quote:

---

Originally posted by honorman

Such a question arises from ignorance about the nature of the Christian God. Christians believe in one God, who is revealed in three persons. While Jesus is God, he is not the complete God, but rather one of three persons within the Trinity. Therefore as one of the persons in the Trinity Jesus, who became man could pray, as a man, to another person within the Trinity. He was one person praying to another person. This was a unique situation, given that the one person within the Trinity became a man.
Non-Christians tend to error in two ways: they either believe we believe in three gods, or we believe all three of the persons are the same person. Neither is true.

---

quote:

---

Okay, this makes me nervous, because as a Christian, I have always believed that the three are the same person, just in different forms. That's why I'll often use the titles, Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit interchangably. But, you're saying something different. Please elaborate.

---

quote:

---

Definition:
The anti-Trinitarian belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “modes” of God, but not true persons capable of interacting with one another.
The early church initially struggled with the question of whether Jesus was fully God (see EBIONISM, DOCETISM, and ADOPTIONISM) in the same sense as the Father. Once the councils agreed that Jesus is fully God (as is the Holy Spirit), they struggled to reconcile this with monotheism.

Modalism offered a simple and enticing solution. Its proponents taught that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times. Webster’s metaphysical definition for mode is “the form, or way of being, of something, as distinct from its substance.” Modalism teaches that God has one substance, but several “ways of being.” The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism.

Although Modalism initially has appeal in its simplicity, it is a dangerous teaching because it misunderstands not only “what” God is, but more importantly, “who” God is and therefore who we are. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are only modes of God (or “masks” as some taught), then the God behind the mask is unknown to us. We are forced to understand the Father, Son and Spirit as illusions and not the true God we desire to know and love. Moreover, if we are God’s children in relation to him as Father, but the Father is an illusion, then our status as his children is also an illusion (Gal 4:6).

Modalism also fails to account for greater than 70 passages in Scripture where the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together as distinct from one another and as interacting with one another. In Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16-17), the Father speaks and the Spirit descends upon Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsamane (Mark 14:36) and hanging on the cross (Luke 23:46), Jesus himself prays to Father. John’s Gospel is full of reference to the three person’s relations, not only in their speaking to one another (John 17), but in actions such as “sending” (John 14:24-26; 20:21) and “loving” (John 3:35; 14:32; 15:9). The epistles also show the three persons as distinct. Galatians 1:1 teaches the Father raised the Son; 1 John 2:1 teaches the Christ is an advocate between humanity and the Father; 1 Peter 1:2 teaches different roles for each Person of God in the salvation of man; the relationship between the Father and the Son is given as the modal for the fellowship between believers (1 John 1:3).

Modalism was the most common Trinitarian error in the history of the church and it continues today. Many in the church may inadvertently hold to Modalism without realizing it, but others still openly deny the personal distinctiveness of the Father, Son and Spirit. Groups such as Oneness Pentecostals and the "Jesus only" movement, popular preachers (notably T.D. Jakes), and even some Christian musicians (such as Philips, Craig and Dean) are modern Modalists.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rossfadeinout

Tigress said

quote:

---

Okay, this makes me nervous, because as a Christian, I have always believed that the three are the same person, just in different forms. That's why I'll often use the titles, Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit interchangably. But, you're saying something different. Please elaborate.

---

Hey there Tigress,

I'm not an expert on the trinity by any stretch of the imagination, but your explanation of the trinity seems to be a form of Modalism, which has been considered unorthodox since the early church councils. Here is a basic article from basicTHEOLOGY.com on modalism.

quote:

---

Definition:
The anti-Trinitarian belief that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are “modes” of God, but not true persons capable of interacting with one another.
The early church initially struggled with the question of whether Jesus was fully God (see EBIONISM, DOCETISM, and ADOPTIONISM) in the same sense as the Father. Once the councils agreed that Jesus is fully God (as is the Holy Spirit), they struggled to reconcile this with monotheism.

Modalism offered a simple and enticing solution. Its proponents taught that God is a mono-personal being that can change “modes,” assuming the role of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit at different times. Webster’s metaphysical definition for mode is “the form, or way of being, of something, as distinct from its substance.” Modalism teaches that God has one substance, but several “ways of being.” The common illustration that the Trinity is like the forms of water–ice, liquid, and steam–unfortunately is an exact representation of Modalism rather than Trinitarianism.

Although Modalism initially has appeal in its simplicity, it is a dangerous teaching because it misunderstands not only “what” God is, but more importantly, “who” God is and therefore who we are. If the Father, Son, and Spirit are only modes of God (or “masks” as some taught), then the God behind the mask is unknown to us. We are forced to understand the Father, Son and Spirit as illusions and not the true God we desire to know and love. Moreover, if we are God’s children in relation to him as Father, but the Father is an illusion, then our status as his children is also an illusion (Gal 4:6).

Modalism also fails to account for greater than 70 passages in Scripture where the Father, Son and Spirit are mentioned together as distinct from one another and as interacting with one another. In Jesus’ baptism (Matt. 3:16-17), the Father speaks and the Spirit descends upon Jesus. In the Garden of Gethsamane (Mark 14:36) and hanging on the cross (Luke 23:46), Jesus himself prays to Father. John’s Gospel is full of reference to the three person’s relations, not only in their speaking to one another (John 17), but in actions such as “sending” (John 14:24-26; 20:21) and “loving” (John 3:35; 14:32; 15:9). The epistles also show the three persons as distinct. Galatians 1:1 teaches the Father raised the Son; 1 John 2:1 teaches the Christ is an advocate between humanity and the Father; 1 Peter 1:2 teaches different roles for each Person of God in the salvation of man; the relationship between the Father and the Son is given as the modal for the fellowship between believers (1 John 1:3).

Modalism was the most common Trinitarian error in the history of the church and it continues today. Many in the church may inadvertently hold to Modalism without realizing it, but others still openly deny the personal distinctiveness of the Father, Son and Spirit. Groups such as Oneness Pentecostals and the "Jesus only" movement, popular preachers (notably T.D. Jakes), and even some Christian musicians (such as Philips, Craig and Dean) are modern Modalists.

---

I think that Doc was formerly a "oneness pentecostal" and has written a book called "Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity" where he talks about the belief that God is one person who manifests himself in 3 modes and how this belief is contrary to scripture.

It's difficult to determine a person's beliefs from a brief statement lke you made in your last post, so if I'm not understanding you correctly let me know.

Ross

Ross

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Rhoda

Tigress: Well, I've found that when talking to non-Christians who say that it's cruel of the Father to sacrifice His only Son, that if I say in response to them that the Father and the Son are the same person/being, so it's not like the Father was sacrificing someone outside Himself, they can understand it better and seem more accepting of God. Your understanding of the Trinity leads to non-Christians thinking that what the Father did to Jesus was cruel, and they would therefore reject God altogether because of it - as they have said to me.

Alan: It's not clear who you are specifically responding to, Tigress, but the nature of your comment raises concerns about the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity, and it is those concerns that I wish to address. I have four comments.

First, the understanding of the Trinity that Ross and I have articulated is the orthodox understanding as outlined at the Council of Chalcedon. More importantly, we have argued that it is the only understanding that squares with the totality of what Scripture has to say. If some non-Christians should find that understanding disturbing, that is not a good reason to depart from Scripture. At most, it is a reason to look for ways of articulating the doctrine of the Trinity that, while remaining faithful to Scripture, might communicate more clearly to non-Christians.

Second, there is nothing in the orthodox understanding of the Trinity that would lead anyone to conclude that the Father was cruel to His Son. For it is not as though the Father gleefully tortured His Son on the cross. Rather, the cross was an act of love on the part of both Father and Son. Scripture is clear that, were the suffering of the cross not necessary for our salvation, then it wouldn't have happened. Jesus prayed to the Father in the garden that, if at all possible, he might not have to endure the cross. It was necessary, however, so Jesus submitted to the Father and, out of love for us, went to the cross (Rom. 5:8).

Third, the orthodox understanding of the Trinity agrees with you that the Father and the Son are the same BEING, but denies that they are the same PERSON. This distinction between person and being is essential to keep in mind, however unnatural it might seem. When it comes to finite beings like humans and angels, every being is exactly one person. When it comes to God, however, Scripture is clear that there is only one God (one being) but three eternal and distinct divine persons (three persons).

Fourth, the best response when talking to non-Christians who say that it's cruel of the Father to sacrifice His only Son is to explain to them the necessity of the cross to atone for our sins and the love of God that motivated His sacrifice. If Christ didn't have to suffer and die, then the torture of the cross might possibly be construed as cruel and unjust, but if it was the only way to secure our salvation, then the Father's willingness to send His Son and the Son's willingness to suffer for us is not an example of cruelty but an example of the greatest act of love imaginable.

Have a happy new year, Tigress.
Alan

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim_Mottl

---