The Trinity is Simultaneous Modalism

[GodIsOneAlone]

I’ll explain.

Modalism meaning way of existing.

For one being expressing is not the same as it being an underlying subsistence.

For example, Sabellius says that there is one Hypostasis, this one hypostasis is the only existence of God, this is false.

The Modalistic Monarchians believe that God is only the Father in accordance to who the true God is.

To clarify, only the Father is the center consciousness of both the hypostasis of the Word and Spirit, and only the Father is the substance of the Word and Spirit.

It is not to be confused that there is only one hypostasis that exists.

What you have expressed about God’s energies is not the same as an underlying subsistence which is what is to be rejected.

The usage of prosopon here is inherently false and does not properly express the real existence of the Father, Word and Spirit, this is why hypostasis MUST be used.

I am not simply saying a “mode” as a way one thing is expressed, what I mean by mode is to be said like this.

Mode: manner, way, how and so on.

Of

Subsistence/Existence: A real existence, and underlying reality or real subsistence.

Mode of existence.

So that is to say this.

God the Father’s ousia subsists in three distinct modes.

Meaning that in the Father’s being He subsists in Himself, as Father, Word and Spirit.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

I will say that God is now in a new life and that new life is a true human life.

So the Father is human?

would not be Arianism

You have explained Arianism wrong. Arianism advocated for a different nature of the Son from the Father. Which is very very close to what you are advocating. Arianism believed in the pre-existence of Christ, just not as God but a different existence.

So you have one divine consciousness that is eternal and one true human consciousness that is now united with the divine in one existence as the Word of God Jesus Christ.

Sounds a lot like Monothelitism…

modalism is not Sabellian,

Historically wrong. Modalism is sabellian. Just because you don’t like that doesn’t mean its not.

Mode in Sabellianism is merely a way in which one expresses his existence.

That’s just what mode means. Mode does not mean hypostasis. Person is a better term especially since the Persons of the Trinity are relational. A mode is not.

Meaning, the Father who has a real hypostasis is the one ousia(substance)

Sounds as if you are again saying that the Son has no being but that the Father is the Son’s nature. First, ousia is different than nature. So make that distinction. Second, the Son is fully God. God doesn’t exist as only the Father. God exists as the Father, Son, and Spirit. It doesn’t go that the God is the Father, then there is some distinction between the Son and the Spirit. You are creating distinctions in God.

After all this, it seems that you have a very hard time with saying the term Person. Do you not think that there are three Persons in the one Being of God?
If not, then you believe in heresy

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Am I clear ?

Very clear

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

God the Father’s ousia subsists in three distinct modes.

Right here is your error. You are identify the the Triune God as the Father then saying the Father exists as three distinct modes/manner/expressions. Classic modalism/heresy no matter what terms you try and use to explain yourself.
God is NOT three expressions or modes or manner or hows. That is wrong. God is three Persons. The Personhood of the Son comes from the Nature of God, Himself. Lastly, if God is three modes, and with how you have explained things, what is the Father’s center consciousness? If Jesus is God, but as you have said, the Father is His center consciousness, that means a Divine Person requires a center consciousness from someone else. Who is the Fathers?

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

No, once again there is one divine Ousia and three hypostasis, the Son’s hypostasis is distinct from the Father’s but is of the very same Ousia.

No, the Son is eternally existing as the Hypostasis of the Word of the same Ousia as the Father.

No, as there are two Ousia in one hypostasis of the Son, there are two wills, one divine and one human but Christ’s divine will is the will of the Father.

No, I am not saying just a mode, I am specifically using the phrase modes of existences ways or manners in which the one ousia exists.

Sabellius did not believe in three modes of existences (hypostasis).

No, the Father who is the only true God is the ousia and He begets and brings fourth the two other hypostasis of His one ousia.

They cannot be different beings from the Father’s being or else we fall into the heresy of Tritheism stating that God has three ousia.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

You have grossly misrepresented everything that I have stated and I believe that it be unintentional.

So to summarize for you.

The Father is the only true God, He is the fountainhead of deity and consciousness within the Godhead, He is the ousia and hypostasis that begets the Word and brings fourth the Spirit.

Every Trinitarian recognizes that the Father’s existence necessitates the Word’s existence and Spirit’s existence.

To ask the question, “Who is the Father’s center of consciousness” is to ignore or not recognize what I already stated.

The Father is the center of consciousness and deity in the Godhead, He is the one who begets and brings fourth. The Word does not beget himself not does the Spirit being fourth himself.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

the Father who is the only true God is the ousia and He begets and brings fourth the two other hypostasis of His one ousia.

So the Son and the Spirit aren’t the only true God? Is the Son begot in time now? Does Spirit proceed in time now? Was there a time when there was only the Father? If yes to any of these:Heresy.

They cannot be different beings from the Father’s being or else we fall into the heresy of Tritheism stating that God has three ousia.

Absolutely.
But, you are advocating modalism, a heresy denied by the Church two thousand years ago. Its already been dealt with. God is Three Persons. Not three modes of existence. Three Persons. But you don’t seem to like that word, person. Is there something wrong with that term?

The Father is the center of consciousness and deity in the Godhead,

Is Son not the center of deity? Does that mean the Son is not fully God? Your phrasing causes lots of issues.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

You have grossly misrepresented everything that I have stated

Not misinterpreted. Led to its logical conclusion

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

Sabellius did not believe in three modes of existences (hypostasis).

To clarify here is sabellianism: Sabellianism is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three different modes or aspects of God, as opposed to a Trinitarian view of three distinct persons within the Godhead.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

No, the only true God means that there is one who is above all and through all the Father almighty, meaning there is no other being/substance but the Father’s being/substance and of this very same being exists or subsists two others the Word and Spirit.

This is not within time but in eternity.

I am once again not advocating for Sabellianism. How I have expressed modes is not only by saying they are MODES.

But that they are real subsistences.

Each is a hypostasis to claim I’ve said otherwise is to ignore the entirety of my remarks.

If you want to argue that they are three modes of existences.

Then let me ask you.

What is a hypostasis?

Hypostasis as defined is an underlying reality or subsistence aka existence.

Mode literally means way or manner.

The one ousia is in three hypostsis, theee underlying realities, three modes manners of existences.

To say the Trinity does not teach this.

Is to say that God’s substance does NOT exists in three distinct underlying realities.

I believe I’ve spoken to You before on discord to clarify once again if you do not believe that one Ousia has three ways or real manners in how it exists then you deny the Trinity.

Once again I am not saying that it is just an expression of one hypostasis I am again stating that the one ousia has three manners of existence.

Real underlying realities.

 

[OddBird]

No, I am not saying just a mode, I am specifically using the phrase modes of existences ways or manners in which the one ousia exists.

I think this is were we misunderstand each other. I am not sure the phrase “modes of existence” is adequate to describe what happens here, and “mode” is a loaded term which tends to orient people in a certain direction, particularly in Trinitarian theology.

If I remember correctly, st Basil of Cesarea, in one of his letters to st Gregory of Nyssa, uses this analogy : there is the same relationship between ousia and hypostasis as between, for example, mankind and an individual named Paul. Paul is not a mode of existence of mankind, but rather the way being human is realized in a particular individual.

No, the Father who is the only true God is the ousia and He begets and brings fourth the two other hypostasis of His one ousia.

Now I’m lost again

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

real subsistences

So Persons. You’re so close to orthodoxy. You are using a term that doesn’t mean what you want it to. Mode means an expression or aspect. You are looking for the term Person, as Aquinas says: "An individual substance of a rational nature.

What is a hypostasis?

Here is Aquinas on how this works: According to the Philosopher (Metaph. v), substance is twofold. In one sense it means the quiddity of a thing, signified by its definition, and thus we say that the definition means the substance of a thing; in which sense substance is called by the Greeks ousia , what we may call “essence.” In another sense substance means a subject or “suppositum,” which subsists in the genus of substance. To this, taken in a general sense, can be applied a name expressive of an intention; and thus it is called “suppositum.” It is also called by three names signifying a reality—that is, “a thing of nature,” “subsistence,” and “hypostasis,” according to a threefold consideration of the substance thus named. For, as it exists in itself and not in another, it is called “subsistence”; as we say that those things subsist which exist in themselves, and not in another. As it underlies some common nature, it is called “a thing of nature”; as, for instance, this particular man is a human natural thing. As it underlies the accidents, it is called “hypostasis,” or “substance.” What these three names signify in common to the whole genus of substances, this name “person” signifies in the genus of rational substances.

God’s substance does NOT exists in three distinct underlying realities.

God’s substance doesn’t exist. It is existence. Again, you are losing Simplicity with your theory.

three ways or real manners

Three Persons, relationships. Not Modes. That is sabellianism as clarified before.

three manners of existence.

The term your looking for is Person.

 

[SeekerOfTruth7]

It’s a theory that falls apart. The Apostolic teachings of the Church have clarified this over two thousand years. And they make sense.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

The word person did not exist as how you’re using it it was hypostasis which literally means an underlying reality or existence subsistence so to say the word that I’m looking for is person is to deny that the word that is used is hypostasis.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

It is not Sabellianism as once again it is not being defined in anyway the same as Sebelius he did not teach that there were three hypostasis but that there was one hypostasis you’re unintentionally straw manning what I’ve stated countless times.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

The reason to which substance is a terrible word for hypostasis is because you would be proclaiming that God is three beings.
Ousia is the perfect statement for substance.

Hypostasis is perfect to describe the underlying realities of the one Ousia.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

This is why in the Greek terminology one Ousia in three hypostasis.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

If we are to claim that there are three rational substances then we are to claim try Tritheism Inevitably as you would be saying that there are three Ousia.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

This is why social trinitarianism is Tritheism at it’s core.

Antisocial trinitarianism cannot be described this way and therefore has no chance of being defined as either Sabellianism or Tritheism.

 

[GodIsOneAlone]

Yes the apostolic teachings of the church are Clarified but they are never described as three rational substances this is heresy.