In article <zpgIj.12487$oE1.11057@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, DKleinecke says...
>On Mar 30, 6:35 pm, AJA <ahnem...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>> "Bren" <BGK...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:P6YGj.6125$Pc2.5865@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> > For some reason ..especially in South eastern U.S.
>> > they are taken Jesus and made him God instead of a God aspect. Is he
>> > the son of himself? If he is the son..then where is the
mother/father?
>> Father, Son and Holy Spirit = the One God. Jesus is not tradictionally
(or
>> otherwise) nally referred to as an "aspect" by the Church.
>> Blessings,
>> Ann
>I cannot resist noting that not all Christians are Trinitarians.
Noting something doesn't make it true. I refer you to the Moderator's
own FAQ http://geneva.rutgers.edu/src/faq/xity-definition.txt:
many of
us Christians _do_ consider belief in the Trinity an essential part of
Christianity. Reject the Trinity, and we have the right to refuse to
call you 'Christian'.
The Moderator's exact words (ibid) are: "But I think the most commonly
accepted definition would be based on something like the Nicene Creed
and the Formula of Chalcedon".
Clearly any form of modalism is excluded by these.
>I have noticed the same phenomenon that Bren mentioned. As a modal
>monarchist I have no difficulty with it. Jesus is just another name
>for God (like Elohim and YHWH and Allah and so on). But it is a
>theological innovation to specialize on Jesus.
Well, Modal Monarchists may believe that, but since that contradicts
the Creed and Formula above _so_ blatantly, no one _should_ feel
compelled to follow your error.
>I am bemused at the constant neglect of the Holy Ghost.
What "constant neglect"? Have you ever been to a Pentecost service?
>If one really believed in the Trinity I would expect one to emphasize
>the Spirit over the other two persons.
Then you do not understand what 'Trinity' means. None of the Persons
are 'over' the others. To put any over the others leads you _away_
from Trinitarianism into, say, for example, subordinationism.
>After all, the Father and the Son are a long way off in time and the
>Holy Spirit is with us always.
How can the Holy Spirit be with someone who denies the Trinity?
Indeed, how can He be present in someone without making the Son and Father
_also_ present? Yet you call them "a long way off".
>To me "Father" is the name we use for God when we think of the
>creation.
How can you neglect John 1:1 like this? It _clearly_ shows the Son's
role in Creation.
Likewise, how can you neglect Genesis 1:2 like this? It too _clearly_
shows the Spirit's role in Creation.
>"Christ" (or Jesus) is the name we use for God when we think
>about the intervention God made in Judea two thousand years ago and
>"Holy Spirit' is the name we should use when we think of God in the
>here and now.
No, rather, when we think of any Person, we should find ourselves
drawn to think of all of them. That is what it means for them to be
consubstantial and indivisible.
But since these last two terms carry so little weight for you, think
also of:
And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by
the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the
Spirit. The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit
of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand
them because they are spiritually discerned. The spiritual man judges
all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. "For who has known
the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of
Christ. (1Co 2:13-16 RSVA)
NB: it is the presence of the _Spirit_ that give us the _mind of
Christ_. Both Persons are present. No modalism here.
>What name we should use for God when we think of Judgment Day appears
>to still be up in the air.
>All names. No persons.
Now what was that supposed to mean? Are you endorsing Nominalism to
sup****t your Modalism? 1 Cor 2:13-16 should have been proof enough
that that is not possible.
--
------------------------------
Subducat se sibi ut haereat Deo
Quidquid boni habet tribuat illi a quo factus est
(Sanctus Aurelius Augustinus, Ser. 96)
|
