J
jmcrae
Guest
Sorry, no. Ex nihilo means, from nothing. Not, from the substance of God.
The substance of God is not “nothing.”
We (and the rest of the Creation) was created from nothing.
- Status
The substance of God is not “nothing.”
We (and the rest of the Creation) was created from nothing.
B
BrotherAlan
Guest
The original question of this thread is, “Is modalism logically wrong?” It should be noted that theology does use logic as an aid to achieving the end of theology (and, thus, any position that contains a logical contradiction must be rejected by the theologian). However, the primary task of theology is not merely to consider what is logically possible; but, rather, the task of theology is to consider more deeply, and explain more precisely, what God has revealed about Himself (through the Scriptures and Tradition of the Church, as these are understood by the Magisterium of the Church).
This being said,* even if *one were to hold that the modalist doctrine does not contain a logical contradiction, it still must be maintained that the doctrine does contradict what God has revealed about Himself (for, God has revealed that He is Father, Son, and Spirit, Each of Whom is distinct from the Others, and Each of Whom is the one God). For this reason, modalism is to be rejected as erroneous.
On the other hand, the Trinitarian doctrine gives an explanation which integrates the various truths that God has revealed about Himself; and it does so without contradicting reason. True, the Trinitarian doctrine goes above reason-- for reason could never have known of the Trinity, with certitude, unless God revealed it to be true (whereas, for example, the existence of God, and of His primary attributes, can be known, with certitude, by reason alone). But the doctrine does not contradict reason (and, in fact, given the fact that God has revealed Himself to be a Trinity, reason can begin to see that this doctrine is very reasonable).
*“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”
*
In Christ, The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity,
BrotherAlan
“Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Phil. 2:11)
This being said,* even if *one were to hold that the modalist doctrine does not contain a logical contradiction, it still must be maintained that the doctrine does contradict what God has revealed about Himself (for, God has revealed that He is Father, Son, and Spirit, Each of Whom is distinct from the Others, and Each of Whom is the one God). For this reason, modalism is to be rejected as erroneous.
On the other hand, the Trinitarian doctrine gives an explanation which integrates the various truths that God has revealed about Himself; and it does so without contradicting reason. True, the Trinitarian doctrine goes above reason-- for reason could never have known of the Trinity, with certitude, unless God revealed it to be true (whereas, for example, the existence of God, and of His primary attributes, can be known, with certitude, by reason alone). But the doctrine does not contradict reason (and, in fact, given the fact that God has revealed Himself to be a Trinity, reason can begin to see that this doctrine is very reasonable).
*“Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”
*
In Christ, The Second Person of the Blessed Trinity,
BrotherAlan
“Jesus Christ is Lord!” (Phil. 2:11)
T
tuco
Guest
I really dont know much about this but. If modalism was just God changing ti fit our understanding… One that seems to limit God what He is to us… Kind of centric i think… And also God appeared in all three forms (in our time) see Gen1, Gospal account of Jesus’ baptism and gen sodom and gom… Just a thought
T
tuco
Guest
Yes i agree it seems clear that just because God created us… How does that make us God? I agree created from nothing is correct…
T
tuco
Guest
Also sombody said that the definition of Trinity came after modalism…So cant be a heresy… Once again from our point of view… Trinity has always been and didnt start in time… Another example…but a lesser much lesser degree…would you say that because the flat earth concept was before the round heliocentric discovery that you cant call flat earth concept wrong? Just because we discover somthing doesnt mean it wasnt there first… And also councils usually declare somthing because a belief is challenged… Eg assunption of Mary always believed but not declared till it was challanged…
S
shaky
Guest
The definition of modalism was started around 250AD by SabeliusAlso sombody said that the definition of Trinity came after modalism…So cant be a heresy… Once again from our point of view… Trinity has always been and didnt start in time… Another example…but a lesser much lesser degree…would you say that because the flat earth concept was before the round heliocentric discovery that you cant call flat earth concept wrong? Just because we discover somthing doesnt mean it wasnt there first… And also councils usually declare somthing because a belief is challenged… Eg assunption of Mary always believed but not declared till it was challanged…
N
newenglandsun
Guest
I love that analogy. Back when I was an Arian, I always vitriolically attacked the Trinity and despised it with all my heart. Ever since embracing the teaching of theosis, I have been learning to love the Trinity and to help others see the Trinity as well whether it be in the Bible or in the history of the Church or in their hearts.
- Status