Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Homer » Sun Jan 11, 2015 12:50 am

While consider myself Trinitarian, much of what is written both for and against the idea is confusing if not unintelligible. For example, when speaking of the Trinity the orthodox idea is that there are three persons comprising the Trinity. Keeping in mind that most of the discussion is not in biblical language, the word person is generally understood to be synonymous with the word individual. Which makes my mind think of the three persons of the trinity as three individuals which would seem to be polytheism. But then there is a subtle difference between person and individual:
Person comes from the Greek word persona which means the mask of an actor. In old times an actor used to play more than a single character, and to switch roles, he just used a mask which gave birth to persona. This word was incorporated in English language and gave birth to personality and person. The concept of person is even more primitive than those of mind and body. A person is an entity that walks and thinks (it is not the mind that thinks or the body that walks). Again, a person is a live entity. We do call someone who dies a dead person, but see the addition of the word dead before person. A person is not an island that survives alone. He is a social being, and lives and communicates with others. He has feelings that he shares with others.

This is where the concept of individual comes in. In a society full of persons, we have individuals that display different characteristics. A crowd is composed of individuals but each individual is also a person. The word individual is used in the sense of conveying unique properties or characteristics of a person. People who know a celebrity from close quarters often use the word individual to describe him as a person.
Would we say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit Have at least some different characteristics? And if so, are they not three individuals? When the three are referred to as persona as described above, then we have the "oneness" doctrine which seems obviously false (was there no one "home" when Jesus prayed?). But it seems to me that if God is three persona simultaneously the problem is solved (or nearly so).

The scriptures are clear there is only one God, and Jesus indicated God alone is to be worshiped. In the following description of monotheism does the Trinity doctrine fall under exclusive monotheism or inclusive monotheism?
Monotheism is defined by the Encyclopædia Britannica as belief in the existence of one god or in the oneness of God. The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church gives a more restricted definition: "belief in one personal and transcendent God", as opposed to polytheism and pantheism. A distinction may be made between exclusive monotheism, and both inclusive monotheism and pluriform monotheism which, while recognising many distinct gods, postulate some underlying unity.
Paidion, if you read this could you explain how your idea of the relationship of Father and Son would not fit the definition of Henotheism? (One other deity in your case.)
Henotheism (Greek εἷς θεός heis theos "one god") is the belief in and worship of a single God while accepting the existence or possible existence of other deities that may also be worshipped.

BrotherAlan
Posts: 189
Joined: Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:42 am

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by BrotherAlan » Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:20 am

One very quick response to this is that the Persons in the Trinity are, strictly speaking, distinguished by their relations to each other; they are not distinguished by any attribute distinctive to the Divine Nature Itself, eg., Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc., for Each of the Three Persons, fully possessing the Divine Nature, has each of those attributes.

Likewise, all actions done by God "ad extra", i.e., outside of Himself (i.e., in creation), are done by Each of the Three Persons "acting together" (for, when God acts in creation, it is the Trinity of Persons acting in creation). That said, even though all Divine attributes, and actions in creation, are fully possessed and done by Each of the Three Persons, certain actions or properties are usually appropriated to one Person over another, based on that Person's relationship to the other Persons in the Trinity. Thus, for example, as the Father is the eternal origin of the Son and the Holy Spirit, so, too, the act of Creation (the origin, in time, of creatures from God) is usually appropriated to the Father (even though, again, the Son and the Holy Spirit, with the Father, also created the universe); and as the Holy Spirit is the procession of Love in God, so, too, the act of sanctification in us (which makes us more charitable, holy, and loving) is appropriated to the Holy Spirit (even though the Father and the Son, with the Holy Spirit, also sanctify us); and as the Word of God is the procession of Knowledge in God, the Son/the Word is often spoken of us being Incarnate Wisdom (even though the Father and the Spirit, with the Son, are also Wisdom Itself-- although, very important to be noted here, is that only the Son, and not the Father nor the Holy Spirit, became Man).

In Christ, the Second Person of the Trinity,
BrotherAlan
"Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was in the beginning, is now, and always, and unto the ages of ages. Amen."

Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Jose » Sun Jan 11, 2015 4:04 pm

BrotherAlan wrote:One very quick response to this is that the Persons in the Trinity are, strictly speaking, distinguished by their relations to each other; they are not distinguished by any attribute distinctive to the Divine Nature Itself, eg., Omnipotence, Omniscience, etc., for Each of the Three Persons, fully possessing the Divine Nature, has each of those attributes.
Hi BrotherAlan,

I think that Jesus' statement in Matthew 24:36 does not allow for the idea that each of the three persons fully possess omniscience. This shows that they are in fact distinguished from one another in an 'attribute distinctive to the divine nature' and therefore are not co-equal. It is not possible to have three completely omniscience persons if one of them knows something that the other two do not. Jesus clearly excludes Himself and also the Spirit in declaring that the Father is the ONLY one possessing the knowledge of His coming.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone. Matthew 24:36 (NASB)

dizerner

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by dizerner » Sun Jan 11, 2015 5:09 pm

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

Jose
Posts: 153
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2014 1:42 pm

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Jose » Sun Jan 11, 2015 6:17 pm

dizerner wrote:
I believe as a special distinct category the Spirit is left out of the list here, however based on the following verse I do believe the Spirit knows:

τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ. (1Co 2:10 NA28)
for the Spirit is searching all, even the depths of God.
I think that searching all is altogether different than knowing all. Would you agree?

Also, my saying that the Spirit also was excluded is only in the context of trinitarianism. I don't consider the Spirit to be a separate conscience person from the Father and Son.

dizerner

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by dizerner » Sun Jan 11, 2015 7:18 pm

[user account removed]
Last edited by dizerner on Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:39 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Paidion » Sun Jan 11, 2015 9:10 pm

Homer, I will be glad to answer your question as to how my view differs from that of henotheism. However, I want to reserve that answer for a future post.
Homer wrote:While consider myself Trinitarian, much of what is written both for and against the idea is confusing if not unintelligible. For example, when speaking of the Trinity the orthodox idea is that there are three persons comprising the Trinity. Keeping in mind that most of the discussion is not in biblical language, the word person is generally understood to synonymous with the word individual. Which makes my mind think of the three persons of the trinity as three individuals which would seem to be polytheism. But then there is a subtle difference between person and individual:
Person comes from the Greek word persona which means the mask of an actor. In old times an actor used to play more than a single character, and to switch roles, he just used a mask which gave birth to persona. This word was incorporated in English language and gave birth to personality and person. The concept of person is even more primitive that those of mind and body. A person is an entity that walks and thinks (it is not the mind that thinks or the body that walks). Again, a person is a live entity. We do call someone who dies a dead person, but see the addition of the word dead before person. A person is not an island that survives alone. He is a social being, and lives and communicates with others. He has feelings that he shares with others.
Homer, I would like to ask further questions concerning your own view of the Deity. Tell me whether I understand your view correctly.
Your understanding is that God is a Trinity but not in the classic Trinitarian sense. The orthodox view is that God is composed of three Persons, and that is simply a form of polytheism. Your view is that God is not comprised of three Persons (or divine Individuals), but of three Persona. This may be compared to an ancient actor who played various characters by wearing different masks. For God is a single divine Individual,who wears three "masks", so to speak, that of the Father, that of the Son, and that of the Holy Spirit. That is, the One divine Person takes on three different roles.

1. Did I express your understanding correctly?
2. Is it possible that the word "modalist" would describe your position better that "trinitarian"?
2. How does your view differ from that of modalism, if at all?

Twenty years or so ago, I used to discuss theological matters regularly with a friend over the telephone system, but through our computers by typing with each other. This man was a United Pentecostal minister, and he used precisely the approach you discussed above concerning the Persona. The UPC is considered to hold a modalist position (although they deny this. I wonder if that is because the label "modalist" has bad publicity in Christian circles.) They do believe in the form of modalism which affirms that that God takes on the three roles simultaneously. The "Apostolic Church" also holds this position.

Over the years, I have met several people who consider themselves to be trinitarians, but who are actually modalists.
I became aware of the first one when I was only 18 years old. I was a classic Trinitarian myself at the time. I was attending a Baptist church, and I had a lot of questions for the pastor and his wife. Sometimes the pastor responded with "I don't know" to my questions. At the time I wondered who WOULD know, if the pastor didn't. One time I posed questions about the Trinity (I no longer remember what those questions were). But I recall the first words of the pastor's wife, "There's only one God you know." Somehow I realized that she meant that there was only one Person! So I asked her, "To whom did Jesus pray?" Her answer, "Don, haven't you ever talked to yourself?" I must confess I was shocked! At that time, I believed in one God composed of three divine individual Persons.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Homer » Mon Jan 12, 2015 12:58 am

Hi Paidion,

Thanks for your reply. Actually I have much in common, I think, with what Brother Alan wrote in his most recent post and I am unsure how my thinking differs from what he wrote. I do think Jesus came as God in the flesh, and that Jesus prayed to and received power from The Father (i.e. outside Himself).

Apparently there is much disagreement over what modalists believe. Matt Slick wrote the following:
Modalism
by Matt Slick

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity. Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time--only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Actually I am trying myself to understand all this.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Paidion » Mon Jan 12, 2015 1:35 pm

Thanks for your reply, Homer. I have read such definitions of modalism such as Matt Slick gives, definitions which include the idea that modalists affirm that the three modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. I wonder about the origin of Slick's (and others') idea. The first modalists—the Sabellians don't seem to have subscribed to that position. If you look up "modalism" in Wikipedia, you are directed to an article on Sabellianism. The article also brings up the thing about "faces" or "masks", in Greek "προσωπα" (prosōpa); in Latin "personae".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabellianism

Here are a couple more articles on modalism from two different encyclopaedias:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... bellianism
http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/monarchianism.aspx

I am unable to find any encylopaedias or dictionaries which state the "consecutive, and never simultaneous" idea.
It may be that some modalists have taken that position, but if so, I don't know when.
I know that historically modalism pre-dated trinitarianism.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Monotheism, Henotheism, Polytheism

Post by Homer » Mon Jan 12, 2015 5:00 pm

Paidion,

Found an interesting article here: http://www.letusreason.org/Onenes7.htm

Some quotations from the article:
The Trinity doctrine was formulated by necessity from the Scriptures to answer a series of errors, one of which was Modalism, (Oneness) that sprung up in the mid second century. Many realized what was at stake. Athenagoras in 160 AD. Had a grasp on Gods nature, representing the church’s belief said that, "they hold the Father to be God, and the Son God, and the Holy Spirit, and declare their union and their distinction in order."(A plea for the Christians .10.3.)

At that time the church did not have a precise teaching written down on the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Trinity doctrine is criticized by Oneness and others, because they claim it was developed and was not fully accepted until the fourth century at the council of Nicaea. All one has to do is look at history to find the enlightening truth. The doctrine was not developed, but the explanation of it. Almost all the theological doctrines have had some development through the years to explain them in a better fashion. As assaults were launched and men rose to the challenges to defend and affirm what the Scriptures say, explanations needed to be clarified. Other such doctrines that were significant in the development of the Church’s history were the nature of man, doctrines of salvation, church government, the attributes of God, the inspiration of Scripture, what was part of the canon, and the afterlife. Many of these issues continue on today and are still currently being formulated in written fashion to give us a better understanding.
There are other statements made by Athenagoras that sound Trinitarian. And the following statement appears to support the idea that there were modalists who taught a sequential manifestation of God:
The church contended vehemently against the concept of one God as strictly a singular person who came in different forms and manifestations in different ages. In searching the scripture they found these so called titles of modes were existing simultaneously and were personally involved in relating to one another. From these controversy's came the descriptive terms of subsistences, hypostases, and personas to describe the persons that make up the ontological nature, the being called God.
And his closing comment perhaps explains my difficulty with three "persons" which appears to have had a different meaning to the early Christian thinkers:
We do know that the word "person" did not have the same connotation that it carries today, that God as three persons is three separate people. They to had to wrestle with terms of distinction and unity in the best way their language had to offer. With much controversy and challenges, they tried to describe a being of infinite nature. Today, the doctrine of God's nature is being challenged more than any other teaching by numerous so called Christian groups. The Trinity is still the watershed issue of our time.
When I hear "persons" I think "individuals" which to my mind means separateness.

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”