No! Calling the belief that “the Word was God Himself” Modalism is both inaccurate and dismissive of the very nature of biblical revelation.
It would seem that I forgot to use a question mark. So then,
not Modalism (period).
Modalism is a specific heresy that teaches...
Thank you, I know what Modalism is. (Others might not though, so again, thank you.)
Oddly enough I keep running into Evangelicals who actually preach Modalism but call it Trinitarian since there are
three modes (go figure).
sequentially and never simultaneously,
I have GOT to fix that
Wikipedia page (ah, I see someone did). There is no mention of this specific provision in what Sabellius wrote (or more accurately what was written about him), as can be seen
HERE. You might wish to review the source of that information.
It denies the coexistence of God's manifestations and implies God stopped being the Father when He became the Son, and stopped being the Son when He became the Spirit. That is not what I believe, nor is it what the Scriptures teach.
Nor does Modalism teach that. Now I'm curious as to the source of your information.
I affirm Oneness theology, which upholds that God is one eternal, indivisible Spirit (John 4:24; Deuteronomy 6:4), who has revealed Himself in various ways throughout history—not as three persons, but as one God making Himself known.
Just wondering if "Oneness theology" means the same thing as "Oneness Pentecostalism."
Now the phrase "God making Himself known" might also refer to a volcano going off, or a star seen in the sky, maybe even a bush that burns but is not consumed, so... I'm not sure that helps to clarify. (Unless that's exactly what you mean.)
I should mention, though, that I am one of the few non-Trinitarians on this website which is rabidly Trinitarian, and quite touchy about it, so we'd best tread lightly.
Now in saying that God is one eternal, indivisible Spirit, does this deny individuated sentient consciousness? In other words, can this Spirit be a person?
Is God a person? (Need I say a non-human person?)
In Greek thought, "Logos" meant reason, logic, or discourse.
Well I speak Greek (or more accurately read Koine Greek) so I'm come to realize that the best English gloss for LOGOS is "TEACHING" although "PATTERN" is also acceptable in certain cases.
I don't think anyone can understand the Gospel named John unless one has read Philo. And brutish English translations shred the nuances of Greek in John 1:1.
When the Word became flesh (John 1:14), God did not send a second person of a divine trio. He manifested Himself in flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), dwelling among us not as a representative, but as Emmanuel—God with us (Matthew 1:23).
We are close in belief here. BUT... (Isn't there always a but?)
A few simple question that I would politely ask you to answer....
1) Is the Father a person (or has specific qualities of what we would call a person - i.e. individuated sentient consciousness)?
2) Is Jesus (as a physical flesh and blood human) a person?
3) Are these separate persons?
he is not introducing a second divine person. He’s identifying the Logos—the Word—not as a separate personality, but as the very expression or self-revelation of God’s eternal being.
Please don't be offended, as these are merely questions. (I did say please.) But doesn't that render Jesus as a mere sock puppet of God, or a biological robot of God? Dare I say a flesh puppet?
I guess that we're back to the same question as to whether the person known as the Father is the same person known as Jesus. And if they are the same person, how come one can't say that the Father is a "mode" of the same person aka Jesus?
The Son did not exist from eternity past as a second person in the Godhead.
I can agree with that. I wasn't a Father until my son was born, and my son wasn't a son until he was born.
The Son had a beginning in time, born of a woman, made under the law. But the Spirit in Him was eternal.
Unfortunately that completely evades the entire concept of what a person is, and whether Jesus was a person, and whether the Father is a person as well. It also begs the questions do humans have a spirit in them, and is this spirit non-eternal?
So.. (and I'll remember to use a question mark since I'm asking a question) ... was (or is) the Father a person?
But the Spirit in Him was eternal.
At this point, we've quickly bounced over into the "What the heck is a Spirit" whirlwind. Did Jesus have this "Spirit" thing that is not to be found in any other human being? OR, (as I anticipate you to say) Jesus was in his entirety, human just as any other human
would have been if the Fall had not occurred? Meaning, a human without sin, just like Adam, save that Jesus was born.
This leads to the question was Jesus a human or a human-plus?
He was doing so as a true man
Ah... Okay, THANK YOU. I think you answered that last question. Jesus was fully human without any special "powers" that any normal human (before the Fall) would have had.
the totality—of what God is,
Certainly the TOTALITY of what God is can't ALL become human, or he wouldn't be human and would likely die or blow up or something, SINCE:
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live.
- Exodus 33:20 KJV
I would say that all of God that
could become human did so, and we know him as Jesus.
He wasn’t talking to another divine person in heaven. He was praying in the fullness of His humanity to the eternal Spirit that filled Him without measure (John 3:34).
So then the Father is not a person? Or
was Jesus talking to a divine person in heaven?
I would think that any human who prays does so in the fullness of his own humanity (even if fallen), but if Jesus was praying to his own "eternal" Spirit, then wasn't he just praying to himself?
To whom was Jesus praying, then, if not the Father?
Or are we at the point where one is to consider that the "eternal Spirit" is a person?
I Greatly Thank You for enduring my questions. I ask in sincerity and with the hope that your answers will provide me with some insight.
Kindly,
Rhema
(@Christ4Ever)
