I'm curious . . .

[John Reece]

. . . about Modalism.

Anyone care to explain it to me?

[dizzle]

John, check out my Tekton book review here that contains a summary of Oneness in comparison to Trinitarian thought....

DDW's Review of "Oneness Pentecostals and Trinity" by Greg Boyd. (http://www.tektonics.org/GB.OPT_0801010195.html)

[John Reece]

Will do.

Thanks, Dee Dee!

[Rubia Warren]

I don't remember what site I got this on, I had it saved on my computer, but it's not hard to find on the web, but it's about what Boyd wrote in the book that Dee Dee did a review on, and it is written by David K. Bernard, one of the leading apologists of the oneness doctrine. IMHO, what Boyd and Bernard fail to realize, is that there are a number of Oneness churches out there who are not affiliated with the United Pentecostal Church, and do not share ALL of their doctrines. But, anyway, here it is:


AN ANSWER TO A CRITIC
By David K. Bernard


(Review of Gregory A. Boyd, Oneness Pentecostals and the Trinity. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1992), 234 pp.)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


This book is the first on Oneness Pentecostalism to be offered by a major publisher. The movement's size and historical significance certainly merit a scholarly analysis. This work makes only a modest contribution to an understanding of the movement, however, due to it's polemical nature.

The author discloses that at age sixteen he was converted from a life of sin to the United Pentecostal Church International (UPCI), and he embraced Oneness doctrine. Shortly thereafter he began to question some UPCI teachings. In college, his study of church history convinced him that the Oneness was erroneous, and he left the UPCI at age twenty. Eventually he became a minister with the United Church of Christ.

The stated purpose of his book is to affirm the third-century doctrine of the trinity and to combat Oneness Pentecostalism. The book concludes that the Oneness view is a "heresy" and "sub-Christian," and indicates that the UPCI may even be a cult.

The author states the basic Oneness doctrine clearly and fairly, using representative Oneness sources. Unlike past attacks by men such as Carl Brumbach and Jimmy Swaggart, this book does not misrepresent basic Oneness views or make the erroneous charges of Arianism. Moreover, the author excludes a number of popular Trinitarian arguments that do not have scholarly validity. This section of the book provides a service by giving readers a generally accurate overview of the Oneness doctrine, although they could easily investigate the primary works for themselves.

In refuting Oneness, Boyd presents standard Trinitarian arguments, particularly those of Thomas Aquinas. His biblical points are not new; they are addressed in Oneness works such as The Oneness of God (1983). Boyd relies heavily upon ancient church history and philosophical reasoning to prove that Trinitarianism is both correct and necessary. He does not utilize, however, the extensive analysis and reflection of significant theologians in this century. He devotes a chapter to asserting that the early postapostolic writers were Trinitarian, but curiously, he does not interact with the most extensive Oneness work on the subject, Oneness and Trinity, A.D. 100-300 (1991), although a copy was available to him. He revives arguments against the ancient modalists -- such as the allegation that they had an abstract, impersonal view of God -- that do not appear to be relevant to modern Oneness.

Perhaps the strongest chapter of the book is the presentation of scriptural passages that distinguish between the Father and Jesus. This chapter relies on biblical argument, which is the only valid basis for establishing doctrinal truth. This section could help some Oneness believers develop more well-rounded terminology and thought by causing them to consider more seriously the Sonship of Jesus. Yet Boyd does not seem to realize that a distinction between the Father and the Son (not of eternal personhood, but relative to the Incarnation) is at the very core of Oneness theology, and he does not present the more recent, full-orbed discussion of Oneness authors on this subject.

On other subjects, the author makes a number of unsubstantiated, erroneous, and inflammatory charges. For example, he accuses the UPCI of "teaching salvation-by-works to an extent almost unparalleled in the history of Christianity," of teaching "baptismal regeneration," of teaching that a person must be "salvation-worthy" and must "purify" himself to receive the Holy Spirit, of being the "most legalistic 'Christian' movement in church history," of believing that no one holding a Trinitarian view is saved.

What prompts these charges is the UPCI's teaching that repentance, water baptism, and the baptism of the Holy Spirit constitute the "Bible standard of full salvation," and the UPCI's advocacy of practical holiness teachings such as modesty of dress and women's having long hair.

On these issues the author's bias, limited UPCI experience, and limited research handicap him. He does not interact with major UPCI works on these subjects, such as The New Birth (1984) and Practical Holiness: A Second Look (1985), that expressly refute salvation by works, baptismal regeneration, and legalism. Instead he relies on anecdotal examples, secondary works, and unofficial sources, many of which clearly do not reflect standard UPCI views or practices.

In trying to establish that the UPCI is grossly aberrant on these issues, he does not consider historical and contemporary evidence to the contrary. He does not seem to realize that the UPCI's view of the role of water baptism corresponds closely to that of the first five centuries of Christendom, the Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and the Lutheran Church. He does not consider contemporary works by significant evangelical and charismatic writers, such as Larry Christenson, Kilian McDonnell, James Dunn, and David Pawson, that speak of water baptism and Spirit baptism as part of Christian initiation. And most of his arguments against the baptism of the Holy Spirit would apply to the Pentecostal movement generally.

Boyd does not recognize that the holiness standards taught by the UPCI have been advocated by many ancient writers, Anabaptists, Quakers, Methodists, Holiness groups, Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, and Trinitarian Pentecostals. For example, he states that "neither the early church, nor the church throughout the ages, has ever held to the very eccentric notion that a woman should never cut her hair." As Practical Holiness documents, however, advocates of women's keeping their hair long, based on 1 Corinthians 11, include Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, John Chrysostom, and, earlier in this century, most of the groups mentioned above.

The author clinches his argument by attempting to show that Oneness believers inevitably and almost unconsciously think in Trinitarian categories. This assertion seems to undercut his attempt to classify them as heretics or worse, but it does point the way to a more fruitful analysis. That is, if Oneness believers typically express themselves in ways that at least some Trinitarians find to be functionally Trinitarian, is there more common ground than one might suppose from the tone of this book?

Instead of focusing on philosophical arguments, historical opinions, creedal formulations, nonbiblical terminology, and derogatory labels, perhaps Oneness and Trinitarian theologians could profit from a dialogue that could erase some misconceptions, correct some mutual imbalances, and encourage greater attention to a more strictly biblical theology. The difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism is more than semantics, yet those who share common spiritual experiences and values may also find some surprising commonalities of thought as well.

[John Reece]

Thanks, La Rubia!

That is an aspect of Pentecostal theology (and reaction thereto) regarding which I have had too little exposure to know much about.

I had become friends with a Pentecostal Holiness pastor when I served as pastor of a neighboring Methodist church in 1955. In the early 1960s our paths crossed again, when I was invited to visit an independent Pentecostal church that that pastor started after he left the PHC. A visiting missionary (Pentecostal) from Africa, whom I heard speak at the latter church, emphasized baptism "in the name of Jesus only".

That was the extent of my exposure to such until you used the word "Modalism" here.

The article you just posted on this thread is quite well written, and resonates with my irenic spirit and desire to see the fulfilling of Jesus' prayer in John 17, and Paul’s teleology in 1 Corinthians 12-15 and Ephesians 1-4.

From what you have written and shared so far, I see nothing to preclude your being at peace where you are.

Let the peace of Christ rule in your heart.

Blessings,

John

[dizzle]

Hey just because I know a lot of people simply do not like clicking on links, I am going to post my review here and then make some comments afterwards:

For once, I am not going to start a review on a personal note! Oneness Pentecostalism or modalism (which I will refer to as OP for brevity throughout this review) has never significantly impacted my life, except to the extent that it sickens me that most Christians today could give a rip about defending the orthodox view of the Trinity (which early Christians would, and did, die to defend). Today, almost every Christian book store will uncritically carry T.D. Jakes’ material (who has a modalistic view of God) and Philips, Craig, & Dean’s music (who are all OP ministers). Okay, I guess I did go off on a personal note :)

As usual, let me state the very few things that would be negatives up front. First, the author comes with some baggage in that he has written another book ("Trinity and Process") which is not in the mainstream view, but from what I understand, still falls within the realm of orthodoxy. However, this book is free from any such concerns as it squarely falls within and defends the orthodox view of our Triune God. Second, [and here is my pet peeve], there is no Scripture index! How can one use this book quickly and effectively to counter the misuse of a certain Scripture by OP without a Scripture index? Third, I went nuts (in a bad way) over a certain passage entitled "Weak Arguments for The Trinity" which I will critique in detail at the very end of this review.

This review is going to be a bit different in that I will be providing a LOT of background information (making it more like a summary than a true review) since I believe that OP is not well-known to Trinitarian believers, and its errors not as obvious as say, the Jehovah’s Witnesses. However, I will not be commenting, except tangentially, on the portions dealing with OP’s misuse of tongues, baptism in Jesus-only name, and strict holiness standards. Similarly to dealing with Jehovah’s Witnesses, I stick to the most important issue, namely who is Jesus? The others seem to fall somewhat into place after that biggie is resolved.

So what exactly do most OP believe and what distinguishes them from Trinitarians? While most anti-Trinitarian groups deny the deity of Christ, this is not so with OP, but rather they deny the distinctness of Christ. They claim that Jesus Christ is in fact the Father and the Holy Spirit and that there is no real distinction of persons, and any "apparent" distinction is an illusion for the sake of revelation. God, rather, is complete ONENESS who manifests Himself in different roles or modes. Most OP then are forced to deny the preexistence of the Son and affirm that any communication between the Son and the Father in the Incarnation is Jesus’ human nature communicating to His divine nature, basically in effect, talking to Himself. The very few OP that affirm a real preexistence of the "Word" are actually much closer to Trinitarians, differing in that they refuse to see the "Word" as a "person" but rather an eternal, finitized, aspect of God, an "it."

Boyd does a very equitable job of presenting the arguments for OP in a strong form without critical commentary at first, so that they may stand for themselves. Some of them are the same old tired ones that seemingly have to be rehashed over and over.... the Trinity uses unbiblical terminology, the Trinity has pagan origins, the Trinity is illogical, Trinitarians are actually tritheists, and so on, and so forth. After presenting their case, he then proceeds to very ably answer the so-called "irrefutable reasons why the Trinity cannot be true." One example that Boyd gave of the incredible awkwardness that OP theology leads to is well demonstrated in this hypothetical rendering of 2 Corinthians 13:14: [which would be consistent with OP exegesis]

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God (who is also Jesus Christ), and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit (who is also Jesus Christ) be with you all."

A question which is squarely addressed is that fact that Jesus is so often distinguished from the Father in Scripture which of course makes perfect sense in a Trinitarian context, but is exceedingly difficult in an OP context. A fuller explanation of this, at least when Jesus is distinguished from "God," is also dealt with in a work by Murray Harris, "Jesus as God" which is recommended for even further reading. Like J.P. Holding likes to point out, many of these errors and theological establishments based on false dichotomies could be avoided if one just looked at the historical reasons why things may have been worded in a certain manner.

Of course, this work deals with the inevitable accusations that the Trinity uses unbiblical language (as if the OP theology doesn’t.... as a matter of fact, the word "incarnation" in not in the Biblical text, yet is it unbiblical?); and that the Trinity has its origin in pagan sources. Boyd puts forth the unusual statement that pagan parallels would tend to support the Trinity rather than disprove it, if actually true (which he does not concede).

What I found most interesting, and extremely damaging to OP theology, is that its adherents effectively are forced to deny the Incarnation, even if they do not do so explicitly. For in their view, not everything the man Jesus went through, did God the Father go through. For example while the human side of Jesus spoke to and prayed to the divine Father, deity did not do that. Deity did not suffer.... deity did not experience forsakenness, only the man did. But, if that is true, then as Boyd asks, in what way did God really become man? He either went through everything that the man went through or He did not. The Incarnation and the Trinity go hand and hand! I found this observation most interesting.

Also, it is readily apparent, and brought to even greater clarity by Boyd, that if Jesus was in fact his own Father, why does Jesus as the Son (which OP adherents says is referring just to His humanity) come through loud and clear, but Jesus the Father does not? Why would the inspired writers be so opaque on such an important point? The favorite proof-text for OP adherents is Isaiah 9:6, in which they claim that the Messiah is explicitly referred to as Everlasting Father. First, it is obvious that there is a serious weakness in one’s theology if the most important verse proving one’s position is just one verse, and found only in the Old Testament (dealing with a subject not fully revealed until the New Testament). But Boyd, surprisingly enough, did not note what became patently obvious to me.... that is that Isaiah 9:6 refers to a "child born... a Son given," yet in OP theology that son is only the human side of Jesus which even they don’t believe IS the father. Along the same lines, this theology creates an almost schizoid Jesus who switches between his two natures and identities (divine Father and human Son) between sentences, and even in the same sentence (see John 6:40). This also raises the unlikely OP presupposition that Jesus’ (and Paul’s) audience was able to pick up on such nuances without ANY overt hint, and this on a subject upon which one’s very salvation rests. The OP God seems to be one who favors playing semantical games with His creatures all the while hiding between illusory roles donned for the purpose of greater revelation! But in all reality, the true OP God is never revealed making Him even more mysterious than the Trinity (the mysteriousness/incomprehensibility of which is a chief complaint of OP adherents). As aptly stated:

"Things are, it seems to Oneness apologists, never as they appear in the Gospels. The God of Oneness theology is a ‘master of illusion’ who is so convincing that the overwhelming majority of those who have ever loved and trusted in Christ have lost out in eternity for not recognizing this!"

In fact, although OP try to say otherwise, documentation is provided that the early church was not at all Oneness, but explicitly Trinitarian. If in fact the apostles taught Oneness so clearly, how is it that the church fell into such apostasy within one or two generations, and speak so easily in Trinitarian terms with no record of any outcry (unlike two or three centuries later when modalism began to be widely taught and there was great controversy and upheaval)?

Ironically, as it turns out, when the OP adherents are truly consistent, they cannot make sense out of the New Testament without affirming a trinity of sorts. They just basically posit a God who can choose to exist and act concurrently in three distinct ways, but did not do so eternally which again, affirms the same "mystery" that they were trying to avoid in the first place "...[OP adherents] simply trade in legitimate biblical mystery for unbiblical and incoherent nonsense." A distinction must be made, though, for their concessions are to a "trinity of activity" rather than an ontological "trinity of being." However, such a distinction does not make for less mystery, it just actually creates more, since God is never truly revealed from the OP perspective, only His activity is.... and the Trinitarian mystery remains.... "one indivisible God can and does exist in at least three distinct ways, that he does so fully, and he does so personally, and that he does so simultaneously." And Boyd then asks, if it is not offensive to monotheism to believe that, then why is it so offensive to believe that God exists in this manner eternally? Their main straw man argument against the trinity (that it is tritheism) is naught.

Boyd also deals with the philosophy of a undifferentiated solitary eternal God and the difference that would make to revelation. If God is essen tially love, who did He love before creation? Did He need creation to have something to love? Is God essentially personal? How could he be essentially personal if His only fellowship prior to creation was with nothing? Is he only "revealing" Himself as intensely personal for our sakes? God is concealed yet again. Then the attributes of God revealed in Scripture are more about His "doing" rather than His "being." He is essentially a God of solitude... and we are created in His image. What does that say about us?

As Hank Hanegraaff likes to state, "Error begets error, and heresy begets heresy," there are numerous other problems within the OP movement. Most prominent would be the belief that one needs to be baptized in a specific baptismal formula using Jesus’ name only in order to be saved. As this was not my focus in this review, I refer the reader to Boyd’s treatment which more than deals with this issue. But I will say that Boyd brought up a connection between the OP theology and this aberrance which was never obvious to me: The OP God is a performing God and thus His people tend to be obsessed with performance. Salvation is literally conditioned upon our performance and not upon God’s grace. You must speak in tongues (at least once), women must never cut their hair, you must live according to strict holiness standards, you must be baptized using the correct formula... and so on. Imagine the tragedy of constantly seeking the gift of tongues in order to know that you are saved... begging God for this gift and never receiving it... believing that you must purify yourself before God will even deal with you.

Obviously, I really liked this book. I would recommend it even if one was not interested in OP per se, but just wanted to get more in depth into the doctrine of the Trinity. We need more books like this.

WEAK ARGUMENTS FOR THE TRINITY?

Boyd claims that appeals to the use of plural words (such as Elohim) for God is a weak argument for The Trinity and "that it is not uncommon to find Trinitarians arguing for the doctrine of the Trinity on the basis of the fact that the word for God in the Old Testament is Elohim which is the plural of the word El." While I would agree that it would be weak indeed to base one’s ENTIRE Trinitarian argument SOLELY on this point, the argument is not in itself weak in the cumulative case for the Trinity... which is in fact a cumulative case, not based SOLELY on any ONE argument. Boyd appeals to unnamed Hebrew scholars (you know... those infamous "most scholars say blah, blah, blah") and concludes "it is easiest and best to understand the plural of Elohim when referenced to Yahweh as denoting a plural of majesty."

Let’s dissect this argument. First and foremost, the so-called "plural of majesty" is an idiom unknown in the time of Moses, unless one is assuming a priori that the plural words (there are more than just Elohim, such as Adonai) are such a "plural of majesty." Also, this "plural of majesty" applies only to vocative address, not to plural nouns. This is nothing but a naked reading of relatively modern royal idiosyncrasies into Scripture. Second, Boyd notes that "when a numerical plurality is intended, the corresponding verbs in the context will be plural.... when ... God is referred to as Elohim... the corresponding verbs are ALWAYS singular." [emphasis mine]. Really? Well, Genesis 20:13a, 35:7, Psalm 58:11 use plural verbs (in the literal Hebrew) to modify Elohim. Joshua 24:19 uses a plural adjective. Plus, Boyd seems to miss the point that a singular verb does no harm to the Trinitarian case.... and the mixture of singular and plural only makes sense in a Trinitarian scenario

Boyd also notes that the term Elohim is also applied in Genesis 32:30 to the one Angelic being who wrestled with Jacob. Since most Trinitarians believe that this Angel was a theophany, what is the problem here? That there was just one Angel? So? Trinitarians believe there is just one God. Boyd seems to fall into the OP mistake of assuming when Trinitarians use Elohim to denote a plurality, they mean three gods, so one angel is not obviously three angels.... Now there is a weak argument. Boyd also notes that Elohim is used of the one golden calf the Israelites worshipped (Exodus 32:1, 4, 8). I fail to see the problem here. That calf was supposed to be a substitute for the one true God Elohim, so they called it by the same title (Elohim functions more as a title than a name, by the way). So what? I am not claiming that every single Israelite understood why they called God Elohim... so they obviously would have no problem calling their idol by the same appellation. The infamous Rabbi Tovia Singer also tries this same tact by pointing out that Moses is called Elohim (Exodus 7:1). Again, so what? Aaron is also called his prophet. They were functioning as symbols to Pharaoh of the one true God and His prophet. Aaron was not really a prophet, and Moses was not really the Triune God. But they used these appellations in the symbolism. Now let us (yes, I am trying to be cute... get it.... now let us???) turn the tables on these arguments. Does Boyd really want to argue that the golden calf possessed an inherent "plurality of majesty," and does Rabbi Singer want to say the same of Moses? I don’t think so.

Now I am bringing up, on my own [and Boyd does not disagree with this at all in his book, but rather agrees, albeit in an endnote], the plural pronouns in the Old Testament which are in the vocative and could conceivably fall under the "plurality of majesty" (in Bizarro World since this is again a relatively modern figure of speech). We have God stating "Let Us Make Man in Our Image." The text goes on to say that we are made in the image of God, not angels. So while angels may have been listening to that announcement, it is not referring to them. God is referring to Himself plain as day. Of course, many will say that it is the vocative "plural of majesty." Okay, what about in Genesis 3:22 where man "has become like ONE of Us." [Emphasis mine]. Was the temptation offered to become like an angel? No. It was to become like God, and God sarcastically declares that man has got his wish... he has become like ONE of US. Not like an angel. There is no escaping that the "Us" has "ones" that compose it. Plus, consistency would fall on the side that if the other plural pronouns in the preceding passages ALWAYS refer to God alone (and not to the angels), then this plural pronoun also refers to God ALONE.

Now to Boyd’s other point about a "weak argument" for the Trinity. He points out that some base their entire argument on the fact that the word "echad" is used for "one" in the Shema (Deuteronomy 6:4). Again, the same points made before stand. It is weak to use that as one’s ONLY argument for The Trinity, but that does not make this point weak in the TOTAL case for the Trinity. In fact, any Trinitarian case which does not deal with the Shema would be weak indeed.

[dizzle]

I do not express it nearly as well as others such as Phantaz and Solly, but Oneness theology destroys the core concept of the loving community of the Godhead and the personal community of the Godhead. My paragraph here brings forth the connundrum:

Boyd also deals with the philosophy of a undifferentiated solitary eternal God and the difference that would make to revelation. If God is essen tially love, who did He love before creation? Did He need creation to have something to love? Is God essentially personal? How could he be essentially personal if His only fellowship prior to creation was with nothing? Is he only "revealing" Himself as intensely personal for our sakes? God is concealed yet again. Then the attributes of God revealed in Scripture are more about His "doing" rather than His "being." He is essentially a God of solitude... and we are created in His image. What does that say about us?



I am not denying a lot of common ground whatsover. But the differences are also profound in their implications. If you notice even in my review, and also in my conversations on this issue, I don't emphasize the distinctives of the things alleged of the UPCI church, I am interested in the core issue of the ontology of God.

Here is one thing I picked up with Bernard's review that disturbed me:

Instead of focusing on philosophical arguments...

Why not? Oneness authors do, as did the Biblical authors.

... historical opinions,

Why not? History can be a great teacher and we do stand on the shoulders of giants and benefit from the cumulative weight of learning.... Also, Oneness authors do the same (and I do not fault them for that)

creedal formulations...

Creedal formulations are designed to succintly state Biblical doctrine (can they be wrong - sure) but to say it is simply a "creed" misses the point that it is simply shorthand for the Biblical teaching and what is distilled to be essential.

nonbiblical terminology

The issue should be unBiblical not nonbiblical. I call myself a preterist, that word is not in the Bible but communicates a Biblical idea. Again it is shorthand....

and derogatory labels...

Bernard is saying that Boyd is wrong and divisive, that could be considered derogatory. The issue isn't whether something is derogatory, it is if it is accurate.


I fear I may have gotten a bit too much into it for the Liberal Arts Section... forgive me if I overstepped. I am not looking for an argument at all... I think Rubia knows my heart here, and I am not meaning any personal offense at all.

[nomad]

Boyd puts forth the unusual statement that pagan parallels would tend to support the Trinity rather than disprove it, if actually true (which he does not concede).


i don't want to get into this debate right now, but i just wanted to add that if you want more information on the thought behind this, CS Lewis was also a big proponent.... remember, he came to god THROUGH philosophy, and one argument he dealt with was that christianity seemed to be just a mishmash of existing religions, that everything in christianity seemed to be an echo of something before it.

to which he replies: of course! if it is true, then we should see imperfect imitations all through history; if it is true, it is far less likely that no one has even begun to guess the truth, and then all of a sudden it's just dropped on us. if we really believe in general revelation, that god is TRYING to tell us something, then this is makes sense.

i may not be representing him correctly (my copy of mere christianity is packed up), but it is in mere christianity.

also, while i'm here, i am a pretty strong trinitarian. i've had these debates before, in which i was given a litany of scriptures, at least 100. all of them were pretty easily refuted IMHO. but there was one i have still not discovered a good answer for:

Isaiah 9:6 For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

i hate having loose ends, and i'm hoping one of the other trinitarians can help me with this last piece.

[dizzle]

Actually Nomad, read my review. I use that very verse as an example and give some insight into it.

[nomad]

thanks! once the message gets more than a couple screens my eyes tend to glaze over. one reason i still keep around all these outdated pulp-and-water versions of things :)

ok, i read through, and it doesn't appear to answer the objection. it is hand waving, basically saying 'OP claims this verse as proof, but this verse is even inconsistent with OP's own position'. but it doesn't seem to offer any explanation for those words.

i might just not be grokking it. note that i am trinitarian; the overwhelming majority of evidence, as well as the historical tradition, points to it. as well as the fact that some of the very first controversies that rose up were around this issue; it's not a surprise that the very nature of God was one of the first things that came under attack. (all IN MY OPINION of course, i won't call you a heretic if you don't agree with me :)

so i don't necessarily have to have an explanation. but i would like one...

if i am just not understanding you clearly... would you mind trying again?

[Rubia Warren]

Dee Dee,
Perhaps it would help if you read the paragraph again, it seems you have missed the major point that Bernard was trying to make when he said those things that you quoted and answered, as he was referring to OP's AND trinitarians:
" Instead of focusing on philosophical arguments, historical opinions, creedal formulations, nonbiblical terminology, and derogatory labels, perhaps Oneness and Trinitarian theologians could profit from a dialogue that could erase some misconceptions, correct some mutual imbalances, and encourage greater attention to a more strictly biblical theology. The difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism is more than semantics, yet those who share common spiritual experiences and values may also find some surprising commonalities of thought as Instead of focusing on philosophical arguments, historical opinions, creedal formulations, nonbiblical terminology, and derogatory labels, perhaps Oneness and Trinitarian theologians could profit from a dialogue that could erase some misconceptions, correct some mutual imbalances, and encourage greater attention to a more strictly biblical theology. The difference between Oneness and Trinitarianism is more than semantics, yet those who share common spiritual experiences and values may also find some surprising commonalities of thought as well."

[GrayPilgrim]

Yesterday @ 02:45 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=74777#post74777)
nomad:

Isaiah 9:6 For a Child is born; to us a Son is given; and the government is on His shoulder; and His name is called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

i hate having loose ends, and i'm hoping one of the other trinitarians can help me with this last piece.

I'll take a quick crack at this verse. Off the top o fmy head I would say, one needs to look at the Ancient Near Eastern Context for the phraseology of Father and Son (me bringing this up says a lot as I generally htink too much is made of historical context, but in this setting I find it necessary). In multiple texts (inside as well as outside the Bible) this very langugae is used to describe the relationship between a king and his counselor. So that a king would be called son and his counselor would be called father. So we see that he is counselor which would make him also "father" in that sense.

[Socrates]

Nomad: It is very weak to use Isaiah 9:6 to support the modalist heresy. First, as Dee Dee said, which was not at all handwaving but demonstrated that it is inconsistent with modalism when analyzed closely. Also, the translation "Eternal Father" is wrong. The Hebrew is ’abî ‘ad. ‘ad (eternity) is in the construct state, so Hebrew scholar Dr Gleason Archer says it must be translated "Father of Eternity", and that taking the construct state as adjectival just doesn't fit the context.

[nomad]

who's trying to support modalism? i'm trying to assimilate it into my trinitarian beliefs, it hasn't been co-operating so far ;) anything that seems to want to use 'father' and 'son' for the same member of the trinity is confusing.

graypilgrim, thanks, it is kind of weak but it is sufficient to explain it. finally!

[Warcraft3]

Interesting thread. To be honest Ive never really understood how someone could read the Bible and not see the trinity expressed there. Ive heard the oneness arguments and they have always seemed to create more problems then they solve. (I think the same thing about closed view theism, which is why I lean more towards the open view).

Im not saying the trinity makes sense, cause to me it really doesnt, but I do think it answers some troubling passages in scripture. So while I do not understand it (in fact it makes me a bit uncomfortable at times) I accept it as truth.


Russ