|
figmentPez -> RE: Is the trinity doctrine good enough? (4/26/2008 3:43:23 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sabellius For the moment however I believe the most important point to make here is that the Oneness of God is not equivalent to what we historically know as Modalism. It may share likeness, but we would be making a logical mistake to say likeness is sameness. The little information we know of Modalism is limited to quotes by Trinitarian church father apologetics, as far as I know. Mormons also claim that they have something different than polytheism, but I know better. There are some fine points that are vaguely different, but it's all heresy and against scripture, preaching a false god. quote:
Quickly, what we know of Modalism seems to suggest that God merely manifested Himself like an actor changing masks in a play. Modalism is correct, IMHO, in that there is only God and only one person of God. The person of God however took on true human nature. God became a man (John 1:14). The Son of God, the only begotten of the Father. The Incarnation and the union of the humanity of Christ with diety however informs us that God was not merely walking around with flesh on, but had truly become a man. See, right here you are wrong about the Sonship of Jesus Christ. The incarnation CANNOT be when the Son of God was begotten. Each begets after it's own kind. This is a teaching from creation. Saying that God begat human flesh is like saying a stalk of wheat begat a trout. It's absurd. God begets God. The only begotten Son of God is God, and since God does not change, the Son must be eternally God. Furthermore, the Son says that He had glory with the Father before the world began. The incarnation, when the Son of God became the Son of Man, is not a begetting, and the Holy Spirit is not the father of the Son, the Father is the father of the Son. The Son of God, who is God, really and truly did become a man, with real unity between His divine nature as the eternal Son of God, and His human nature as the Son of Man (a nature that He retains, even now), but it was not the Father who became incarnate. This truth, that the Son of God is a son in deity, is very important to understanding Christian doctrine, and what His sonship means. If the Son of God were, in some bizzare absurdity that violates all the Bible says about being begotten, just human flesh, then that human flesh would not have the rights to all that God has. Human flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven. The Son of God must be God to deserve all the things that scripture says are part of His inheritance as Son.
|
|
|
|