Trinity -- Modalism -- ????

>The reason it is a problem is because the modalist view denies key aspects of Christ. If Christ was not incarnate, that is coming in the flesh, then his death loses all meaning as his blood becomes worthless.

It took Christians a century or so to reason backwards to the Crucifixion to justify their theology. There is nothing in the Tanakh that requires the Messiah to be God or to be without sin. It is a logical construct.

 

Bill,

What is the "Tanakh" you are referring to? Is that a transliteration of a Greek term in some text? If so,, what text?

 

It could.

If a particular group proclamed that God existes as the Father, and the Holy Spirit, but NOT Jesus Christ...they would be denying the Trinity.

Or if they believed God is the Father and Jesus Christ, they would be denying the Trinity.

But the modalists in question clearly proclaim....

* The Father is God
* The Son is God.
* The Holy Spirit is God.

Lets count. That 1..2..and 3. The word Trinity simply means 3.

This group believes in 3 ways that God manifestes himself...

As the Father, as the Son, and as the Holy Spirit.

Most of Christianity sees it more clearly that that. But you CAN NOT say that they deny the triune nature of God. What you CAN say is that they are wrong in how the Triune nature of God functions.

And in my opinion, to condemn them as heritics for THAT...is nit-picking to the max.

To me, the LEGALISM that exists in most UPC churches is MUCH more problem then simply having a small misunderstanding regarding something like the trinity.

 

I don't know, why don't you go ask "them" as to whom "they've" believed in? Maybe the "Gospel" is the Death, burial and resurrection of Christ AND belief in the Trinity?

Can you kindly show where trinitarianism is part of the Gospel?

Salvation is via Christ, and one true Gospel, that is, in His death burial and resurrection, not whether one believes in ones trinitarian system of belief.

I won't add to the Gospel anything other than that He died, was buried, and rose from the dead. If you feel the need to argue which "He" it is that did these things, go for it, as only One did.

Belief in trinitariansim isn't the Gospel, only belief in the Gospel saves, and there is only One Jesus who accomplished this.

If you feel the need to insert another Jesus here, and question that, then go for it, but the other Jesus you insert does not supplant the Christ of the Gospel simply because He doesn't fit into your trinitarian belief system. To do so is to add to the Gospel.

One who trusts in the Christ of the Gospel alone doesn't need to trust also in...and....and and...and and..and and... The person only needs to trust in Christ alone and in His Gospel. Nothing more.

If you've added trinitarianism to this, then that is another Gospel. One can argue to inifnitum "which Jesus" which is ridiculous. There is only One who rose from the dead. He doesn't ask us what we believe about "trinitarianism" as an "entry" exam.

Does one need to believe the Gospel and trinitarianism? Or, does one only need to believe in the Gospel to be saved, or only in the Christ who accomplished this? There is only one name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saved. Or, does one also have to ascribe to other theological understandings you hold to in addition to this, then they're saved, if they pass all the theological tests? I'll guarantee you that I would have never passed a theological test the day I got saved, but if one asked how I got saved then, my answer would have been only through Christ alone, and only through the Gospel.

 

Annsni...

And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

Thats one of the best articulations..if not the best..of the triune nature of God in all of the scriptures.

I am in complete agreement with the normal understanding of the Trinity.

Its the UPC that needs some fine tuning in thier understanding.

 

First, you do not understand their doctrine nor how they explain it. They deny that the Father and the Spirit are co-eternal with the Son.

When God manifests himself as the Son there is no Father or Holy Spirit existing. When God manifests Himself as the Spirit there is no Father existing. They believe that Jesus Christ alone is God and the Father and Spirit are merely titles and manifest expressions of Jesus Christ.

They are no different in substance than Jehovah's Witnesses or Moslems in their view of God.

They neither know the true God or Jesus Christ as they preach "ANOTHER JESUS" (2 Cor. 11:4) and "ANOTHER SPIRIT" (2 Cor. 11:4) and thus "ANOTHER GOSPEL" (2 Cor. 11:4).

 

The biblicist...

You posted.....

Well, I dont see that in their official "What we believe"statement, from their website.....

URL="http://www.upci.org/about-us/beliefs"]http://www.upci.org/about-us/beliefs[/URL]

 

First, Christian cults use the same terms and terminology we use but define it differently. If you don't ask them to define their terms you have no idea what they really mean.

Have you talked to any of them extensively and asked them to explain what they mean by those words?

Yes, I have! I have had many extensive discussions with them. They do not believe in the God of the Bible. They do not believe that either the Father or Spirit CO-EXIST in fellowship with the Son any more than you coexist with and fellowship with yourself as father, son and husband.

They believe that God is Jesus Christ and that the Father and the Spirit are merely alternative manifestations of Jesus Christ but they do not CO-exist in personal fellowship with each other as distinct cognitive persona's.

 

BTW...

There is a link at the bottom of my post, but for some reason it wouldnt "turn on".

You will have to paste it into your browser.

 

Tried, but didn't work

 

Grrr

Let me try again...

tick...tock...tick...tock...

This one works!


http://www.upci.org/about-us/beliefs

 

Here is another articulation, from another doctrinal page, that branches off of the 1st introductory doctrinal page...

Honestly, I'm finding almost NOTHING as ((horendously)) blasphemous as the critics are trying to convince is there.

 

You do not see error here

 

This is one very articulated post here, Brother!!!! :thumbs::thumbs::thumbs::thumbs:

 

The point is this, people get saved via the Gospel. What they understand about trinitarianism doesn't matter at the point of salvation. Did we all have our theology down pat at the foot of the cross? Could we verbalize a precise and accurate doctrine of the trinity?

Those newly saved probably haven't heard about that doctrine, all they know is they trusted Christ to save them.

One can affirm that Jesus Christ is God, the Son of God, eternal, not a creature, Savior, Lord, and the only way of salvation, that He saved them, and have a skewed understanding of the trinity. Does that mean this person isn't saved because they don't have a precise understanding of the trinity?

 

They are denying the God of the Bible equally as the Jehovah's Witnesses and Moslem's deny the God of the Bible.

They deny there are three centres of self-consciousness. Hence, there is no internal relationship or fellowship between three Divine persona's. Hence, the Father and Spirit do not have co-conscious existence.

This is a fancy way of saying God is a schizophrenic - muli-personality like a Dr. Jeckal and Mr. Hyde or like you introducing yourself as "Me, Myself and I"

This is not the God of the Bible - they preach "another Jesus" and "another Spirit" and "another gospel."

You are a deceived sucker if you think their god is any more god than the Arian or Moselm god.

 

Iconoclast...

They dont deny the concept of the trinity. They have a different understanding of it then we do.

 

Good post! :thumbs: I agree.

 

They have a different view of the trinity than I do, no doubt.

But the DO NOT deny the concept of the trinity