G
GodIsOneAlone
Guest
I’d like your thoughts on this.
From all the research I’ve been doing on the Trinity, I’ve come down to two conclusions.
The Trinity is actually a third type of modalism hiding under the word “Trinity”
It’s really Tritheism hiding under the disguise of Monotheism (But this one is highly unlikely)
_
The Modalist model of God is that you have either Sequential Modalism or Simultaneous Modalism.
However if we want to be consistent on our definition of modalism I’d like to offer up a third type of Modalism.
Eternally Simultaneous Modalism or what I believe is the Trinity.
The word “essence” means the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
One essence;
The word “eternally” a way that continues or lasts forever; permanently.
Eternally;
The word “simultaneous” means occurring, operating, or done at the same time.
In three simultaneous;
The word “mode” means a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done.
Modes;
The word “subsistence” means something that has a real existence
of subsistences;
One God in three eternally simultaneous modes of subsistences.
The original modalistic model is that God has one essence and his subsistence changes depending on the circumstances, this is sequential modalism, or that God is simultaneously as another subsistence, this is simultaneous modalism.
The Trinity however makes the claim that God is eternally and simultaneously in the modes of three subsistences.
Now we know that most Trinitarians might say the Father speaks to the Son and the Son to the Spirit etc etc, however from what I’ve studied no true Trinitarian makes the claim God is three distinct conciousness.
How then is the Trinity not another form of modalism exactly?
The thing I’d like to say is this.
How is it that if God does not have three centers of conciousness that the Father not suffer that which the Son suffers?
Is this due to the humanity of the Son experiencing it?
If not then how would this be any different than Patripassianism?
Is it because the mode of the Father is not the mode of the Son?
How would then say a simultaneous modalist be in danger of Patripassianism?
I’ve heard Thomas Aquinas’ description and explanation of the Trinity and I quite like it, however I find it problematic as it does not define Tritheism but defines an eternal and simultaneous modalistic model of God.
How would you guys avoid this problem if it is one at all?
Also, I personally do not believe in Modalism and think it’s in massive error, however I am also having issue with the Trinitarian model as well. Unitarians are dead wrong and Oneness are sometimes Modalist but not always, it usually depends on how they explain Christ’s divinity, they can either be adoptionist or an entirely different view that I can’t really label.
From all the research I’ve been doing on the Trinity, I’ve come down to two conclusions.
The Trinity is actually a third type of modalism hiding under the word “Trinity”
It’s really Tritheism hiding under the disguise of Monotheism (But this one is highly unlikely)
_
The Modalist model of God is that you have either Sequential Modalism or Simultaneous Modalism.
However if we want to be consistent on our definition of modalism I’d like to offer up a third type of Modalism.
Eternally Simultaneous Modalism or what I believe is the Trinity.
The word “essence” means the intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
One essence;
The word “eternally” a way that continues or lasts forever; permanently.
Eternally;
The word “simultaneous” means occurring, operating, or done at the same time.
In three simultaneous;
The word “mode” means a way or manner in which something occurs or is experienced, expressed, or done.
Modes;
The word “subsistence” means something that has a real existence
of subsistences;
One God in three eternally simultaneous modes of subsistences.
The original modalistic model is that God has one essence and his subsistence changes depending on the circumstances, this is sequential modalism, or that God is simultaneously as another subsistence, this is simultaneous modalism.
The Trinity however makes the claim that God is eternally and simultaneously in the modes of three subsistences.
Now we know that most Trinitarians might say the Father speaks to the Son and the Son to the Spirit etc etc, however from what I’ve studied no true Trinitarian makes the claim God is three distinct conciousness.
How then is the Trinity not another form of modalism exactly?
The thing I’d like to say is this.
How is it that if God does not have three centers of conciousness that the Father not suffer that which the Son suffers?
Is this due to the humanity of the Son experiencing it?
If not then how would this be any different than Patripassianism?
Is it because the mode of the Father is not the mode of the Son?
How would then say a simultaneous modalist be in danger of Patripassianism?
I’ve heard Thomas Aquinas’ description and explanation of the Trinity and I quite like it, however I find it problematic as it does not define Tritheism but defines an eternal and simultaneous modalistic model of God.
How would you guys avoid this problem if it is one at all?
Also, I personally do not believe in Modalism and think it’s in massive error, however I am also having issue with the Trinitarian model as well. Unitarians are dead wrong and Oneness are sometimes Modalist but not always, it usually depends on how they explain Christ’s divinity, they can either be adoptionist or an entirely different view that I can’t really label.
Last edited: