation by God. The next mode is that of Jesus, God the Saviour in a human form. God’s “son” sent to save his created world. “The word of God” and finally God the Holy spirit to offer eternal life for his saved creation. Chronological modalism attempts to explain how god has acted through time. God has a different ‘hat’ on for each purpose. This leads to functional modalism. God has a different hat for different functions. Problems arose from the doctrine of the trinity because there are three different persons mentioned. God. Jesus, Holy Spirit.Each was considered a separate entity. The fourth gospel attempted to explain this gospel to the Jews. God’s word was sent to earth to give God’s gift of eternal life. The difficulty is that God is in Jesus 100% and Jesus has to be 100% human for God to ‘suffer’ for humanity. Jesus in John’s gospel is established as a saviour and the explanations he gives is to make believers believe and to acknowledge the Holy Spirit.Gnostic thinking is not too dissimilar as the God from the pleuroma sends a demiurge to earth to collect the people with divine sparks within them. The demiurge is an appendage of God collecting humans with the little bits of Gods light within them.
In order to assess this statement it is first necessary to understand what modalism is. The Trinitarian Heresy is that modalism is that the three people are different modes of the godhead. A modalist approach is that God is active as the father in creation as the Son in redemption and as the Holy Spirit in sanctification. The Trinitarian sequence is thus: God revealed himself in the manner of the creator and lawgiver and as the father, the same god then revealed himself in the manner of the saviour in the person of Jesus Christ, the son, and finally the same god then revealed himself in the manner of one who sanctifies and gives eternal life.From this we are aware that the only differences are appearances and chronological location. The three persons of god form the doctrine of patripassionism in which the father suffers as the son but all three persons are present in that suffering. This type of modalism is known as chronological modalism in that in the one supreme God, the three different persons are active at any point in history.Another type of modalism is functional modalism which has played an important part in the Christian history. In this, the three persons are active at one point in history. Thus there is God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit.From this brief look at modalism we can see that as part of the one Supreme God there are three persons, which is one way of understanding the Trinity. There are however, other ways of understanding it. Tritheism is the idea that the three persons of God are all equal, independent, autonomous beings. Each of whom is entirely divine. This idea is different to that of modalism in that the three persons are not of one and do not act together but instead act independently of one another.Another interpretation of the Trinity is Appropriation. This informs us that the outward appearance is different. Thus the Father is seen to be the creator and the Son is the redeemer, however all three beings are active in the redemption and creation. Again this differs from the modalistic approach, although somewhat less so than Tritheism. Modalism tells us that the three modes of the Godhead are different. However here the three modes are much more as one.Finally, perichorisis teaches us that all three beings are one thus none is isolated or detached from the others. This is seen in the phrase ‘community of beings’ for we should base our human relationships on this way of interpreting the Trinity. Again this is different from the modalist approach in which although the beings are part of the same Godhead they are not so closely related.The question of making sense of the Trinity is of great debate. Augustine put a great deal of effort into making sense of this yet can we really understand what he says? A number of different ways of interpreting the Trinity have been offered, yet for every individual a different interpretation may make the most sense. Christianity is a very complex subject and no one will ever fully understand it. Modalism seems to make the most sense in understanding the theory of three persons and their relationship. For as we understand it, God rules over Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit yet he cannot work on his own. However we must be aware that in no uncertain terms it is not the only way of understanding the theory of God, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Failing to understand doesn’t mean something dun exist.Atheists have their own arguments for saying god doesn’t exist. they can’t comprehend something that’s not visible. They depend on material senses to accept any sort of truth. But we have a better maturity of mind to accept that god do exist. It comes from a inner teaching, a intuitive knowledge. So is about trinity, i dare say, those who believe strongly in trinity can accept how it could be perfectly logical!Experiance in Christ is a testimony to Christian orthodoxy for a true believer.A man with an experience is never at the mercy of one with an argument.
i have had my answer many times,, u fail to read carefully, u do not want to understand..that’s the truth.And y not the water example? i think it’s a good example. if you can’t come to terms with such physical realities, how will u come to terms with spiritual realities.Still... one last time..wat i wrote in the beginning in a nutshell.. Are u not an expression of different spiritual and physical realities? Do u exist separately as body and then ur mind, ur sub conscious mind, soul etc... all in perfect union represent a single YOU. right. When others see you, they see ur body and say its you. When u speak ur mind speaks. But all of it is One in union. So is the father son and spirit, they are in perfect union.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
