What do you think of this apologetic reasoning?

[Free]

This is the view that the early Church judged heretical. It is called Modalism, and it was not accepted by any orthodox church father.

No, it certainly is not Modalism, which is one person who is the one being that is God and manifests as different persons in different ages. It is a unitarian view of God—one “what,” one “who.”

Three coeternal, coequal, divine persons within the one being that is God is Trinitarianism; one “what,” three “whos.”

What is the definitions of "being" and "persons? I see no difference in the words being and person. You will need to explain how this is possible, not just say it.

Being and person can be used to mean the same thing, but there is also nuance there. Being can refer to nature and existence; person can refer to individuality within that nature.

As far as humans are concerned, due to our nature, we are each one person and one being. Yet, we all share human nature, we are all human. It is the idea of “person” that speaks of who we are individually as distinct from other human beings.

If you don’t like my use of “being” and “person,” you’ll have to take it up with those who first formulated the doctrine of the Trinity, as they are the ones who used “persona” for the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, while adhering to the central biblical fact that there is only one true, living God.

Start with the Athanasian Creed:

3. And the catholic faith is this: That we worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity;
4. Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.
5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.
6. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit is all one, the glory equal, the majesty coeternal.
...
15. So the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God;
16. And yet they are not three Gods, but one God.
...
26. But the whole three persons are coeternal,and coequal.
27. So that in all things, as aforesaid, the Unity in Trinity and the Trinity in Unity is to be worshipped.

That is precisely what I have been saying. Notice that in line 4 that "confounding the persons" is the error of Modalism and "dividing the substance" is the error of polytheism/tritheism.

Adam and Eve are not at all in a different context. It is a perfect context to demonstrate the nuances associated with the concept of "one" (echad). One in unity or harmony.

But they are two beings, God is not. You deny Modalism and seem to believe that each person of the Godhead is a distinct being, as per your analogy to Adam and Eve. That is "dividing the substance," which is polytheism (tritheism to be exact) and is explicitly rejected in Scripture.

Be careful in using 'echad to mean something in one context that it doesn't mean in another.

How is it possible for the Son to be on the Cross, while at the same time in heaven?

He isn’t, strictly speaking. The Father is in heaven, yet Jesus said that the Father was in him and he was in the Father. We can also say that since he had a divine nature, that nature is necessarily omnipresent. I don't see how omnipresence can cease to be omnipresent, as that would mean God could cease to be God. Besides, Jesus also said:

Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” (ESV)

That is omnipresence.

During the early Church Age: The theological landscape of the time was filled with questions about how to understand the deity of Christ and how He relates to God the Father. Modalism was, in part, a reaction to Arianism, which argued that the Son was a created being and subordinate to the Father. In seeking to uphold the full divinity of Christ and protect the unity of God, Modalists over-corrected by rejecting the distinct personhood of the Son and the Holy Spirit, viewing them as mere modes of the one God.

I can assure you that you didn't come up with this position on your own. You have to be taught it first, then accept it. Despite the Bible saying nothing close to this position.

I know all of that and I agree, but that is not my position. You don’t seem to know what Trinitarianism teaches, even conflating it with tritheism. There is nothing I have said that disagrees with the doctrine of the Trinity as originally formulated, even the use of and distinction between “being” and “person.”

Jesus said that the Father and I are one thing, not person.

I agree, and that “one thing” is speaking of being, of the substance or essence that makes God God.

 

[Free]

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.
(Romans 1:19, 20).

There are two conclusions from Paul's words:

• Obviously, many things cannot be known about God. Everybody agrees with that.
• However, some things may be known of God, because He showed them to people. In particular, Godhead is clearly seen or understood by the things that are made. So, people are without excuse of not knowing.

You have agreed with what I stated, so I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[MisterE]

5. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Spirit.

For there is one person of the Father, and another person (that's two) of the Son, and another person (that's 3) of the HS.
I personally have not come across a Unitarian in my extensive reading of Evangelical scholars. I can imagine a liberal holding to that.

How do you explain John 10 "the Father and I (we) are one"? And the Jewish leaders tried to stone him to death because you being a man are claiming to be God. No Jew has any concept of a "god." To them, Jesus was saying he claimed to be God. In fact, Jesus is identified as God in many passages in GJohn. Finally, Unitarian is not an Evangelical position.

 

[Free]

For there is one person of the Father, and another person (that's two) of the Son, and another person (that's 3) of the HS.

Yes, that is what I have been saying the whole time. I initially stated: "God is ontologically three persons while remaining one being, one God."

You took issue with that and replied: 'This is the view that the early Church judged heretical. It is called Modalism, and it was not accepted by any orthodox church father.

What is the definitions of "being" and "persons? I see no difference in the words being and person. You will need to explain how this is possible, not just say it.'

I personally have not come across a Unitarian in my extensive reading of Evangelical scholars. I can imagine a liberal holding to that.

There have been Unitarians on these forums, but I was very specific in what I wrote, namely, "unitarian." Modalism is a unitarian view of God (God is one person). That includes Oneness Pentecostalism/Jesus Only, JWs, Islam, and Judaism.

How do you explain John 10 "the Father and I (we) are one"? And the Jewish leaders tried to stone him to death because you being a man are claiming to be God. No Jew has any concept of a "god." To them, Jesus was saying he claimed to be God. In fact, Jesus is identified as God in many passages in GJohn.

You simply are not understanding a thing I am writing. Do I have to yet say again that I am Trinitarian and arguing in favour of the Trinity?

Finally, Unitarian is not an Evangelical position.

Of course it isn't, which is precisely why I am arguing against it and for Trinitarianism (three persons, one God).

 

[MisterE]

Of course it isn't, which is precisely why I am arguing against it and for Trinitarianism (three persons, one God).

I will accept three Persons, one Godhead. You are using one God as if it is a numerical statement.

 

[MisterE]

MisterE- you asked:
"How is it possible for the Son to be on the Cross, while at the same time in heaven?"

Jesus Himself states he is on earth and in Heaven at the same time:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which IS in heaven". (John 3:13)

καὶ οὐδεὶς ἀναβέβηκεν εἰς τὸν οὐρανὸν εἰ μὴ ὁ ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ καταβάς, ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου

Now show me where you are getting the IS from. There is no Present Tense there, and in fact, there is no verb.

 

[Free]

I will accept three Persons, one Godhead. You are using one God as if it is a numerical statement.

Same difference. The Bible tells us there was, is, and every will be only one God, so to say that there are three persons in one God is perfectly fine.

 

[MisterE]

Same difference. The Bible tells us there was, is, and every will be only one God, so to say that there are three persons in one God is perfectly fine.

Unless you want to perpetuate the confusion, I would add a more biblical statement. Nowhere in the Bible does the word God (singular) refer to all 3 Persons.

 

[MisterE]

That includes Oneness Pentecostalism/Jesus Only, JWs, Islam, and Judaism.

Not in very good company to be in, of those who hold to unitarianism.

 

[MisterE]

But they are two beings, God is not. You deny Modalism and seem to believe that each person of the Godhead is a distinct being, as per your analogy to Adam and Eve. That is "dividing the substance," which is polytheism (tritheism to be exact) and is explicitly rejected in Scripture.

this reply tells me you are not theologically trained. Are all orthodox scholars, those who believe in tritheism, when they clearly espouse three Persons in one Godhead. I will admit that many orthodox scholars use to hint at their being One God, but once it was realized that that was unitarianism, that position was abandoned. There still are traces of it in the Oneness Pentecostalism, but not many other groups hold to that.

 

[Free]

Unless you want to perpetuate the confusion, I would add a more biblical statement. Nowhere in the Bible does the word God (singular) refer to all 3 Persons.

Except that it does and you're fallaciously begging the question. If there is only one God, and there is, and there are three divine persons, and there are, it necessarily follows that God can, and often does, refer to all three persons. In the NT, God is mostly used of the Father, not always.

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God, which he obtained with his own blood. (ESV)

Who does "God" refer to in here?

And, since the one God's name is Yahweh, it follows that Yahweh is the name of all three persons. In Hebrews 1, we see the Father say of the Son:

Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

Psa 102:21 that they may declare in Zion the name of the LORD, and in Jerusalem his praise,
Psa 102:22 when peoples gather together, and kingdoms, to worship the LORD.
Psa 102:23 He has broken my strength in midcourse; he has shortened my days.
Psa 102:24 “O my God,” I say, “take me not away in the midst of my days— you whose years endure throughout all generations!”
Psa 102:25 Of old you laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands.
Psa 102:26 They will perish, but you will remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will change them like a robe, and they will pass away,
Psa 102:27 but you are the same, and your years have no end. (ESV)

Or, if you like, since the Son is referred to as Yahweh by the Father, either the Father isn't Yahweh, or at a minimum, both the Father and the Son are Yahweh.

this reply tells me you are not theologically trained.

Interesting, I was thinking the same because of your responses, even though you claim to be. Not that it matters one way or the other.

Are all orthodox scholars, those who believe in tritheism, when they clearly espouse three Persons in one Godhead.

I don't know what you're trying to say (or ask?) here.

I will admit that many orthodox scholars use to hint at their being One God, but once it was realized that that was unitarianism, that position was abandoned.

You're conflating two different ideas, monotheism and the ontological nature of God, which pretty much every anti-Trinitarian that has ever been on these forums does. Whether the ontological nature of God is unitarian (one person) or trinitarian (three persons) is a distinct idea from whether or not there is only one God (monotheism).

Tritheism is patently false and unbiblical. That there was, is, and ever will be only one God, is without question:

Deu 4:35 To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him.
…
Deu 4:39 know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

Deu 32:39 "'See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god beside me; I kill and I make alive; I wound and I heal; and there is none that can deliver out of my hand.

Isa 43:10 "You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.

Isa 44:6 Thus says the LORD, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, the LORD of hosts: “I am the first and I am the last; besides me there is no god.
Isa 44:7 Who is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and set it before me, since I appointed an ancient people. Let them declare what is to come, and what will happen.
Isa 44:8 Fear not, nor be afraid; have I not told you from of old and declared it? And you are my witnesses! Is there a God besides me? There is no Rock; I know not any.”

Etc., etc.

That there are three divine, coequal, coeternal persons is also without question. I shouldn't have to provide evidence of that as you have done so already. The best explanation is the doctrine of the Trinity.

There still are traces of it in the Oneness Pentecostalism, but not many other groups hold to that.

Hardly "traces." It is foundational to their theology, just like JWs, Islam, and Judaism.

 

[MisterE]

Except that it does and you're fallaciously begging the question. If there is only one God, and there is, and there are three divine persons, and there are, it necessarily follows that God can, and often does, refer to all three persons. In the NT, God is mostly used of the Father, not always.

Like I said, you will not find God addressed to the three Members of the Godhead simultaneously. Each Member is God, but these three Persons do not have differing attributes. For example, the degree of love the Father has, is infinite. The Son also has love to an infinite degree. Therefore there is no difference between the love of the Father, and the love of the Son. They are identical in every respect.

 

[Carry_Your_Name]

This is the view that the early Church judged heretical. It is called Modalism, and it was not accepted by any orthodox church father.

What is the definitions of "being" and "persons? I see no difference in the words being and person. You will need to explain how this is possible, not just say it.

Adam and Eve are not at all in a different context. It is a perfect context to demonstrate the nuances associated with the concept of "one" (echad). One in unity or harmony. How is it possible for the Son to be on the Cross, while at the same time in heaven?

During the early Church Age: The theological landscape of the time was filled with questions about how to understand the deity of Christ and how He relates to God the Father. Modalism was, in part, a reaction to Arianism, which argued that the Son was a created being and subordinate to the Father. In seeking to uphold the full divinity of Christ and protect the unity of God, Modalists over-corrected by rejecting the distinct personhood of the Son and the Holy Spirit, viewing them as mere modes of the one God.

I can assure you that you didn't come up with this position on your own. You have to be taught it first, then accept it. Despite the Bible saying nothing close to this position. Jesus said that the Father and I are one thing, not person.

God and Jesus are one in the same way you and your online personality "MisterE" are one. Jesus is God's physical manifestation in the material world we're living in, and through Jesus we're able to connect with God across the chasm of sin. That's not modalism. But of course, Jesus is not God's hologram or a flat image on the screen, it's far more complicated than that. "MisterE" is just a created username, but Jesus was a distinct being who was there with God from the very beginning - in the beginning was the Word.

 

[Free]

Like I said, you will not find God addressed to the three Members of the Godhead simultaneously.

Like I said, that is fallaciously begging the question.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
Gen 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (ESV)

It can be argued that every, or nearly every, instance of God in the OT is to all three persons in the Trinity.

Each Member is God, but these three Persons do not have differing attributes. For example, the degree of love the Father has, is infinite. The Son also has love to an infinite degree. Therefore there is no difference between the love of the Father, and the love of the Son. They are identical in every respect.

Of course.

 

[live2blieve]

You have agreed with what I stated, so I'm not sure what your point is.

Paul says that there are examples of the Godhead so that people can clearly understand the Godhead. Roman Catholics say that there are no good examples of Trinity. You believe in Trinity: what would be your position?

 

[Free]

Paul says that there are examples of the Godhead so that people can clearly understand the Godhead. Roman Catholics say that there are no good examples of Trinity. You believe in Trinity: what would be your position?

I don't think Paul says anything of the sort. Paul's point, as I stated, is simply to show that God exists and we can know some things about him, not that we can know him completely and certainly not that we can "clearly understand the Godhead." The Trinity doesn't figure into what he says.

I don't know what you (or Catholics) mean by "there are no good examples of Trinity," so I can't respond to that.

 

[MisterE]

Act 20:28 Pay careful attention to yourselves and to all the flock, in which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to care for the church of God (Jesus), which he obtained with his own (Jesus') blood.