Is modalism logically wrong?

[javid]

Hi. Accoriding to our faith to Catholic Church, we believe that moldalism is a innovation.

But do we have some reasons that show it is logically wrong?

For example why these ones are wrong:

A: God in trinity is like unto H2O: some times appears as water, some times as steam and some times as ice.

B: God in trinity is like a man who is father to his child and is husband for his wife and is son for his parents.

Thank you.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Hi. Accoriding to our faith to Catholic Church, we believe that moldalism is a innovation.

But do we have some reasons that show it is logically wrong?

For example why these ones are wrong:

A: God in trinity is like unto H2O: some times appears as water, some times as steam and some times as ice.

B: God in trinity is like a man who is father to his child and is husband for his wife and is son for his parents.

Thank you.

A-wrong. The word “appears” is wrongly used.
B-wrong. God takes “roles” which could be thousands, which is unacceptable. Even if it were 3, the word “role” is unacceptable.

 

[jmcrae]

Hi. Accoriding to our faith to Catholic Church, we believe that moldalism is a innovation.

But do we have some reasons that show it is logically wrong?

For example why these ones are wrong:

A: God in trinity is like unto H2O: some times appears as water, some times as steam and some times as ice.

B: God in trinity is like a man who is father to his child and is husband for his wife and is son for his parents.

Thank you.

No. God is three distinct Persons: the Father, the Son (who proceeds from out of the mouth of the Father as Word) and the Holy Spirit (who proceeds equally from out of the Father and the Son in the person of their love for each another.

Though they are three Persons, they share one mind, one will, and one Divinity.

If one were to continue in the water analogy, God would be at times three blocks of ice; three bodies of water, or three clouds of vapour, in turn as required for the situation, and each proceeding from the other in the manner noted above.

 

[shaky]

Hi. Accoriding to our faith to Catholic Church, we believe that moldalism is a innovation.

But do we have some reasons that show it is logically wrong?

For example why these ones are wrong:

A: God in trinity is like unto H2O: some times appears as water, some times as steam and some times as ice.

B: God in trinity is like a man who is father to his child and is husband for his wife and is son for his parents.

Thank you.

Its wrong because its like saying the father is also the Son!

 

[Lubomyr]

A is a bad analogy because a person is an individual substance of a rational nature; there are three persons in God, so there are three substances. Water, steam, and ice are the same substance.

B is a bad analogy because fatherhood, husbandhood, and sonhood are relations that do not constitute the person as such; in the trinity the relations constitute the persons. Another way of putting it is that the man who is simultaneously father, husband, and son, is still one man; while in the trinity, the relations are not of one person but of three people.

 

[stanczyk]

A is a bad analogy because a person is an individual substance of a rational nature; there are three persons in God, so there are three substances. Water, steam, and ice are the same substance.

Just a minor correction here, and it is that the three persons of the Trinity are of one substance, i.e. homousios. The reason solid/liquid/gas is a bad analogy is because the single substance of H2O cannot exist as ice, water and vapor all at once, rather these are distinct modes of the substance, hence if we carry the analogy to its logical conclusion it implies the modalist heresy.

Your mistake is perfectly understandable, the vocabulary is very nuanced and I think I see what you are getting at, but it is important to remember that the unified substance of the Trinity is the cornerstone of the doctrine.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi. Accoriding to our faith to Catholic Church, we believe that moldalism is a innovation.

But do we have some reasons that show it is logically wrong?

For example why these ones are wrong:

A: God in trinity is like unto H2O: some times appears as water, some times as steam and some times as ice.

B: God in trinity is like a man who is father to his child and is husband for his wife and is son for his parents.

Thank you.

I don’t understand? Are examples A and B supposed to represent the trinity or modalism?

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t understand? Are examples A and B supposed to represent the trinity or modalism?

Modalism. The heresy is that God is one person (He is actually Three Persons) who experiences three different states of being. Rather, He is Three Persons who are always experiencing the same state of being, together, with one mind, one will, and one Divinity which they share together.

 

[belorg]

Modalism. The heresy is that God is one person (He is actually Three Persons) who experiences three different states of being. Rather, He is Three Persons who are always experiencing the same state of being, together, with one mind, one will, and one Divinity which they share together.

Excuse me, but AFAICT, the title of this thread is “Is modalism logically wrong,”

There is nothing about heresy there.

 

[jmcrae]

Excuse me, but AFAICT, the title of this thread is “Is modalism logically wrong,”

There is nothing about heresy there.

“Modalism” is the name of a recognized heresy in the Church.

 

[belorg]

“Modalism” is the name of a recognized heresy in the Church.

It is. But that’s not the question.

 

[Lisa44]

(First, let me qualify that my opinions expressed here do NOT represent the beliefs of the Catholic church).

Modalism is not illogical as far as I understand it.

The premise of modalism is that Jesus and the Father are not separate persons. The logic of this is that it corresponds to the bible’s teaching that God is one.

Modalism stresses the oneness of God, whereas the Trinity stresses the individual persons of God.

The fact that Trinitarians call God a “mystery” hints at whether or not their concept is purely logical. A thing cannot be both logical and mysterious.

Modalism is not a mysterious concept. It simply asserts that the Father is God outside of creation. The Son is God inside creation, and the Holy Spirit is the individuals experience of God. It doesn’t seek to explain how God can be three persons.

It simply affirms that God is one, even though he reveals himself as all three revelations.

Again, these are my opinions and not the beliefs of the Catholic Church.

 

[jmcrae]

Excuse me, but AFAICT, the title of this thread is “Is modalism logically wrong,”

There is nothing about heresy there.

Modalism disregards the Trinity while trying to explain it, so it defies the first principle of logic. Assuming there is a Trinity, it cannot be modal; therefore modalism cannot explain it. It can explain something else, but it can’t explain the Trinity (which is what it purports to explain).

 

[stanczyk]

Modalism disregards the Trinity while trying to explain it, so it defies the first principle of logic. Assuming there is a Trinity, it cannot be modal; therefore modalism cannot explain it. It can explain something else, but it can’t explain the Trinity (which is what it purports to explain).

Well said. The logic of modalism is inherently faulty.

 

[Lisa44]

Modalism disregards the Trinity while trying to explain it, so it defies the first principle of logic. Assuming there is a Trinity, it cannot be modal; therefore modalism cannot explain it. It can explain something else, but it can’t explain the Trinity (which is what it purports to explain).

The trinity came after modalism, and modalism was develped long before the councils, so no, you will have to prove that it attempts to explain the trinity when the trinity was not in existence at that time.

 

[Spencerian]

Modalism also appears to logically contradict Scripture.

In Matthew 3:16, after Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, we are told:

After Jesus was baptized, he came up from the water and behold, the heavens were opened [for him], and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove [and] coming upon him. And a voice came from the heavens, saying, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”*

Here, we see the Trinity all at once: Jesus in the water, the Spirit of God appearing from the sky, and the voice of the Father heard by the others.

 

[belorg]

Modalism disregards the Trinity while trying to explain it, so it defies the first principle of logic. Assuming there is a Trinity, it cannot be modal; therefore modalism cannot explain it. It can explain something else, but it can’t explain the Trinity (which is what it purports to explain).

Yes, the Trinity is an illogical concept, so the only way to explain it is by disregarding it and replacing it with something that is logical.

 

[belorg]

Modalism also appears to logically contradict Scripture.

In Matthew 3:16, after Jesus is baptized by John the Baptist, we are told:

Here, we see the Trinity all at once: Jesus in the water, the Spirit of God appearing from the sky, and the voice of the Father heard by the others.

It isn’t that Modalism logically contradicts Scripture, it is that Scripture entails a logical contradiction.

 

[javid]

Hi. Thank you for you answers. As I see the problem of modalism is that it doesn’t give us what trinity realy is and it has no theological problem. Does it contain any blaspheme thing?

As belorg mentioned, I asked about logical problems, not about biblical problems and innovations.

Thank you again.

 

[Lisa44]

Hi. Thank you for you answers. As I see the problem of modalism is that it doesn’t give us what trinity realy is and it has no theological problem. Does it contain any blaspheme thing?

As belorg mentioned, I asked about logical problems, not about biblical problems and innovations.

Thank you again.

Yes, if I’m not mistaken, the blasphemy comes in when modalists say that Jesus is the Father. The Catholic Church holds that the Father and the Son are two separate beings. That is why they say that Jesus is seated at the right hand of God.

True?