Heresies

[ryland]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

[Del]

That's an ancient and enduring error.

Do a 'net search on "modalism." Several variations will pop up.... Sabellianism, Monarchianism, and

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQLfgaUoQCw


and


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wm4UqOJ3Yc

[ryland]

Thanks, Del! That first video is what I was looking for. Have seen it before.

[coco]

...What I've found attractive about the Roman Catholic church is that you know exactly where it stands

This is true if you are willing to overlook all the variances, both historic and present day.

[durangopipe]

...What I've found attractive about the Roman Catholic church is that you know exactly where it stands

This is true if you are willing to overlook all the variances, both historic and present day.

If you were to read an accepted Protestant Systematic Theology (for Reformed theology, Berkhof, for example), Ryland, you would find the same kind of apparent consensus and clarity (with a great deal of underlying complication). Perhaps you already have.

Rather than seeing Christendom as “theologically unified” until the Reformation, and only then theologically divided between a unified Catholicism and a multitude of Protestant denominations (a not uncommon misunderstanding among those unfamiliar with church history), it is far more accurate to realize that there were great schisms that resulted in a divided “Orthodoxy” long before the Reformation, a large number of early Reformation and Post Reformation denominations resulting from doctrinal disputes among “Protestants,” and an ongoing history of attempted reconciliation along with simultaneous further schisming that continues to this day.

Of course each tradition believes (and will argue with great certainty and much evidence) that “they” are the true heir of the early church, all others having fallen away in some way from the true church.

I imagine we’ll hear a few of those arguments shortly.

I believe all of this is a consequence of The Fall, and we do far better to focus on the fundamentals we share in the Body of Christ than those that divide us.

My dear deceased friend and favorite church historian (Robert Webber) used to say that the greatest cure for certainty in dogma was the study of church history.

I’m inclined to agree.

But remember this as well: church history, too, is written by the fallen - each from within a tradition. Like everything else we study, it is wise to study not only deeply, but broadly. Biblical schloarship is no less prone to bias and slanting than any other.

[Steve S]

Hidden Content

This board requires you to be registered and logged-in to view hidden content.

I don't know about the mind-body-aura thing, but otherwise that's essentially the Jewish and the Muslim position on God insofar as I understand them: God is one and only one.

Within Christianity (broadly defined), there are a few sects that deny the Trinity. One with which I'm familiar is the UPC (United Pentecostal Church), which I think teaches what we might call "Jesus-only," such that there is no distinction between Father and Son, or between Son and Spirit, that Jesus is the totality of what God is. I speak under correction here, as I don't have any of their own theological documents at hand.

[Thoth]

Yeah muslim are ultra-monotheists, the word in the quran that gets translated as pagans in English literally means "those who have partners with [God]" i.e. trinitarians. (Thats why any middle eastern christan when we make the sign of the cross at the end add the phrase "one God" due to that).

[DepartedLight]

...What I've found attractive about the Roman Catholic church is that you know exactly where it stands

This is true if you are willing to overlook all the variances, both historic and present day.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

... amen.

[Nature of a Man]

I've never totally understood the trinity concept, but my understanding is that it's something akin to three "forms" in which God can be present (I'm unsure if this in someway relates to the typical "mind - body - spirit" concept which often comes up, with "mind" being Father, "body" being Son, and "spirit" being Holy spirit).

So I'd argue the Muslim notion of "1 + 1 + 1 does not equal "1") is myopic, since three separate "parts" or aspects can indeed equal one "whole" (e.x. much as how the parts of a machine such as a car, including wheels, chassis, engine, etc when put together equal "1 car", as opposed to a mere collection of parts lying in a scrap yard; even if the parts themselves were identical, a disorganized collection of parts would not be a "car", but they would have to rather be arranged and put together in some fashion).

[Hovannes]

...What I've found attractive about the Roman Catholic church is that you know exactly where it stands

This is true if you are willing to overlook all the variances, both historic and present day.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

... amen.

+1

[Goose55]

I understand that the Jews do not subscribe to the Trinity. But I don't suppose it can be considered heresy as they held to this before Christianity.

Deuteronomy 6:4 King James Version (KJV)

4 Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God is one Lord:

[durangopipe]

The Reformed theological position on the Trinity, as articulated by Louis Berkhof (I’ve posted some of this before, in another thread):

Systematic Theology[/i]”3. STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY. The doctrine of the Trinity can best be discussed briefly in connection with various propositions, which constitute an epitome of the faith of the Church on this point.

a. There is in the Divine Being but one indivisible essence (ousia, essentia). God is one in His essential being or constitutional nature. Some of the early Church Fathers used the term “substantia” as synonymous with “essentia,” but later writers avoided this use of it in view of the fact that in the Latin Church “substantia” was used as a rendering of “hupostasis” as well as of “ousia”, and was therefore ambiguous. At present the two terms “substance” and “essence” are often used interchangeably. There is no objection to this, provided we bear in mind that they have slightly different connotations. Shedd distinguishes them as follows: “Essence is from esse, to be, and denotes energetic being. Substance is from substare, and denotes the latent possibility of being. . . . The term essence describes God as a sum-total of infinite perfections; the term substance describes Him as the underlying ground of infinite activities. The first is, comparatively, an active word; the last, a passive. The first is, comparatively, a spiritual, the last a material term. We speak of material substance rather than of material essence.”[Dogm. Theol., I, p. 271.] Since the unity of God was already discussed in the preceding, it is not necessary to dwell on it in detail in the present connection. This proposition respecting the unity of God is based on such passages as Deut. 6:4; Jas. 2:19, on the self-existence and immutability of God, and on the fact that He is identified with His perfections as when He is called life, light, truth, righteousness, and so on.

b. In this one Divine Being there are three Persons or individual subsistences, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This is proved by the various passages referred to as substantiating the doctrine of the Trinity. To denote these distinctions in the Godhead, Greek writers generally employed the term hupostasis, while Latin authors used the term persona, and sometimes substantia. Because the former was apt to be misleading and the latter was ambiguous, the Schoolmen coined the word subsistentia. The variety of the terms used points to the fact that their inadequacy was always felt. It is generally admitted that the word “person” is but an imperfect expression of the idea. In common parlance it denotes a separate rational and moral individual, possessed of self-consciousness, and conscious of his identity amid all changes. Experience teaches that where you have a person, you also have a distinct individual essence. Every person is a distinct and separate individual, in whom human nature is individualized. But in God there are no three individuals alongside of, and separate from, one another, but only personal self-distinctions within the Divine essence, which is not only generically, but also numerically, one. Consequently many preferred to speak of three hypostases in God, three different modes, not of manifestation, as Sabellius taught, but of existence or subsistence. Thus Calvin says: “By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence. — a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties.”[Inst. I, XIII, 6] This is perfectly permissible and may ward off misunderstanding, but should not cause us to lose sight of the fact that the self-distinctions in the Divine Being imply an “I” and “Thou” and “He,” in the Being of God, which assume personal relations to one another. Matt. 3:16; 4:1; John 1:18; 3:16; 5:20-22; 14:26; 15:26; 16:13-15.

c. The whole undivided essence of God belongs equally to each of the three persons. This means that the divine essence is not divided among the three persons, but is wholly with all its perfection in each one of the persons, so that they have a numerical unity of essence. The divine nature is distinguished from the human nature in that it can subsist wholly and indivisibly in more than one person. While three persons among men have only a specific unity of nature or essence, that is, share in the same kind of nature or essence, the persons in the Godhead have a numerical unity of essence, that is, possess the identical essence. Human nature or essence may be regarded as a species, of which each man has an individual part, so that there is a specific (from species) unity; but the divine nature is indivisible and therefore identical in the persons of the Godhead. It is numerically one and the same, and therefore the unity of the essence in the persons is a numerical unity. From this it follows that the divine essence is not an independent existence alongside of the three persons. It has no existence outside of and apart from the three persons. If it did, there would be no true unity, but a division that would lead into tetratheism. The personal distinction is one within the divine essence. This has, as it is usually termed, three modes of subsistence. Another conclusion which follows from the preceding, is that there can be no subordination as to essential being of the one person of the Godhead to the other, and therefore no difference in personal dignity. This must be maintained over against the subordinationism of Origen and other early Church Fathers, and the Arminians, and of Clarke and other Anglican theologians. The only subordination of which we can speak, is a subordination in respect to order and relationship. It is especially when we reflect on the relation of the three persons to the divine essence that all analogies fail us and we become deeply conscious of the fact that the Trinity is a mystery far beyond our comprehension. It is the incomprehensible glory of the Godhead. Just as human nature is too rich and too full to be embodied in a single individual, and comes to its adequate expression only in humanity as a whole so the divine Being unfolds itself in its fulness only in its three fold subsistence of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

d. The subsistence and operation of the three persons in the divine Being is marked by a certain definite order. There is a certain order in the ontological Trinity. In personal subsistence the Father is first, the Son second, and the Holy Spirit third. It need hardly be said that this order does not pertain to any priority of time or of essential dignity, but only to the logical order of derivation. The Father is neither begotten by, nor proceeds from any other person; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son from all eternity. Generation and procession take place within the Divine Being, and imply a certain subordination as to the manner of personal subsistence, but no subordination as far as the possession of the divine essence is concerned. This ontological Trinity and its inherent order is the metaphysical basis of the economical Trinity. It is but natural, therefore, that the order existing in the essential Trinity should be reflected in the opera ad extra that are more particularly ascribed to each one of the persons. Scripture clearly indicates this order in the so-called praepositiones distinctionales, ek, dia, and en, which are used in expressing the idea that all things are out of the Father, through the Son, and in the Holy Spirit.

e. There are certain personal attributes by which the three persons are distinguished. These are also called opera ad intra, because they are works within the Divine Being, which do not terminate on the creature. They are personal operations, which are not performed by the three persons jointly and which are incommunicable. Generation is an act of the Father only; filiation belongs to the Son exclusively; and procession can only be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. As opera ad intra these works are distinguished from the opera ad extra, or those activities and effects by which the Trinity is manifested outwardly. These are never works of one person exclusively, but always works of the Divine Being as a whole. At the same time it is true that in the economical order of God’s works some of the opera ad extra are ascribed more particularly to one person, and some more especially to another. Though they are all works of the three persons jointly, creation is ascribed primarily to the Father, redemption to the Son, and sanctification to the Holy Spirit. This order in the divine operations points back to the essential order in God and forms the basis for what is generally known as the economic Trinity.

f. The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man. The Trinity is a mystery, not merely in the Biblical sense that it is a truth, which was formerly hidden but is now revealed; but in the sense that man cannot comprehend it and make it intelligible. It is intelligible in some of its relations and modes of manifestation, but unintelligible in its essential nature. The many efforts that were made to explain the mystery were speculative rather than theological. They invariably resulted in the development of tritheistic or modalistic conceptions of God, in the denial of either the unity of the divine essence or the reality of the personal distinctions within the essence. The real difficulty lies in the relation in which the persons in the Godhead stand to the divine essence and to one another; and this is a difficulty which the Church cannot remove, but only try to reduce to its proper proportion by a proper definition of terms. It has never tried to explain the mystery of the Trinity, but only sought to formulate the doctrine of the Trinity in such a manner that the errors which endangered it were warded off.

After all of that articulation of the nature of the Trinity, the conclusion, repeated again, is this:

The Church confesses the Trinity to be a mystery beyond the comprehension of man.

If more were to accept the truth of this last point (on many matters of doctrine) I dare say there would be far less division in the Body of Christ.

I do not believe this to be theological laziness; rather, appropriate humility.
It is a hard won and not easily asserted denominational doctrinal position, not simply the throwing of hands up into the air in frustration.

Sometimes faith manifests best as a simple, “I don’t fully understand. And yet, I believe.”

Thus,
... glass darkly.

[Hovannes]

My favorite form of Hershey

[artsygeek]

I will say that the UPC-type Pentecostalism isn't exactly how you describe it (but close). I'll eventually explain it, but I wouldn't describe it as heretical. I grew up Pentecostal (not UPC though) and I returned to my Pentecostal roots to explore it when I got kicked out of the local Quakers and went Mennonite.

[artsygeek]

I will say that the UPC-type Pentecostalism isn't exactly how you describe it (but close). I'll eventually explain it, but I wouldn't describe it as heretical. I grew up Pentecostal (not UPC though) and I returned to my Pentecostal roots to explore it when I got kicked out of the local Quakers and went Mennonite.

[FredS]

...What I've found attractive about the Roman Catholic church is that you know exactly where it stands

This is true if you are willing to overlook all the variances, both historic and present day.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

... amen.

In the big things, unity, in the little things all hell breaks loose. And the Nicene Creed (or further, the Apostles Creed) is a big thing. If one can't confess the creed than I don't suppose one is Christian. I heard a pastor/priest explain one time that if you fill a jar with rocks you can pour in a lot of sand to fill the empty space. But if you try to fill it half with sand first, there's not enough room for the rocks. The Trinity is one of the rocks.

[ryland]

...What I've found attractive about the Roman Catholic church is that you know exactly where it stands

This is true if you are willing to overlook all the variances, both historic and present day.

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,

and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.

For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come.

... amen.

In the big things, unity, in the little things all hell breaks loose. And the Nicene Creed (or further, the Apostles Creed) is a big thing. If one can't confess the creed than I don't suppose one is Christian. I heard a pastor/priest explain one time that if you fill a jar with rocks you can pour in a lot of sand to fill the empty space. But if you try to fill it half with sand first, there's not enough room for the rocks. The Trinity is one of the rocks.

+1

[Goose55]

My favorite form of Hershey

Good play on words. Heresy and Hershey.

I do love the Hershey with almonds, too.

[DepartedLight]

My favorite form of Hershey

Good play on words. Heresy and Hershey.

I do love the Hershey with almonds, too.

The Presbyterian Council of 1812 declared almonds mixed with coconut in any way anethma.

[artsygeek]

My favorite form of Hershey

Maybe I'm a bit of a snob in the chocolate department (roughly where I also am wrt beer), but just about any form of Hershey *is* heresy!

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk