Functional Trinitarians

[dizzle]

Obviously as this thread in in Christianity 201 it is for those who can affirm the basic historic tenets of the faith such as the Trinity.

I was having a discussion with a Sabellian Unitarian last night (does not deny the deity of Christ, denies the distinction of Christ as a separate "person") and I noted to some of the room's dismay that modalism isn't really a correct terminology for the more sophistacted of today's "Oneness" folks. Modalism classically taught that God put on different roles or hats so to speak, but did not do so simultaneously. He could act in different modes. That is definitely way outside any similarity with Trinitarian belief.

Today's Oneness is more nuanced, thus my beleif that must of the rank and file are simply confused Trinitarians (not that I do not think such is a serious error as evidenced by the campaigns I have personally taken to keep Trinitarian churches from welcoming Philips, Craig, and Dean - either in selling their CDs or giving concerts at their property).

Let me explain, and I will quote myself from an old review I did of Boyd's book "Oneness Pentecostalism and the Trinity"1 which I did here (http://www.tektonics.org/books/boydonervw.html):

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.

However I will quote myself again, to make my position clear - if someone truly is OP and understands the Trinity and rejects it - that person is clearly outside the historic faith:

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.

I am glad I went back through my previous work, it helped to once again sharpen my thinking on this subject. But it also showed me last night on Paltalk that there are so called Unitarians that are just simply royally confused.

I have posted this to sharpen and clarify my discussion of last night wherein I said it was exceedingly difficult with some Oneness type Unitarians to squarely say "this is not Christian" - because some in many ways functionally affirm the Trinity - they just do not understand the ramifications of denying the eternal Trinity, and that particular denial I do believe is a potentially damnable heresy. However, without such an example of this logical conclusion from Scripture, my tone is usually much less barbed than with those such as the modern Hymenaeans for which the Scripture gives two very clear texts for outright condemnation.

Thus, now in re-tracing my steps, I took too soft a position in Paltalk last night I believe. It is still exceedingly difficult when dealing one on one with a Oneness adherent, but the doctrine as a whole logically leads to an entirely different scheme of redemption.

However, as I honestly said to the Unitarian in the room (and for once what a breathe of fresh air for us to honestly talk about our differences and not getting all emotional when we got into the issues of whether or not one person thinks the other is Christian without all of usual boo-hooing and crybabying that usually goes on) - if I WERE a Oneness adherent, I do not think their position can lead to logically nothing other than condemning Trinitarians as polytheists. Therefore while the UPC is wrong, at least they are consistent in their wrongness, and we Trinitarians shouldn't bellyache about how they say we are not saved. That is the logical outcome of their belief.

Another thing though that was interesting is how the Unitarian pointed out to me that just like I think many Oneness are confused Trinitarians, he points out that there are many ignorant Trinitarians that act like Oneness. Sad but true. Christian worship which is not at its heart Trinitarian is not worship at all.





[1] OP has many more errors that have little or nothing to do with the Trinity such as certain legalistic requirements (i.e. women cannot cut their hair, if one does not speak in tongues they do not have the baptism of the Spirit) that I do not wish to have an issue in this thread

[Anoetos]

People can be royally confused, but if they persist in their error after better instruction, doesn't that make them heretics?

[dizzle]

If they understand that better instruction. Many of the Oneness people in praxis have to give in to Trinitarian theology, they just do not realize it. And like the fellow said, many Trins act functionally as Unitarians and in their zeal for Christ ignore the Father and the Spirit.

[Geek Eclectic]

Eep! What's wrong with Philips, Crain, and Dean? Are they not Christian? I never would have guessed that from their music...

[dizzle]

P,C & D deny the Trinity. There is some beautiful music made by Mormons as well that one would not guess are Mormons. Since P, C & D are ordained pastors I would assume that they understand what they are rejecting unlike the layperson Oneness one might not.

I have on numerous occasions intervened when I learned of Trinitarian churches supporting them. James White has an article on them in particular and this subject that I will try to locate. I have had success and failure. It is in the hands of God. Most Christian bookstores carry them. Family Christian does, but I gave up on them as being interested in good Christian doctrine or praxis a long time ago, and it was confirmed when they decided they would open on Sunday. It is pathetic when a fast food chain (Chick Fil-A) refuses to bow down to the almighty dollar and gives all their employees Sunday off, but an ostensibly Christian company does not. I avoid shopping there if at all possible.

[dizzle]

Oh and btw the way to everyone, I did try to contact P, C & D personally to ask them. All messages were unreturned.

[Geek Eclectic]

It is pathetic when a fast food chain (Chick Fil-A) refuses to bow down to the almighty dollar and gives all their employees Sunday off, but an ostensibly Christian company does not. I avoid shopping there if at all possible.
That's not all they do! Chick-Fil-A(or at least its owner) is well-known for sponsoring fundraisers for Christian schools, giving time and food to various causes, etc. I know from personal experience that the owner himself was there serving free Chick-Fil-A food to the participants during the Bill Glass "Weekend of Champions"...March of last year, I believe.

And about the fundraisers, CFA gave us these cards redeemable for one CFA sandwich. Buyers paid $2 for them, and $1 went to our school's fundraiser. So the buyers saved over 70 cents on a sandwich, and our school made money. Everybody won, except perhaps CFA. I can't imagine selling sandwiches for $1 gross is good business...

[furay]

Christian worship which is not at its heart Trinitarian is not worship at all.
:thumb: You got that right.

[dizzle]

Yes LS you are correct. The owner of CFA is a Christian, and he places that before the dollar. It disgusts me that FCS will not do the same.

And thank you Furay - I wish more of us would really ponder that.

This issue can be a sticky one with some particular individuals because they claim "oneness" yet their praxis shows otherwise. Is this a matter of (as JP once put it to me during a visit) just how "wrong" is there wiggle room on?

I certainly hold P, C, & D to a higher standard claiming to be pastors. We had this guy on Paltalk expounding endlessly on the difference between the Word, Jesus, and the Father and on and on. He continuously contradicted himself, and when called out on the obvious errors his view would lead to denied them. We do not have a very very specific in Scripture (though we certainly do from the creeds) for those such as this.

IOW, these Oneness people affirm a functional Trinity but deny an ontological Trinity, or at least one that is eternal. I find that ironic since one of the most prominent objections is that the Trinity is confusing or is claimed to be a mystery (it is). In Oneness theology then, the true face of the ontological God is never revealed in the NT since He functinally acts as a Trinity. I find this so sad. Especially in Revelation where the eternal distinction between Christ and the Father is so prominent, and Revelation is the "revealing of Jesus Christ" - yet is He truly revealed in that view?

[Alien]

Hello Dee Dee.

This may be strictly off topic, but I have a question for you.

I understand that people disagree on doctrine, and seem to obtain a great deal of personal satisfaction from proving each other "wrong". I see no problem with that in general. But .... do you really believe that salvation is based on the equivalent of passing a theology exam?

You see, if that is true, then I am not saved by your definition and should perhaps not represent myself as a Christian in a space where you control the definitions, because if a Christian is not "saved" then he is not a Christian, wouldn't you agree?. Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended at all. I'm perfectly secure in my beliefs, consider myself to be saved (by my definition) and I definitely consider myself to be a Christian. :smile:

(You can split this off to a separate thread if you don't want to lose focus on this one. Send me a PM if you do, I don't always notice every new thread.)

[themuzicman]

I think perhaps the biggest problem with OP lies in John 5, where Jesus says that if He testifies about Himself, His testimony is not valid, but then a few verses later, He calls the Father as a witness about Himself. Now, if they are not different beings then Jesus has borne false witness, a direct contradiction of the ten commandments.

Michael

[furay]

I think perhaps the biggest problem with OP lies in John 5, where Jesus says that if He testifies about Himself, His testimony is not valid, but then a few verses later, He calls the Father as a witness about Himself. Now, if they are not different beings then Jesus has borne false witness, a direct contradiction of the ten commandments.

Michael
I'm no English expert, but isn't the Trinity One Being, consisting of Three Persons?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be sassy or anything either... I'd really like this cleared up if anyone knows the correct terminology. Thanks. :smile:

[dizzle]

Hello Dee Dee.

This may be strictly off topic, but I have a question for you.

I understand that people disagree on doctrine, and seem to obtain a great deal of personal satisfaction from proving each other "wrong". I see no problem with that in general. But .... do you really believe that salvation is based on the equivalent of passing a theology exam?

I see that whole paragraph Alien as flawed. First I do not find many people who obtain a great deal of personal satisfaction from proving each other wrong - I find that is an ad hom that usually comes from those who find themselves on the wrong side of orthodoxy. I am not saying that is the case with you - simply my general experience. I do believe that there are certain necessary things one must believe in order to be a Christian. You do as well. Before you were not a Christian, now you believe you are. You believe something different. I don't think you would use the perjorative "theology exam" however for your own change. The question, therefore, isn't whether there are beliefs we must have, it is which ones and how correct. My OP demonstrates that I rarely simply dismiss someone as heretical based upon their words, but based upon what they mean by their words as shown by the definition THEY use (not I) and their praxis. The example I often use is X9ers who deny they are born again. The only reason they do is because they have a flawed definition. They are in fact born again, but if they reject the terminology but come down to the same brass tack it doesn't perturb me.


You see, if that is true, then I am not saved by your definition and should perhaps not represent myself as a Christian in a space where you control the definitions, because if a Christian is not "saved" then he is not a Christian, wouldn't you agree?

You made a jump that the premise did not warrant. Do you affirm the doctrines posted in the sticky of this area of the forum? If you do, you are free to post here. You do not have to agree that those are necessary, you only have to believe them yourself. And yes, someone who is not "saved" is not a Christian. I have never seen you deny what has historically been the essentials of the faith - though you may deny that they are essential, affirming they are essential is not in and of itself an essential as far as this site is concerned.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not offended at all. I'm perfectly secure in my beliefs, consider myself to be saved (by my definition) and I definitely consider myself to be a Christian. :smile:

I am glad you are not offended. I find personal offense to be totally inappropriate in these discussions.

I don't mind the subject briefly in this thread as long as somehow we keep the OP in mind.

[themuzicman]

I'm no English expert, but isn't the Trinity One Being, consisting of Three Persons?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be sassy or anything either... I'd really like this cleared up if anyone knows the correct terminology. Thanks. :smile:
My bad. I should have said 'persons'

[dizzle]

I'm no English expert, but isn't the Trinity One Being, consisting of Three Persons?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be sassy or anything either... I'd really like this cleared up if anyone knows the correct terminology. Thanks. :smile:

You are correct, however, I think our language has changed since the formulas of the Trinity were developed and person does not mean the same as it did then, and now seems to be equivalent of being.

I like Hank's simple "one WHAT and three WHOs"

[furay]

My bad. I should have said 'persons'
So I was right on that? I don't want to be too confusing when I discuss this stuff with non-Trinitarians (my mom is a JW)... I usually just refer to the Holy Trinity as One Essence.

Anyways, sorry for dragging this OT. But yeah, OP and all the other heretical groups paint themselves into a corner with their wonky doctrines. The scriptures simply do not make any sense with any kind of view besides the traditional Trinitarian one. As soon as they ditch that they end up having to jump through all kinds of hoops to justify their incorrect dogma. It can get really, really messy. But people will believe what they want to believe... :frown:

[Amazing Rando]

P,C & D deny the Trinity. There is some beautiful music made by Mormons as well that one would not guess are Mormons. Since P, C & D are ordained pastors I would assume that they understand what they are rejecting unlike the layperson Oneness one might not.

I have on numerous occasions intervened when I learned of Trinitarian churches supporting them. James White has an article on them in particular and this subject that I will try to locate. I have had success and failure. It is in the hands of God. Most Christian bookstores carry them. Family Christian does, but I gave up on them as being interested in good Christian doctrine or praxis a long time ago, and it was confirmed when they decided they would open on Sunday. It is pathetic when a fast food chain (Chick Fil-A) refuses to bow down to the almighty dollar and gives all their employees Sunday off, but an ostensibly Christian company does not. I avoid shopping there if at all possible.

Mmmm... Chick-Fil-A...

:duh::duh::duh:

[furay]

I like Hank's simple "one WHAT and three WHOs"

Hey, that's not bad! I'll have to remember that one. Thanks. :smile:

[Alien]

I see that whole paragraph Alien as flawed. First I do not find many people who obtain a great deal of personal satisfaction from proving each other wrong - I find that is an ad hom that usually comes from those who find themselves on the wrong side of orthodoxy. I am not saying that is the case with you - simply my general experience.

Well, let's drop that then. It isn't essential to the question I asked. Though I do believe it is true; I don't think discussion fora in general would have half the posts that they do if it were not true. But enough said on that.


I do believe that there are certain necessary things one must believe in order to be a Christian. You do as well. Before you were not a Christian, now you believe you are. You believe something different. I don't think you would use the perjorative "theology exam" however for your own change. The question, therefore, isn't whether there are beliefs we must have, it is which ones and how correct.

Hmmm. My own "conversion" (to theism) was based on a personal experience of God, and not at all on doctrine. I then spent some time praying for guidance, asking which religion (if any) that God wished me to follow (or join, might be a better way of putting it at that stage of the game). I believe I was guided to become a Christian, and I did so, but that didn't help much as far as Christian doctrine was concerned. I then spent some time trying to come to terms with various Christian beliefs. I didn't do much during that time in the way of asserting my own position here, as my opinions were not fully formed. I mostly read what others said, here and in books on theology. It is only recently that I have come to feel that my "theology" is well enough formed to be exposed to the light of day (so to speak).

I guess "theology exam" was a perjorative, and to some extent I stand by that. If the shoe doesn't fit, then it doesn't apply to you. It does seem to me that many people defend incredibly detailed positions, that are based on (in my opinion at least) insufficient evidence. Equally, I find it very unlikely that my God would demand correct answers to abstruse questions of theology in order to determine a person's salvation. (And you did imply that in your OP, I think).


My OP demonstrates that I rarely simply dismiss someone as heretical based upon their words, but based upon what they mean by their words as shown by the definition THEY use (not I) and their praxis. The example I often use is X9ers who deny they are born again. The only reason they do is because they have a flawed definition. They are in fact born again, but if they reject the terminology but come down to the same brass tack it doesn't perturb me.


Fair enough, but you still seem to be demanding a "correct" understanding, if nothing else.


You made a jump that the premise did not warrant. Do you affirm the doctrines posted in the sticky of this area of the forum? If you do, you are free to post here.

What do you mean by "affirm"? Let's take the virgin birth as a test case. My answer is that I don't know if that is historically true or not, and I don't much care either way. Two Gospels relate differing versions of it and two don't mention it. I'm sure God could have made it happen if he wanted, and I'm equally sure that Jesus could have been the Messiah without it. Does that make me ineligible to post here?


You do not have to agree that those are necessary, you only have to believe them yourself.

I don't understand what you mean by "necessary". And by "believe", do you mean "assent to" in a formal way, or really and truly consider them to be factually true.


And yes, someone who is not "saved" is not a Christian. I have never seen you deny what has historically been the essentials of the faith - though you may deny that they are essential, affirming they are essential is not in and of itself an essential as far as this site is concerned.

Do you mean essential to salvation or essential to being a Christian? (To anticipate your response, I don't think that salvation is restricted to Christians).


I am glad you are not offended. I find personal offense to be totally inappropriate in these discussions.

Agreed. I think that those who allow themsleves to be offended by someone else's theology forgets Who is the final determiner of these things.

[dizzle]

Well, let's drop that then. It isn't essential to the question I asked. Though I do believe it is true; I don't think discussion fora in general would have half the posts that they do if it were not true. But enough said on that.

Fine enough. Though I do think it unfair to attribute that to half the posts in discussion fora.

Hmmm. My own "conversion" (to theism) was based on a personal experience of God, and not at all on doctrine.

As was mine.

I then spent some time praying for guidance, asking which religion (if any) that God wished me to follow (or join, might be a better way of putting it at that stage of the game). I believe I was guided to become a Christian, and I did so, but that didn't help much as far as Christian doctrine was concerned. I then spent some time trying to come to terms with various Christian beliefs. I didn't do much during that time in the way of asserting my own position here, as my opinions were not fully formed. I mostly read what others said, here and in books on theology. It is only recently that I have come to feel that my "theology" is well enough formed to be exposed to the light of day (so to speak).

And that is a natural part of the growth process for any belief system btw. I think perhaps (and I am not being cocky as I am a baby to others here) but I have some years of experience behind me that you lack. I do not hold you to the same standards as I would hold someone who has had the time and illuminiation.


I guess "theology exam" was a perjorative, and to some extent I stand by that. If the shoe doesn't fit, then it doesn't apply to you. It does seem to me that many people defend incredibly detailed positions, that are based on (in my opinion at least) insufficient evidence. Equally, I find it very unlikely that my God would demand correct answers to abstruse questions of theology in order to determine a person's salvation. (And you did imply that in your OP, I think).

Where did I do that? In fact I believe I did the opposite. In fact I was granting the benefit of the doubt to those who were acting as functional Trinitarians. IOW, the incorrect "words" did not speak to me as much as the reality of praxis.

Fair enough, but you still seem to be demanding a "correct" understanding, if nothing else.

And what is so odd about that? Is an incorrect "understanding," an understanding at all (and yes now we are getting very far afield of my OP).

What do you mean by "affirm"? Let's take the virgin birth as a test case. My answer is that I don't know if that is historically true or not, and I don't much care either way. Two Gospels relate differing versions of it and two don't mention it. I'm sure God could have made it happen if he wanted, and I'm equally sure that Jesus could have been the Messiah without it. Does that make me ineligible to post here?

Perhaps. I leave that to my staff. Personally off the cuff without deep reflection I would say no it does not. We allow some ambiguity as long as failure to affirm isn't outright denial. There is a difference between "I don't know" and "No." However, I do find the "I don't care" personally irresponsible, though that is not a requirement to post here that I find you theologically responsible. To take something that has been precious to millions of saints and two millennia of Church history and say you don't care is IMHO flippant and disrespectful. I would urge you to re-examine that stance.

I don't understand what you mean by "necessary". And by "believe", do you mean "assent to" in a formal way, or really and truly consider them to be factually true.

I mean to really and truly consider them to be factually true. I think I made that clear when I said I pay less attention to the formality of a person's "words" rather to what they intend to communicate. Necessary means what necessary normally means. A requirement. It is necessary in order to be a theist to believe in god(s). It is necessary to be an atheist to lack such belief. We all have these dividing lines, some just pretend (not necessarily you) as if we don't.

Do you mean essential to salvation or essential to being a Christian? (To anticipate your response, I don't think that salvation is restricted to Christians).

Since we have a foundational presuppositional disagreement my answer will not be meaningful as only Christians have salvation. I am not an inclusivist, though I am not a strong exclusivist either, but I am still within the exclusivist camp. So the question to me, from my viewpoint is nonsensical. Salvation is essential to being a Christian, and being a Christian is essential to salvation.


Agreed. I think that those who allow themsleves to be offended by someone else's theology forgets Who is the final determiner of these things.

Not necessary - I think they just aren't mature enough to handle the opinions of others and the logical ramifications of their own and the beliefs of others. I am mature enough to say something such as - if JWs are right I am a condemned heretic. If the Jews are right, likewise.

[Amazing Rando]

Salvation is essential to being a Christian, and being a Christian is essential to salvation.




I wrote a paper on the biblical definition and connotations of justification (aka salvation) that's just dying for comments and questions over here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=65573)!

:outtie:

[Alien]

And that is a natural part of the growth process for any belief system btw. I think perhaps (and I am not being cocky as I am a baby to others here) but I have some years of experience behind me that you lack. I do not hold you to the same standards as I would hold someone who has had the time and illuminiation.

Well, OK. I seem to be moving away from a conservative position, and feeling more comfortable as I do so, but who knows .... I could change. :smile:


Where did I do that? In fact I believe I did the opposite. In fact I was granting the benefit of the doubt to those who were acting as functional Trinitarians. IOW, the incorrect "words" did not speak to me as much as the reality of praxis.

This is from your OP (bolding added) ....


I have posted this to sharpen and clarify my discussion of last night wherein I said it was exceedingly difficult with some Oneness type Unitarians to squarely say "this is not Christian" - because some in many ways functionally affirm the Trinity - they just do not understand the ramifications of denying the eternal Trinity, and that particular denial I do believe is a potentially damnable heresy. However, without such an example of this logical conclusion from Scripture, my tone is usually much less barbed than with those such as the modern Hymenaeans for which the Scripture gives two very clear texts for outright condemnation.

You seemed to be saying that a particular belief could lead to damnation.


Perhaps. I leave that to my staff. Personally off the cuff without deep reflection I would say no it does not. We allow some ambiguity as long as failure to affirm isn't outright denial. There is a difference between "I don't know" and "No." However, I do find the "I don't care" personally irresponsible, though that is not a requirement to post here that I find you theologically responsible. To take something that has been precious to millions of saints and two millennia of Church history and say you don't care is IMHO flippant and disrespectful. I would urge you to re-examine that stance.


It was not intended to be either flippant or disrespectful. It's a simple fact ... "I don't care", meaning I don't consider the matter to have great significance. If others do, and have done, then that's fine. I respect their position and would ask them to respect mine. (To set out my beliefs about the virgin birth would take a lot of words and be quite off-topic here, but suffice it to say that what I "don't care" about is the factuality of the stories, as opposed to any metaphorical meaning they may have, what value they may have had to Christianity, and so on).


I mean to really and truly consider them to be factually true. I think I made that clear when I said I pay less attention to the formality of a person's "words" rather to what they intend to communicate. Necessary means what necessary normally means. A requirement. It is necessary in order to be a theist to believe in god(s). It is necessary to be an atheist to lack such belief. We all have these dividing lines, some just pretend (not necessarily you) as if we don't.

Nothing to disagree with there.


Since we have a foundational presuppositional disagreement my answer will not be meaningful as only Christians have salvation. I am not an inclusivist, though I am not a strong exclusivist either, but I am still within the exclusivist camp. So the question to me, from my viewpoint is nonsensical. Salvation is essential to being a Christian, and being a Christian is essential to salvation.


OK.


Not necessary - I think they just aren't mature enough to handle the opinions of others and the logical ramifications of their own and the beliefs of others. I am mature enough to say something such as - if JWs are right I am a condemned heretic. If the Jews are right, likewise.

But why condemned (and this is root of my objection)? I can't believe that God would condemn someone for a mistaken belief. [And as I have now come full circle, we can respectfully drop the matter, if you wish.]