Sequential Modalism

Sequential Modalism (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> God

Message

Ephesians4_32 -> Sequential Modalism (4/26/2008 1:28:50 AM)
Sequential or non-overlapping modalism teaches that there is no time at which God exists or lives in more than one of his modes. How would a modalist defend such a position? [sm=sadquestion.gif]

bob97 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/26/2008 10:15:47 AM)
I'm not sure they could because this would prevent Mat 3:17; "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", from ever having occurred. Bob

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/26/2008 12:36:04 PM)
United Pentecostal Church International rejects Sequential Modalism, but aren't there other denominations that accept it?

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/26/2008 3:50:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bob97 I'm not sure they could because this would prevent Mat 3:17; "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", from ever having occurred. Well, in previous arguments I've had with modalists, they claim that the voice was just a voice, and that the dove was just an image. They maintain that the voice was the spirit of the Father, still inside the "son", using His power to speak about the flesh body He was indwelling. Yes, I know it's absurd, but that's what some "oneness" folk believe.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/26/2008 11:08:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: bob97 I'm not sure they could because this would prevent Mat 3:17; "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", from ever having occurred. Well, in previous arguments I've had with modalists, they claim that the voice was just a voice, and that the dove was just an image. They maintain that the voice was the spirit of the Father, still inside the "son", using His power to speak about the flesh body He was indwelling. Yes, I know it's absurd, but that's what some "oneness" folk believe. Some is a key word here. This type of apologetic is like a knife that cuts both ways. When Trinitarians lay their head on their pillow they still have "some" just as we have "some".

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/27/2008 1:10:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: bob97 I'm not sure they could because this would prevent Mat 3:17; "And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased", from ever having occurred. Well, in previous arguments I've had with modalists, they claim that the voice was just a voice, and that the dove was just an image. They maintain that the voice was the spirit of the Father, still inside the "son", using His power to speak about the flesh body He was indwelling. Yes, I know it's absurd, but that's what some "oneness" folk believe. Are they basing that on John 14:10? If the Father is in Jesus and that makes Jesus the same Person as the Father, then we are Christ to their way of thinking. John 15 4Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. Colossians 1 27To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/27/2008 11:42:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 Are they basing that on John 14:10? If the Father is in Jesus and that makes Jesus the same Person as the Father, then we are Christ to their way of thinking. They base it on that verse, among others. But you've hit the nail on the head with your assessment! It all goes back to one of the first lies in the garden, "and you will be like God,". It's interesting, this lie seems to be at the heard of every perversion of Christianity. Mormons claim that followers will be able to become a god to their very own planet (and the FLDS tried to move up the timetable by making men "gods" over their multiple wives and children). "Oneness" claims that believers will be god in the same way that the idol they call "jesus christ" was god. I'll have to see if Jehovah's Witnesses fall into this pattern. All these groups, of course, deny that they promise godhood, but I'm going to stick to calling a spade a spade.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 12:06:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez "Oneness" claims that believers will be god in the same way that the idol they call "jesus christ" was god. I'll have to see if Jehovah's Witnesses fall into this pattern. All these groups, of course, deny that they promise godhood, but I'm going to stick to calling a spade a spade. Wow, such hasty generalizations. Very unbecoming. You are misrepresenting Oneness theology.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 12:47:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Wow, such hasty generalizations. Very unbecoming. You are misrepresenting Oneness theology. Yeah, Mormons say I misrepresent them too, when I call their "jesus christ" an idol as well. It doesn't make them any more right than you are.

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 6:01:14 AM)
Arianism and Sabellianism(Modalism) are two different teachings.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 10:35:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 Arianism and Sabellianism(Modalism) are two different teachings. You are right. Figmentpez is doing what is called ad hominmen. That's what happens when a person has nothing else to say so they attempt to impugn or discredit. It is juvenile, but funny also.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 10:36:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Wow, such hasty generalizations. Very unbecoming. You are misrepresenting Oneness theology. Yeah, Mormons say I misrepresent them too, when I call their "jesus christ" an idol as well. It doesn't make them any more right than you are. I am sure you are quite the apologists, but you do need to brush up on it some more and understand the distinctions of the Incarnation. This is your faux pas.

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 11:02:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Wow, such hasty generalizations. Very unbecoming. You are misrepresenting Oneness theology. Yeah, Mormons say I misrepresent them too, when I call their "jesus christ" an idol as well. It doesn't make them any more right than you are. I am sure you are quite the apologists, but you do need to brush up on it some more and understand the distinctions of the Incarnation. This is your faux pas. Well, you could do some studying yourself. For instance, the Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus. The only Father of Christ is the Father. The Holy Spirit caused Mary to be with child, but the Bible doesn't say how He did it. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. Jesus is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus was with God in the beginning. John 1:1. The Father sent His Son. You don't send yourself. The text doesn't say, "I came as the Son." John 8 16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 11:09:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Wow, such hasty generalizations. Very unbecoming. You are misrepresenting Oneness theology. Yeah, Mormons say I misrepresent them too, when I call their "jesus christ" an idol as well. It doesn't make them any more right than you are. I am sure you are quite the apologists, but you do need to brush up on it some more and understand the distinctions of the Incarnation. This is your faux pas. Well, you could do some studying yourself. For instance, the Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus. The only Father of Christ is the Father. The Holy Spirit caused Mary to be with child, but the Bible doesn't say how He did it. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. Jesus is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus was with God in the beginning. John 1:1. The Father sent His Son. You don't send yourself. The text doesn't say, "I came as the Son." John 8 16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. I study everyday. In fact I am a student so I would actually have to agree. I believe it is another who appears to know all. I would have to agree with all of your points too. They do not interrupt what I see as normative in my view. Jesus is not the Father because the Father is God existing as God whereas Jesus is God existing as man. Good point. President Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas. Was he president when he was born?

J_Michael80 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 2:25:16 PM)
quote: original: Sabellius Figmentpez is doing what is called ad hominmen. That's what happens when a person has nothing else to say so they attempt to impugn or discredit. It is juvenile, but funny also. Yes! I have seen this kind of behavior in many of these threads. People have nothing else to say. So they start accusing you of false belief and mislead people with their subjective opinions!

Ephesians4_32 -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/28/2008 4:49:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 For instance, the Holy Spirit is not the Father of Jesus. The only Father of Christ is the Father. The Holy Spirit caused Mary to be with child, but the Bible doesn't say how He did it. Jesus is the only begotten Son of the Father. Jesus is not the Father and He is not the Holy Spirit. Jesus was with God in the beginning. John 1:1. The Father sent His Son. You don't send yourself. The text doesn't say, "I came as the Son." John 8 16And yet if I judge, my judgment is true: for I am not alone, but I and the Father that sent me. 17It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. 18I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. I study everyday. In fact I am a student so I would actually have to agree. I believe it is another who appears to know all. I would have to agree with all of your points too. They do not interrupt what I see as normative in my view. Jesus is not the Father because the Father is God existing as God whereas Jesus is God existing as man. Good point. President Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas. Was he president when he was born? Was Bill Clinton ever with his father? Did he learn from his father and do some of the things he had seen his father do? Did his father ever send him on an errand? John 8 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. John 8:16-18 also shows us that Father and Son exist as separate persons. Jesus said, "...for I am not alone. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Father and Son make two witnesses.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 4:38:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Well, in previous arguments I've had with modalists, they claim that the voice was just a voice, and that the dove was just an image. They maintain that the voice was the spirit of the Father, still inside the "son", using His power to speak about the flesh body He was indwelling. Yes, I know it's absurd, but that's what some "oneness" folk believe. Some is a key word here. This type of apologetic is like a knife that cuts both ways. When Trinitarians lay their head on their pillow they still have "some" just as we have "some". "some" what? Now, I see you've been confused by my use of the word "absurd". Now, I don't say that because it is silly, I say that because it is contrary to the declarations of scripture. The entire idea that Jesus Christ was a human body with the spirit of the Father dwelling inside is contrary to scriptural teaching, and leads to teachings like I have outlined above. These teachings are absurd because they clash with the truth of scripture.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 4:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius You are right. Figmentpez is doing what is called ad hominmen. That's what happens when a person has nothing else to say so they attempt to impugn or discredit. It is juvenile, but funny also. You seem to be misusing the term "ad hominem". The term refers to attack the character of the person rather than their actual argument. See, if I say about someone "Politician X doesn't like broccoli, so that proves he is childish and incapable of adult decisions, so obviously he doesn't understand the importance of protecting the Siberian ice weasels." That is an ad hominem attack, because of the attempt to defame his character with an unrelated issue. However, if I say that "It is clear that Politician X doesn't understand the importantance of protecting the Siberian ice weasels, because not only did he vote against Bill #44145, but he also spoke out publically against the need for any such bill." That's not an ad hominem attack, even though I've called into question Politician X's understanding. When I say that "oneness" is false teaching, it is because "oneness" is at odds with scripture. When I say that "oneness" teaches a false idol, it is because the "jesus christ" of "oneness" is NOT the real Jesus Christ who died for the sin of men. When I say that "oneness" is a lie from Satan, trying to decieve people into believing that they can become gods, it is because that is what "oneness" teaches, a lie from Satan. "Oneness" is contrary to scripture, as I have shown over and over again in various threads on this board. And, yes, I will come to the conclusion that anyone who has studied scripture and still believes "oneness" believes that because they are being willfully ignorant of the truth. Please note that those who argue against trinitarian doctrine ususally start with arguments that trinitarian doctrine is "confusing" or "complicated". They claim that it's too hard to understand, or that they don't understand how it could be possible. However, my arguments against "oneness" are solely based on their contradiction of scripture, and the nature of God revealed to us by the Apostles, Prophets and other writers of scripture. quote: ORIGINAL: faithfulservant1 Yes! I have seen this kind of behavior in many of these threads. People have nothing else to say. So they start accusing you of false belief and mislead people with their subjective opinions I have lots more to say about the truth of Christian doctrine, and the lies of modalism, "oneness" and any other heresy you care to name. I will go on accusing heretics of preaching heresy, because I know the truth of scripture, and I know that God wants His truth to be defended.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 4:54:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Ephesians4_32 Was Bill Clinton ever with his father? Did he learn from his father and do some of the things he had seen his father do? Did his father ever send him on an errand? John 8 38 I speak that which I have seen with my Father: and ye do that which ye have seen with your father. John 8:16-18 also shows us that Father and Son exist as separate persons. Jesus said, "...for I am not alone. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me." Father and Son make two witnesses. No analogy is perfect because your expansion of it actually implies a separateness of the persons, which is not orthodox I believe. If we have three separate infinite persons...then we have a problem with monotheism. The two witnesses is God the Father and the true human existence of God as man--Jesus Christ. He had a will and a mind. The will was subject to the Father. It does not take two persons to communicate, it takes to minds/consciousness.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 4:54:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius I study everyday. In fact I am a student so I would actually have to agree. I believe it is another who appears to know all. I would have to agree with all of your points too. They do not interrupt what I see as normative in my view. Jesus is not the Father because the Father is God existing as God whereas Jesus is God existing as man. Good point. President Bill Clinton was born in Arkansas. Was he president when he was born? If the Son did not exist until the incarnation, then who had glory with the Father before the world began? John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. If the Son did not exist until the incarnation, then who was the Word who was with God in the beginning? Lets see who the Word of God is: Revelation 19:13, 16 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. ... 16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." The Word of GOd is the King of kings and the LORD of lords. Revelation 17:14 14"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." The LORD of lords and the King of kings is the Lamb. Revelation 5:12-14 12saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." 13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." 14And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen " And the elders fell down and worshiped. The Lamb of God is at the right hand of God, and the scene in Revelation 5 is also played out here: Daniel 7:13-14 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. The Word, The King of kings and the LORD of lords, the Lamb, the Son of Man, are the Son of God. The Ancient of Days, Him who sits on the throne, is the Father. The Son of God was with the Father in the beginning. When John 1 tells us that "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning." The Word that John is speaking of is not a concept in the mind of God. The Word is the Son, and was the Son before creation. The Word made flesh, John declares to be the Son of God, and declares to be the Lamb of God, all in John 1. He also declares Him to be LORD.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 4:58:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez Well, in previous arguments I've had with modalists, they claim that the voice was just a voice, and that the dove was just an image. They maintain that the voice was the spirit of the Father, still inside the "son", using His power to speak about the flesh body He was indwelling. Yes, I know it's absurd, but that's what some "oneness" folk believe. Some is a key word here. This type of apologetic is like a knife that cuts both ways. When Trinitarians lay their head on their pillow they still have "some" just as we have "some". "some" what? Now, I see you've been confused by my use of the word "absurd". Now, I don't say that because it is silly, I say that because it is contrary to the declarations of scripture. The entire idea that Jesus Christ was a human body with the spirit of the Father dwelling inside is contrary to scriptural teaching, and leads to teachings like I have outlined above. These teachings are absurd because they clash with the truth of scripture. The position of the UPCI is not modalism. It has some likeness, but it is not sameness. There are those however who have very modalistic teachings and tend to run into Nestorianism. I have run across more than a few Trinitarians who basically believe in tritheism. Are they in accordance with what you call orthodox Trinitarianism? No. Very well. There's you some, and now I have some. In reality Figmentpez we are really back where we started now. What does the Scripture say?

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:03:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius The two witnesses is God the Father and the true human existence of God as man--Jesus Christ. He had a will and a mind. The will was subject to the Father. It does not take two persons to communicate, it takes to minds/consciousness. Here we have it! The claim that the human body of Christ has a mind of it's own, it's own will. It is a claim that CANNOT be true, because it is contrary to the teachings of scripture!!! John 6:38-40 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40"For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and elieves in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day." The "I" that will raise up believers on the last day is the same "I" that says His will is not being done. If Sabellius's claims were true, that the second witness with it's own mind and will, were just a meat puppet, then it would mean that it was humanity that raised believers from the dead! This is blatantly false! God is the one with the power of life and death, and it is God who will raise believers to life! Furthermore, in John 6, Jesus Christ speaks of Himself as the bread come down from heaven. The bread of life is not human flesh, but the Son of God, who is God. The bread that came down from heaven is the eternal Son of God. Furthermore, Jesus Christ says this: 46"Not that anyone has seen the Father, except the One who is from God; He has seen the Father. How could have human flesh seen the Father? Only the eternal Son of God, begotten before the world began, could have seen the Father, and then come down from heaven. Flesh that only came into existence in the womb of Mary would never have seen the Father.

Sabellius -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:04:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: figmentPez If the Son did not exist until the incarnation, then who had glory with the Father before the world began? John 17:5 "Now, Father, glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was. If the Son did not exist until the incarnation, then who was the Word who was with God in the beginning? Lets see who the Word of God is: Revelation 19:13, 16 He is clothed with a robe dipped in blood, and His name is called The Word of God. ... 16And on His robe and on His thigh He has a name written, "KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS." The Word of GOd is the King of kings and the LORD of lords. Revelation 17:14 14"These will wage war against the Lamb, and the Lamb will overcome them, because He is Lord of lords and King of kings, and those who are with Him are the called and chosen and faithful." The LORD of lords and the King of kings is the Lamb. Revelation 5:12-14 12saying with a loud voice, "Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power and riches and wisdom and might and honor and glory and blessing." 13And every created thing which is in heaven and on the earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all things in them, I heard saying, "To Him who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb, be blessing and honor and glory and dominion forever and ever." 14And the four living creatures kept saying, "Amen " And the elders fell down and worshiped. The Lamb of God is at the right hand of God, and the scene in Revelation 5 is also played out here: Daniel 7:13-14 13"I kept looking in the night visions, And behold, with the clouds of heaven One like a Son of Man was coming, And He came up to the Ancient of Days And was presented before Him. 14"And to Him was given dominion, Glory and a kingdom, That all the peoples, nations and men of every language Might serve Him His dominion is an everlasting dominion Which will not pass away; And His kingdom is one Which will not be destroyed. The Word, The King of kings and the LORD of lords, the Lamb, the Son of Man, are the Son of God. The Ancient of Days, Him who sits on the throne, is the Father. The Son of God was with the Father in the beginning. When John 1 tells us that "1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2He was with God in the beginning." The Word that John is speaking of is not a concept in the mind of God. The Word is the Son, and was the Son before creation. The Word made flesh, John declares to be the Son of God, and declares to be the Lamb of God, all in John 1. He also declares Him to be LORD. Yes the Word did have glory and was with the Father and is Lord of Lords. However, if eternal sonship is something that Trinitarians can't agree on then I am quite sure I have a list a mile long for reasons why I don't agree with it either. [;)]

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:09:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius The position of the UPCI is not modalism. It has some likeness, but it is not sameness. There are those however who have very modalistic teachings and tend to run into Nestorianism. I have run across more than a few Trinitarians who basically believe in tritheism. Are they in accordance with what you call orthodox Trinitarianism? No. Very well. There's you some, and now I have some. In reality Figmentpez we are really back where we started now. What does the Scripture say? So far, all your teachings seem to be perfectly in line with what I know of modalism. Right down to believing that the spirit of the Father was dwelling inside of a meat puppet. The difference between misunderstandings of trintiarian doctrine, and "misunderstandings" of "oneness" is that there is no standard for correctness in "oneness". Since "oneness" is a rejection of truth, and primarily exists simply to say "trinitiarian doctrine is false", there is no standard of truth in "oneness". There is no one definitive version of "oneness", there are thousands of different variations on "oneness" and the devil uses that to his advantage. He takes every chance to have his followers claim that they're being misrepresented because they follow "oneness" version #512, instead of "onenenss" version #392, which differ only superficially. However, there are definitive statements of what trinitarian doctrine teaches, and definitive stances on what is and is not Christian doctrine.

figmentPez -> RE: Sequential Modalism (4/29/2008 5:10:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sabellius Yes the Word did have glory and was with the Father and is Lord of Lords. However, if eternal sonship is something that Trinitarians can't agree on then I am quite sure I have a list a mile long for reasons why I don't agree with it either. [;)] Eternal sonship is something that trinitarians agree on. It has been agreed upon by all Christians since Jesus Christ revealed Himself to be the Son of God. It is inherent to the definitions of begotten sonship and what it means to be the LORD God. Anyone who denies that the Son of God is eternally begotten of the Father is not a trinitarian, and is not a Christian.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI